Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Kate's Sparkling Debuts from 2015

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Well good evening, and Happy Wednesday! The truth is, that against all odds I am still checking my phone to see if Kate has whisked away to Mustique. I admit hope is waning. She almost always left by now, and with Carole's birthday just days away, the clock is ticking. Call me a dreamer, but I haven't given up! They could fly out Friday and settle in for a weekend of revelry. Anyway, while we wait on the final verdict on that holiday I thought we'd chat about jewelry tonight.


Kate debuted a number of new pieces in 2015, and they represented a range of prices and historical gravitas. She began on January 16, 2015 when she made a visit to The Fostering Network wearing new earrings!


The connecting hoop earrings were quickly identified as Mirabelle's Lolita hoops. They are gold-plated, battered metal and retailed for a reasonable £20. 


Several months later, on March 9th, she debuted another pair of earrings. Although they glittered almost white in the sun, but are actually a pale pink:



These Morganite and Diamond drops by Kiki McDonough matched her amethyst drops by the same designer. In contrast to the £20 pieces she wore in January, these retail at £3,400. 


While many of us felt a little dazzled with these delicate earrings, just four days later, Kate again presented new sparklers, and these were show-stoppers. At the service commemorating the service members in the Afghanistan conflict, Kate wore brand new and large pear-cut tanzanite earrings and matching necklace. 


These really divided fans. It is a bold set both in color, size, and design. The earrings and necklace feature large, pear-shaped tanzanites surrounded by diamonds. They were made by G. Collins & Sons, the Crown Jeweler. The necklace retailed at around £8,000. Although we don't know the exact price of the earrings, given the price tag on the necklace, we can surmise they were equally expensive. These must have been a gift for a very special occasion. I liked them, although I agree that in general she probably shouldn't wear them as a set. 


Kate was busy for a large part of the summer, as she had Princess Charlotte and spent a lot of time in Norfolk with her family. It was September 26th, at the Rugby World Cup, that we saw another new item. 


These lovely hoops featuring a circled fern and were made by a label Kate likes very much: Catherine Zoraida. In an 18-carat gold plate they retail at £150. Kate loved them, too, and wore them several more times in 2015.


On October 10th, Kate again had new earrings! At first, we thought these heart-shaped pieces were little diamond studded leaves. 


Instead, they are hearts from Kiki McDonough's Lauren collection that launched in the summer of 2015, named after the British ballerina Lauren Cuthbertson, the collection celebrated her role as Alice in Alice in Wonderland.  They retail at £2,200. I have to say that these aren't my favorite, but Kate must like them!


With just a few months before the close of the year, you would have been justified in thinking that Kate was about done with big jewelry debuts, but with a number of high-profile events on her holiday calendar, she had a few really big surprises left. On the 27th of October, she arrived at the Victoria & Albert Museum wearing new, striking earrings:


These earrings feature large sapphires and diamonds and once belonged to the Queen Mother. Now they belong to the Queen, who presumably loaned them to Kate for the evening. They certainly set a buzz, and interestingly, just the next night Kate wore earring borrowed not from the Queen, but from her own mother. These were equally breathtaking:


Carole had these earrings made by Robinson Pelham to wear to Kate's wedding to William in April of 2011. They feature large blue topazes in a chandelier setting. Carole was pictured wearing them on her way to the reception at Buckingham Palace. They cost an estimated £14,000!


Kate debuted what might have been her most exciting piece of jewelry since her wedding morning just before the year called it a day. The Duchess wore the Cambridge Lovers Knot tiara made iconic by her mother-in-law, the late Princess of Wales to the Diplomatic Reception at Buckingham Palace on December 8th. We didn't get a perfect view of this stunning tiara, but now she has worn it once, I think it will be in her rotation. It certainly was evocative for those who lived through the Diana era and loved her so much, and for Kate it is doubtless a piece saturated in meaning and sentiment. 


I think, that that was it. Oh no! She debuted new bracelets at the China State Visit Dinner! Voila! If I missed something, definitely let me know in the comments. This list is based on my memory and not necessarily exhaustive!


2015 showcased an interesting range of jewelry debuts. We saw all facets of Kate's personality, if you will. We saw her classic, thrifty (but always elegant) side with the pieces in the lower price point, but we also saw her penchant for luxury items in some of the more expensive pieces, like the morganite drops from Kiki McDonough. Finally, more than any other year, I think we saw the royal Kate as she presented more historical pieces than she ever has before. I think she covered a lot of different elements in this category alone. Many people think that Kate is using the Queen Mother's example as a pattern for her own role. I think the sapphire earrings were a nod to that theory. At the same time, Kate is the future Princess of Wales, we all but assume, and she is following in Diana's footprints. I think (perhaps more than others) that Kate really does look up to Diana and that she has taken her as a role model in certain respects--the successful aspects of Diana's life. I think we saw a nod to that in the iconic tiara she wore. Lastly, I love that she wore Carole's earrings to such a big event, reminding us how important her family is to her...always. It was a great year of royal jewelry. I hope we see Diana's tiara again soon!!


132 comments:

  1. You did an amazing job on this post Jane- Brava! Very well written and a great summary!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Those blue topaz chandelier earrings borrowed from her mum are delicious. I'd have my name in the hat for inheritance on those immediately.

    While I absolutely love tanzanite I really dislike the style of that set. Perhaps if the tear-drops were turned right side up I'd appreciate the style more, but as is the style is not my taste. And also find wearing a "set" of jewelry all at once is old-fashioned.

    I found her choice to wear two fairly different diamond cuffs to be interesting, almost wonder-woman-y but not quite at the line.

    Thanks for posting Jane! News has been dry out there...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sarita, it's personal preference for sure, but I don't find wearing a jewelry set as "old-fashioned". My personal opinion is that it is a classic look. I love mix and matching my sets, but I always feel polished and sophisticated when I wear a matching set (and I'm not old enough to be old-fashioned ;-) ).

      Delete
    2. I don't think the match is classic per say - I think classic is a beautiful set of pearls or a gorgeous set of diamond earrings. I think the set of jewelry is old-fashioned. The earrings and necklace were beautiful, and perfectly fine to wear together, but not fashionable in my opinion nor classic, polished nor sophisticated. (And I'm 35 for the record.)

      Delete
    3. I guess I don't quite understand calling wearing a matched set of jewellery as "Old Fashioned". To me it is a very classic refined look as well as giving a professional polished look. Old fashioned or not I think there certainly are times when wearing a matched set of jewellery is very appropriate.

      Delete
    4. This is the royal family we're talking about here. Not a runway model or trendy actress.The RF is all about old fashioned. About a thousand years or so of it.
      Not only that, she was attending a public, traditional event, not a party with her
      uni friends.
      By the way, didn't
      the Lotus tiara also make its first appearance on Kate this year?
      HM really threw a lot of sparklers her way the past few months.
      I'm not sure which were William and Harry's to share.
      Wonder Woman cuffs? Those you did want to match?
      When the Queen is handing out royal jewels of that calibre, one doesn't say, "Can I
      please have two that match, Granny?"

      Delete
    5. I too am scratching my head over the problem with wearing the earrings and necklace together. This appears to be Kate's first royal jewelry suite. A different league than her Kiki McDonough earrings (as beautiful as they are). And with her penchant for vintage style clothing, it has Kate's name (and title!) written all over it.

      When Diana wore her stunning sapphire and diamond brooch with her engagement ring, for example, I don't ever recall it being called old fashioned or matchy matchy. It was royal bling at its best. :) This type of jewelry is on a different level, if that makes sense. I have seen photos of other royal ladies and they often wear several matching pieces. (Think CP Mary and her ruby and diamond pieces. Sunglasses needed. :) Perhaps Kate has a tanzanite and diamond bracelet as well ... it is possible.

      And the combination of diamonds and precious stones is *very* classic. Just consider the various royal collections we are familiar with. This jewelry isn't about being fashionable; it is about being significant. My two cents... :)

      Delete
    6. I agree with most of you - a matching set can be classic. Mismatching can be fun and stylish, while still being polished. Kate has shown us, beyond the tanzanite set, that she likes to wear matching sets, as well as mix and matching. Other matching sets that come to mind are Mappin and Webb at Charlotte's christening, emeralds and diamonds in New York, etc. I personally mix and match a lot, as well as wear matching sets. I love that fashion allows me that :-)

      Delete
  3. Gorgeous jewelry round-up! It's been such a full year for me that I didn't realize some of these pieces debuted so recently.

    In regards to Mustique, I considered whether they nixed the trip when reports of Zika virus began spreading north. I know there are confirmed transmissions now in the USVI, and since the effects of it are still uncertain, they may have decided that it was too risky to visit such a southerly location until more is known about it. Obviously there's no way to know unless they tell us, but I'd bet they're skipping the Caribbean this year.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gosh, I hadn't thought of that. The virus would be a consideration...

      Delete
    2. Since George started school, he may have encountered his first set of sniffles. Even though they have help, travelling with 2 little ones would not be fun and William's schedule may be a factor too. Kate may feel holing up in Norfolk is a break rather than the long travel to Mustique. We'll have to see....

      Delete
    3. Sonja from BavariaJanuary 28, 2016 at 6:37 AM

      Tsipa Swan, I hadn't thought about that at all, but this could be an important reason!

      Delete
    4. Lots of reasons why they may not go away just yet. Could be that William could not the time of; or perhaps they prefer to wait until the nursery school has half term.
      Certainly the virus could be a consideration, but perhaps now George is older they might prefer a winter sports holiday again.

      Delete
    5. While they may have slipped away undetected for an overseas holiday (how would we know?), I agree that traveling 9-10 hrs by plane (even a private plane) with two young kids for the sake of family tradition does NOT sound fun! Also all the articles about Will's crew visiting that high school said he had returned to work on Jan 12 after a 3 week holiday break. While he obviously COULD get more time off since he's not like a normal worker who has to show up or be fired (doubt any others working at the air ambulance service could take 3 weeks for Christmas) it may seem tacky to take off again for another holiday only a couple of weeks later. Also as others have mentioned now that he's in nursery school and with other kids more often, George will get colds and that means Charlotte will too. Colds, young kids, and long air trips = misery.

      Delete
    6. I think traveling with young children that distance is a probable excuse. Although parents usually don't cancel a trip like that because a child gets a cold. And will the children travel to India with them? Like George has traveled to Australia? Remember how we viewed George's first Mustique trip as practice for the long flight?

      Delete
    7. I agree except that unlike George's Mustique and Austrailia trip, there are now two kids and by all accounts George has become a VERY active child much more so than he was at the time of earlier trips. I thought it had been announced the children were not going to India.

      Delete
  4. Those diamond bracelets were pretty special too, and both were loaned by the Queen. The one on her left hand is a wedding gift from Prince Philip to the Queen, made from diamonds from his mother's tiara. The Queen has never loaned it out before to our knowledge. The one on her right hand was originally a choker owned by Queen Mary, then used as a bracelet by the Queen Mother and the Queen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sonja from BavariaJanuary 28, 2016 at 6:38 AM

      I think that Kate was the 1st to borrow the wedding bracelet shows that the Queen has great trust in Kate and really cherishes and appreciates her.

      Delete
    2. Agreed Sonja, I believe that the Queen loaning what must be such a sentimental piece spoke a lot!

      Delete
  5. Great idea for a post while we wait!

    Very strange on the Mustique front. We tend to also see pap photos of the Middleton clan. Last year we even had airport photos of Mike and Carole. We know the Middleton clan had a late 2015 family vacation (sans the Cambridges), but I feel like the Cambridges should really be itching for a getaway.

    I loved the tanzanite and think she can easily wear them as a set. Depending on the outfit. I loved it with the simple design of the monochromatic navy. Multiple colors, patterns, or a bold design would probably not work as well if they were worn as a set. But I think how she wore the tanzanite set was appropriate and fabulous.

    ~ A

    ReplyDelete
  6. I may be in the minority, but I cheered when I saw the tanzanite jewelry. And I don't have a problem with her wearing the earrings and necklace together; IMO, it's a jewelry suite rather than old fashioned matchy-matchy. And the vintage style is sooo Kate.

    Carole's earrings are spectacular and I'm glad she added some family jewelry to the mix. :)

    And, naturally, it was great to see her wearing the Queen's bracelets and the QM's diamond and sapphire earrings. It's about time they oiled the hinges on the vault! :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't mean this in a rude way - can you explain the difference between a jewelry suite and old fashioned matchy-matchy?

      Delete
    2. I am with you royalfan. I liked the set together. Maybe someone can give us an explanation as to why there should not be worn together. :-)

      Delete
    3. For some people, matched sets of furniture (beyond 2 matching loveseats or maybe a table and chairs) matched rugs, and matched jewelry sets all tend to scream "brand new--just purchased" since furniture, rugs and even jewelry are less likely to be inherited in sets or acquired over time in pieces to make up a matched set. Some just prefer a "collected over time" eclectic and creative approach to all things vs using sets designed by someone else. But its just personal taste!

      Delete
    4. I much prefer and intend to adopt your description-..."collected over time eclectic and creative approach" to hand-me-downs from Mom, Sis, and Grandma, with a few jumble-sale
      items thrown in.
      It sounds so much classier.

      Delete
  7. I wonder if the Kiki McDonough Lauren small heart earrings were a sentimental choice for Kate--since the collection was based on the ballerina's role in Alice in Wonderland, could these earrings represent the Queen of Hearts? A sweet nod to Princess Diana?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Vasilikoula Nousiou - GreeceJanuary 28, 2016 at 2:23 AM

    Hey Jane,
    Great post - personally - I practically love everything Katherine wears!!!
    I was a BIG Diana fan, having been born the same year, and now I love following her children's lives.
    I think Diana would have loved Katherine as I'm sure we all do!!!
    Jane, I have a question for you. In the last photo of the China State Visit Dinner, I noticed something. Right at the forefront of the photo, I can see a little gold "something" which seems to have a little gold crucifix on top. Any idea what it could be???
    Keep up the good work, I think I speak for all your blog followers when I say that we look forward to reading your posts and thank you for keeping us informed.
    As we say in Greece "Kalimera and Filakia" xxx

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it is a salt or pepper shaker.

      Delete
  9. Sonja from BavariaJanuary 28, 2016 at 6:35 AM

    I love your "look back" posts, especially on jewelry or fashion!

    My favourites are the Morganite and Diamond drops (such a classical and sophisticated style) and the Tanzanite necklace and earrings (and personally, I'd love them to be seen worn together, not only the necklace or the earrings as suggested) :)

    I was not a huge fan of the Lauren earrings, to me they look like something a 9yr old girl would wear...
    the Robinson pelham earrings were pure glamour and I love that the middleton ladies borrow each others things - just like a normal family (what they are, of course, but anyways) :)

    It was great to see Kate debut so many royal jewels in 2015, especislly the Lovers Knot tiara and the diamond bracelets.
    Do you think there will be a state banquet where she wears a tiara in India or Bhutan? Or will Kate attend one back home in England in 2016? I'm curious to know what you think about it

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can see why some don't like the small Lauren heart earrings. For me, the issue is a huge mismatch with the dress. Tiny gold encrusted diamond earrings just don't go with the bold black and white almost boho dress. The earrings would look better with something like one of her solid pink dresses to me. For the B&W dress, the triple loops would have looked good, I think.

      Delete
  10. Don't think it is a cross--more like the elongated top of a gold salt cellar.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can see from these pictures that it's a salt or pepper shaker. Very beautiful!
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3280557/The-Queen-David-Cameron-greet-Chinese-president-Xi-Jinping.html

      Delete
  11. Catherine has acquired some lovely personal jewellery since her marriage. Particularly like the tanzanite set, worn with the plain navy blue outfit.
    Just wish we could see her wearing her wedding earrings again.
    I keep wondering if those earrings from the royal collection, which she has worn many times, since we first saw them in California on her first tour, are a permanent loan from the Queen, or perhaps a wedding gift.
    Maybe I am biassed, but I have seen all three of the tiaras she has worn. atop the heads of other members of the BRF--back 70 odd years when I used to cut out pictures from the papers for scrapbooks--and they never looked as beautiful as they do on Catherine's head.
    Lovely to have a post at this time of the year, when little is happening.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jean you echoed my thoughts exactly on her wedding earrings! I keep waiting to see them again and wonder why we haven't. It's a mystery to me because they were so beautiful and have such a special meaning.

      Delete
    2. Are they on display with her gown?

      Delete
    3. I've wondered the same thing about the wedding earrings, and wonder if it is because of symbolism (i.e. that was her as Kate Middleton, and today she is Kate Cambridge). Likewise, who actually owns the wedding acorn earrings? I do believe they were commissioned for the 2011 royal wedding; however, maybe they are Middleton property. Maybe they plan on having Pippa wear them at her wedding. Maybe James's future bride would wear them. Maybe Carole has worn them to an occasion we haven't seen, or she would in the future (she could wear them as mother of the bride at James's wedding). Or maybe they were a gift to Kate and they are safely stowed away. I think we can speculate on ownership, but I don't think a statement was ever given about who owns those earrings. I know my personal opinion has been that they are perhaps Middleton property and something they will have in their family vault.

      Delete
  12. Thank you for posting during a drought! Great post, fun read - and may we all get whisked away to Mystique;) thanks Jane!

    ReplyDelete
  13. I love the tanzanite and diamond earring and necklace set. It looks perfect on her. It is so evocative of her engagement ring that it makes me think that HM should make all of the sapphires in the vault available to Kate. Of course, the Queen has made some amazing pieces available (including her own wedding gift bracelet), so I'm not complaining. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Is it possible they managed to evade all press/paparazzi and sneak off to Mustique? They certainly have the resources to do so, and I always thought they looked irritated when "caught" on their way to Mustique in the past.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As much as I would love to see the pictures, part of me really hope they have and get away with out anyone ever knowing. It certainly be a more relaxed vacation for them.

      Delete
  15. This is unrelated to the topic of the post,but I was wondering why you don't update your other blog,'A JD for Jane'.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Thank you for this lovely, sparkly, post to help pass the slow royal news month of January!

    ReplyDelete
  17. What a fun post during this dry spell! I love those morganite earrings and I think the tanzanite set looks wonderful together. With the solid navy blue outfit they were the perfect focal point. I'm not sure what is 'old fashioned' about the way they were worn. Royal jewelry suites have been worn together throughout the ages which, IMO, makes them classic rather than old fashioned.

    I don't dislike the Lauren earrings as much as some others. When Kate is wearing a big, bold pattern it is nice if the earrings don't compete. These are small, understated, and go well. The earrings I don't care much for are Carole's chandelier earrings. I love the color, I love the sparkle with the diamonds setting off the beautiful shade of blue in the topaz. What I don't care for is the shape. I don't care for most chandelier earrings because their shape looks awkward. But those stones are divine!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Just wanted to point out a quick technicality; Carole didn't wear the chandelier earrings to the actual wedding ceremony, but just to the reception. She wore a completely different matching earring and pendant set, still aquamarine though, I believe. Great post!

    ReplyDelete
  19. I recall reading several articles (including Forbes) that the Queen had bestowed The Family Order of Queen Elizabeth II (a brooch with her likeness) on Catherine. It was widely expected that she would wear it to those two official functions, but she didn't. Maybe she didn't receive it after all.

    Belle

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is various speculation on this. One that I personally like is that the order is painted on elephant ivory...which William and Harry strongly oppose. I wonder if William, on behalf of Kate, would turn down the order, or say she wouldn't wear it in public. It would be very contradictory for Kate to wear ivory with the fight William is waging. My understanding is that William believes people should destroy ivory...so how could he then have his wife wearing it in public? Just food for thought and a theory I like :-)

      Delete
    2. That is a reasonable theory Anon as it would be rude to refuse to wear it if it was given. I have to say though while I agree elephant poaching needs to stop, destroying the palace ivory as Will has called for- ivory harvested from long-dead elephants-- seems unwise. We don't undo the past through destruction. Plus doesn't that ivory technically belong to the British people? I also haven't heard Will object to royal jewels confiscated during periods of colonialism...including India's big diamond in a crown Kate will someday wear. It's also unlikely all those tiara diamonds were mined ethically! And gold mining is filthy.. gold for one wedding band generates 20 tons of waste..(apparently even more when mining Welsh gold), not to mention the slave labor sometimes used to obtain it in Africa. How many tons of waste went into producing pinky rings for the Middletons? I realize pollution and human rights violations aren't the same as killing endangered animals but I find it hard to understand a strong stance on one while ignoring the other. I also don't understand raising pheasants just to shoot them either though and can't imagine shooting birds on my birthday as Kate did. Really a different world!

      Delete
    3. Trouble is Lizzie, to whom would the Koh-i-Noor diamond be returned? Four or five countries declare that it belongs to them.
      You obviously do not wear any jewellery or anything leather or even eat meat. Pheasants and all the other birds shot for food on many large estates are really no different to raising chickens or turkeys. They are a cash crop, which provides jobs in country areas It cannot be compared to the killing of elephants or other large and wild animals

      Delete
    4. Do you eat beef, chicken, or pork, Lizzie? All raised to be killed and eaten.Often
      in appalling conditions. At least the pheasants get to roam free in lovely surroundings first.
      In an ideal world, we would only take a daily plant-based nutrient pill and allow
      all creatures to roam the earth and freely propagate.The only power sources would
      be sustainable wind, solar. However, to support that ideal vision, eighty percent of
      the world's population would have to disappear.
      Part of me agrees with nearly everything you said. The younger, more idealistic
      part of me.It is incredibly sad there is an ugly side to life.
      I do think laying it all at the Middleton's feet isn't the answer.Sometimes it is
      difficult to understand apparent inconsistencies from an outsider's perspective.
      If one eats meat, but decries another's killing game, it may seem inconsistant.

      Oil-drilling, mining gold, diamonds, or coal takes a toll on the Earth's natural
      and often human resources. William chose to defend wildlife in danger of extinction.
      He can't defend every worthy cause.
      Besides, we really know nothing about the family order details.To base an opinion
      of someone's ethics and choices on a supposition seems unfair to me, to say the least.I've assumed you aren't a vegan. Perhaps you are.
      Lizzie, I wish your vision of the word could be true.

      Delete
    5. Anon 2:03, I am a long time reader but first time commenter - i just wanted to say that your comment was, in my opinion, very spot on. You have explained this paradox very well.

      Delete
    6. Jump right in and swim, anon 2:46!
      I appreciate your kind words, but I remain amazed that anyone actually makes it
      through my sometimes windy comments.

      Delete
    7. Anions perhaps lizzie doesn't eat meat and eschews gold and leather. People are like that so don't challenge her like it isn't possible.

      Lizzie you delved into many valid issues but none that were brought up. Most people can only wage so many wars and ivory is one of Williams. Many of us appear contradictory in how we live our lives and it's because we either aren't fully educated on issues or can only handle so many. I chose to comment on ivory as it relates to William and the Family Order the OP mentioned. Otherwise generally we try to so te best we are equipped to handle.

      Delete
    8. Lizzie, you had me for a while there, you really did, until you made a reference to William's position on confiscated jewelry...pinkie rings for the Middleton's...and Kate shooting on her birthday.

      William's position on ivory *going forward*, is reasonable. Asking him to right the wrongs of the RF's history is unreasonable. I will pass on saying more about the pinkie rings. And as far as shooting birds, well, I'm sure someone ate them. Different strokes for different folks.

      I think one would have to clear a very long checklist indeed before passing judgment and advocating a "perfect" life. If you can stick with your position after taking a good look at everything you own, buy, use, eat, wear, etc., then I will say, very sincerely, more power to you.

      Delete
    9. Lizzie, I completely agree with you. I am speaking in general, not about Kate or the Middleton family. Sometimes we never realize the consequences of the personal decisions we make. We have to take the time to find out for ourselves. I think it would be wonderful if Kate bought ethical/conflict-free diamonds, other stones, and gold in the future whenever possible. She could bring attention to this important issue simply by wearing these special pieces (and not having to say a word)!

      Delete
    10. Here's a thought, we can say that William has made strides to be eco and morally conscious. He "recycled" a ring, by giving Kate his mom's engagement ring. He could have encouraged corrupt governments, poor environmental practices, and unsafe labour by purchasing new rings. They accepted the Welsh gold as a gift from the Queen for Kate's wedding band, which was probably old and in a royal vault, instead of purchasing a new ring. I think a lot of what they did was out of sentiment, but it did have a positive impact on the world by not encouraging our resources to be drained. If you read on the history of engagement rings, you will find that marketing has driven sentimentality to prevent people from passing down jewelry, so that demand stays high. With how much Kate has inherited or been gifted that already existed, that is a small, but meaningful impact, on reducing our ethical issues regarding these beautiful and luxurious (but really not necessary) items. They're not perfect, but no one is. They do contribute positively to the world, even if there are things they do that I don't agree with.

      Delete
    11. The royal family and the Middletons have participated in shoots where 100s of pheasants have been killed over the course of a few days. I think it is fairly clear that there is no way for all of them to be eaten. I do agree that it is unfair to expect William to fight against so many different things, but I interpreted Lizzie's point to mean that he does have control over his own individual actions, some of which are perhaps contradictory, even if he chooses not to publicly campaign against them.

      Delete
    12. I agree that the killing of elephants for their tusks is wrong and should stop. I do not believe, however, that all ivory from centuries past should be destroyed. What purpose does it serve? It won't bring the elephants back. William's stance against poaching is admirable but calling for the destruction of existing pieces is just posturing. It's the destruction of a beautiful animal for ornamentation that is so distasteful. I do need to state for the record that, just in my opinion, if Kate doesn't wear the family order because William objects to the ivory - that's who knows how old - it's just dumb. Maybe she can't wear it because he made such a ridiculous blanket statement and now the whole world would recognize that he now would be considered a complete hypocrite. Either way, it's disrespect for his grandmother. Have the dang thing painted on porcelain if it's such a big deal.

      As for animals that are bred for food, in my mind they don't carry the same weight. If people want to be vegetarian or vegan that's fine but I do not agree with criticizing those who choose to eat meat or wear leather. As for all of those other things - gold, diamonds, etc. - that is a very hard thing to completely comply with. People can wear 100% cotton, only picked by machines, and then hope it wasn't turned into a garment in a sweat shop. If one doesn't want to wear shoes made out of animal skins then the only hope for a sturdy sole on their shoes is to have them made out of petrochemicals that aren't environmentally friendly. If that can be accomplished - well done.

      I think Kate has chosen her causes well. The mental health and well being of children is a very worthy focus. Raise a generation of kids who are stable and healthy and they can have an influence for change in the world but some kids won't get that opportunity unless a person like Kate comes to their defense.

      Delete
    13. Interesting comments. For the record I don't eat meat, wear fur, hunt, or wear leather. But I am full of contradictions. ..I eat eggs from my neighbors backyard "town" chickens, I wear faux suede and faux leather boots, I get flu shots and don't worry much about the origin of THOSE eggs, I support most medical research with animals if done ethically although I don't knowingly buy cosmetics tested on animals. We are all full of contradictions. But Will's seem a bit large. Many of the ivory royal art pieces are over 100 yrs old. At that time elephants were not endangered (10M 100 yrs ago in Africa, 1/2M now in part due to habitat loss) One can argue it was always wrong to kill them for ivory and for food even if they weren't endangered but how does that jibe with sport hunting of pheasants that aren't always even eaten but reportedly sometimes just buried after a count is taken? And if focusing on royal holdings of "useless" pretty things, why not consider jewels that likely came from Africa and Asia as do elephants? There's blood there too although its human. The gold issue for example...I wasn't blaming the Middletons for HAVING rings but if one wedding band leaves 20 tons of waste, a set of 5 rings...It was an illustration of selective vision about the environment.

      I do understand hunting can serve a purpose. In my part of the country if deer herds weren't culled, more deer would starve due to habitat loss. But everyone I know who hunts eats what they kill. Not sure that's true in royal pheasant hunts. And while I am not there, according to published reports, pheasants bred for hunting don't always live free on estates. Sometimes they live in wire enclosures in the woods. When the hunting party arrives, they are flushed out to be shot. More like shooting fish in a barrel than fishing in a stocked pond.

      If Will is going to be a voice on the world stage on environmental issues, he is going to be held to a high standard in terms of clarity of thinking. And I think he needs to reconsider his "destroy all ivory" position. Reportedly he has also asked that all ivory be kept out of sight when he visits other royal residences. Just seems extreme AND narrow in terms of environmental concerns.

      Delete
    14. I was actually very upset when he made the speech saying all historical ivory owned by the BRF should be destroyed. Although the ivory trade needs to be
      illegal and eradicated from now on, those
      pieces are parts of history and need to be
      preserved for the sake of historical
      record and art. If we went around
      destroying politically incorrect objects of
      historical significance, there wouldn't be
      a whole lot left . Just because we as a
      society don't condone certain practices
      anymore, doesn't mean that part of a
      nation's heritage needs to be wiped out.
      It is an incredibly narrow, extreme and
      dangerous reaction. When I read PW's comment, I thought, I hope he doesn't become king for a very very long time because who knows what other severely misinformed ideas he would put into practice. Enough history becomes lost over time without people trying to do it on purpose.
      reaction

      Delete
    15. Lizzie, thank-you for the well-organised, focused explanation of your earlier
      remarks. As I noted in my 2:03 comment, I sympathised with most of it.
      I had no idea the pheasants shot in Kate's birthday shoot (was that recent, by the way?) had been grown and kept penned up in the woods.Still, better than most chicken factory conditions.
      I also don't recall reading that William advocates destroying all the ivory used
      by the royals, nor do I recall reading elsewhere that he demands all ivory be kept out of
      his sight. Perhaps we frequent different sites. Such inflamatory and unfavorable statements really need documentation. That, and the burying of the birds instead of
      eating them-really fairly controversial remarks.

      Just to clarify my own position, I personally do not hunt animals to kill them.
      I think if one could put cameras instead of guns in some hands, the thrill and skill of
      stalking could still be satisfied. Otherwise, you're just left with the enjoyment
      of the killing part. Ethically, it sounds terrible. In reality, as I have said here
      before,someone has to kill the meat we eat. I'm not sure what percentage of the world's population are vegan by choice, but I imagine it is a quite small-but
      admirable- group.
      I just hope the Boxing Day shoot
      turns into a photographic shoot with William as king. Until someone works out an
      efficient birth control pill for deer, wild boar, and pheasants, we are left with
      shooting-much more humane, for the most part, than trapping and poisoning. It can
      be done by game keepers or by hunters equally well.If the excess pheasants are only
      buried when the shoot was during a period of over population, that is understandable.
      It would be nice if they could be distributed for food, but the logistics would
      go far beyond my neighbor's sharing of garden bounty.

      I've read stories of the reverence Native American Indians held for nature and wildlife; but they still killed game for food and apparently took pride in their skills.

      As I said, I like your world, Lizzie.
      You are absolutely correct that William is and will continue to be held to a high
      standard. I just hope he is given credit for the good he does and not for the
      harm he "reportedly" does.

      Delete
    16. If the British monarchy's ivory, fur, leather etc. items could be seen as a
      reminder of the errors of the past, I could understand that- perhaps in the same
      spirit as the relics in the Holocaust museums-I could understand keeping them
      around. I am NOT equating the horrors of WWII to the horror animal rights
      defenders feel today.
      As it is, I can see an argument for what Faith reports William said, although I will
      need to go to the British Monarchy site and read what he said in context.
      In some ways, the continued ceremonial and other use of ivory does imply
      acceptance of such use- contrasted to the pieces being on display as in a museum.

      I don't believe he asks that ALL actions from the past now
      seen as wrong be corrected. He is talking about the slaughter of an endangered
      species for ornamentational use. He has viewed film of this practice, talked to
      game wardens and generally deeply committed and educated himself.
      He is NOT mis-informed. If I had to choose between a ruler who tries and sometimes
      fails and one who sits on his hands and refuses to become involved-I think
      considering the choices available in the RF, William is the best of the bunch to
      be a 21st Century leader.
      I would love to hear from others who will actually call him their king.

      Delete
    17. This is why debate is good as it allows us to educate ourselves! So, I just spent the better part of an hour researching Prince William's speeches about conservation and ivory in particular. I've read the entirety of the speech he made in China and listened to the recording he made at Kings College. I cannot find any instance of him saying he thinks all of the ivory belonging to the BRF should be destroyed nor can I find anything in print reporting he has asked ivory to be removed from his presence. As a matter of fact, his exact words were:

      "My rejection of ivory today is not a judgement of past generations. It is an acceptance of the world as I find it today and the world I want my children, George and Charlotte, to inherit."

      Further he said: "Likewise, those doctors and medical practitioners in China that are speaking out against the use of endangered species in medicine, they are not judging previous generations who did not have the facts that you do today. They are just accepting the truth that all credible evidence and scientific research shows, for example, that rhino horn cannot cure cancer."

      If it were true that he wouldn't allow ivory in his presence, then he could never be in the presence of someone (like his grandmother, The Queen) who was wearing the family order. As we know, that is not true and that, as they say, is the proof in the pudding. Prince Charles has just as strong opinions about ivory as Prince William and Camilla wears the family order. I think in our speculation about the whole thing it has turned into a game of telephone where the facts come out the other end all distorted.

      Delete
    18. He made the comment in 2014 Robin. It was reported everywhere, and historians and art critics widely condemned the idea. I'll try to find the exact link.

      Delete
    19. Lizzie, thank you for expanding on your original comment. I wonder if anyone could claim to live a life completely free of contradictions. I know I couldn't. I do my best to practice what I preach, but could I give myself an A+? No.

      Regarding William and the subject of ivory, I too have tried to find the speech, but was not successful. This link is the closest I could find, but it's one of those "according to reports" scenarios. If someone could paste a better link, I would appreciate it.

      http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/feb/17/prince-william-buckingham-palace-ivory-destroyed

      During my own search, I read the comments Robin included in her comment above and I honestly do not see anything wrong with William's statements. Again, I would really appreciate a better link...thank you ...

      Delete
    20. Thank-you, Robin.I wanted to at least get that said before my tablet battery poops
      out again.
      Anon 2:03,11:57,1:54

      Delete
    21. I couldn't find those references, either.

      I think there is a sort of gossip game going on among various blogs. Someone reads a
      highly fictionalized story in a tabloid and shares his version on a blog; then, without bothering to check the accuracy, the next person tells his version on yet another blog.
      The truth is out there for those who wish to find it. For example, The Tusk Trust website, especially the royal patron section, gives information about William's commitment
      and education.
      Anon 2:03,11:57,1:54

      Delete
    22. Royalfan 9:33- Thank-you for the link. It looks to me like the Guardian quoting
      the Independent quoting Jane Goodall quoting William. The gossip chain indeed.
      If that isn't the very definition of hear-say, I don't know what is. Our Jane
      could expand on that, I'm sure.
      Plus, the article referenced Prince Charles, not Prince William, reportedly calling for the removal of
      all ivory from his sight-in his own home, Highgrove, and Clarence House.I can just imagine how that story got started.

      By the way, royalfan, I enjoyed the engagement ring link. I have my Granny's ring
      that is over a hundred years old. The diamond is a small, but perfect and still
      very sparkly solitaire stone.It is very special. I'd actually be afraid to wear
      some of those rings.Someone might try to snatch it off my hand, not being particular about a finger coming with it.
      Those rings, although gorgeous, are obviously not meant for anyone doing housework. Maybe that's
      the point.
      Anon 2:03 etc.

      Delete
    23. Faith, yes, please post a link if you find it...

      Anon 2:03, I cannot understand the reason for it, but I do agree that William, in particular, appears to inspire a lot of what you describe.

      Regarding the rings...definitely not intended for housework! :)) And I can appreciate your feelings about your grandmother's ring. I have less "valuable" things that mean the world to me.

      Delete
    24. This is the link. It was initially reported by The Independent which was covering the February 2014 conservation summit in London at which PW and PC amongst others were speaking. They reported that Jane Goodall spoke with them about a private conversation she had with PW about his desire to destroy the BRF owned ivory. There is a direct quote from her. It was a big story for the next three days with many news agencies picking it up and various experts in art, historical, conservation and political spheres commenting on it. Jane Goodall never came out and said it didn't happen. The palace would neither comfirm or deny he made the statement. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/prince-william-wants-all-royal-ivory-destroyed-9131140.html

      Delete
    25. Faith, thank you for the link. :) My problem with this, however, is that it is not a direct quote from William, and no one would confirm or deny it on his behalf.

      Delete
    26. No, its not a direct quote from William but it is a direct quote from Jane Goodall. I just found it odd that no one would deny it. They have never had a problem doing that before, and it did recieve a lot of press. I would think that if he had not made the statement, his office would have denied it given how incendiary the report of the comment ending up being.

      Delete
    27. My problem is, even if true, Jane G. 1) apparently betrayed a confidence 2) to a reporter 3) of a republican-leaning news outlet.What's wrong with this picture?

      He could have said some off-hand remark. I know I've said things like, "I would kill
      for a cold drink right now." If someone later turned up dead, it would look very
      bad for me.

      plus what royalfan said.

      Delete
    28. I did appreciate your providing the link, Faith. After seeing the lay out, with a
      huge headline referring to the ivory destruction remarks, associated with a photo
      of William giving a speech, including a caption that added to what I feel is an
      attempt to mislead the readers into thinking William said these words in a speech
      at the conference.... after seeing the article I can certainly understand someone's
      assuming the remark was made in the speech.

      One has to actually read halfway through the story to discover that it was not an
      official statement given in a speech. It was a second-hand tale of a probable
      off-the-cuff remark. Far from a mission statement.

      Delete
    29. Faith, perhaps it was seen as a no-win scenario. This *is* a hot topic and it's not the first time BP or KP has remained silent.

      If KP denied it, William could have been criticized for preaching and not being prepared to back it up at home. Also, if a confidence was betrayed, perhaps they thought it best to not even acknowledge Jane Goodall's statement. Just my two cents...

      Delete
    30. If KP had to issue a denial for every wild story out there, they would have time
      for nothing else. Also, can you imagine the headlines and hits with a "Prince
      denies reports he is the Easter Bunny" sort of story. Why keep the story going?
      (which we are actually doing here now)

      Delete
    31. I agree royalfan. I can see both of those scenarios playing out. There has to be a reason.

      Anon 9:56, it wasn't just any story and it wasn't a wild story. The Independent is a reliable daily paper. It does lean to the left but they do try to be as apolitical as possible and give space to all viewpoints. They were one of the main newspapers covering that summit, so they were there. Sometimes private comments do come out in the press and they accurately portray a person's true feelings unlike the edited version put out for public consumption. Of course, there is room for error and, perhaps, the story is not true but we can not say that one hundred percent. From my point of view, he should have clarified if untrue because it is, as royalfan said, a hot issue and many individuals in the field felt the statement was misguided. If these are his true feelings, I hope each piece of ivory owned by the BRF is put into a trust that he can not get his hands on when he assumes the throne. Destroying history does not correct history.

      Delete
    32. In my opinion, a news source is not a reliable source when it presents
      information in such a way that it tells a lie.That remark, if said as reported, was not given in his speech. To represent it as such is false.I think it involved more than just slanting. It Apparently lead you to
      think, according to your earlier comment, that William said this in a speech given
      in the conference, which would lend a great deal more credibility than what was
      essentially gossip. i wonder how many individuals in the field actually read the
      whole article.
      Hot topic? Well, the French photos were certainly a hot topic. If the palace directly
      commented on those, I don't remember it.If the remark had indeed been said in an official speech or document, I could understand an explanatory statement.

      There is no value in denying gossip.Did the RF ever make a statement about Edward VIII and Ms. Simpson? It was certainly true.Certainly a hot topic.
      A lack of denial of a statement is
      not proof of anything. If I say William is the Easter Bunny,does it mean he IS in fact the Easter Bunny if he fails to deny it?

      Delete
    33. @Anon 1:32, I blame my two year old memory rather than press misrepresentation in thinking that the comment was made in a speech. All newspapers use unrelated photographs from time to time and its up to the reader to discern exactly what they are looking at or reading. If one pays attention, all the information is right in front of them. I don't believe that the use of a photograph from the summit when talking about an incident occuring at the summit condemns the article to falsehood. Also, I can not believe that experts in the field would not read an article in its entirety before commenting in a public forum. Their reputations are on line.

      As far as the sunbathing photos go, PW made the ultimate public comment by
      pursuing legal action.

      A lack of denial is not always proof of anything but, at times, it is.

      Delete
    34. I have been buried in work with no time to read. I’m not sure if anyone is following this thread anymore but I did want to respond.

      I agree we do not have official confirmation Will said it nor do we have him on tape saying it. But I agree that lack of a denial can SOMETIMES be a sort of confirmation. I don’t view Jane Goodall as an unreliable source. And I don’t think she violated a confidence by quoting Will UNLESS he said to her “don’t tell anyone I said that” which seems unlikely. Not all conversations are assumed to be “secret” after all. It’s not as though this conversation, if it occurred, was between “best girlfriends” or between a husband and wife. My personal feeling is that Will did say it. He is royalty but I think he may have become over-enthusiastic and may have wanted to impress JG as she is in many ways, THE human face of wildlife in Africa. Although the comment was deplored by historians and others, many conservation groups applauded it so Will likely could not have walked it back even if he wanted to.

      Much earlier the thread was also discussing pheasant hunting. (For me, Will’s credibility might be enhanced if he wasn’t a current hunter but as previously mentioned, we all have contradictions) Here are some threads that relate to that general topic.

      Kate’s birthday hunting http://www.people.com/people/package/article/0,,20395222_20981001,00.html

      One of Pippa’s group hunts
      http://www.scotsman.com/news/celebrity/pippa-middleton-goes-on-edinburgh-shooting-trip-1-3129432

      Link that discusses how pheasant are raised for hunting, I do not know how reliable some of these conservation groups are. I know that even for me, some of PETA’s positions seem a bit over the top.
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/countryside/11502903/Row-erupts-as-RSPB-claims-pheasant-shooting-is-actually-good-for-some-wildlife.html

      Warning—VERY graphic site about disposal of dead game birds.
      http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/secret-photos-released-of-dozens-of-pheasants-dumped-into-a-pit-victims-of-uk-shooting-industry-10045528.html


      Delete
    35. Lizzie, that is exactly my take on the ivory comment situation.

      Delete
    36. Lizzie, do you believe it's reasonable for anything a public person says to be fair game as far as the press is concerned? An interview setting is one thing, but an off the cuff remark is another, no? And if William did make the statement, I think she should have asked if she could quote him. If she did so without him knowing about it, then it does not inspire trust going forward.

      Delete
    37. Replying to replies. Anon 7:33. Note that the dead animal pic was posted by an anti-hunting group and it was taken at facility run as a for-profit business by foreign investors. Animals are regularly culled and destroyed in private at other animal-protein commercial concerns (chicken, beef and pork processers) for various reasons including but not limited to disease, deformity unacceptable to consumers etc. Nobody knows why the dead animals in that picture ended up laying there rotting instead of being used for food, but some of the more hard-core environmentalists advocate leaving dead animals in the open to be consumed by foraging animals - the ultimate recycling. And yes, I'm sure it stinks.
      I come from a family of hunters, although I don't hunt. The family rule,which is common among most ethical hunters, is if you kill it you eat it. I don't like game, so I do not hunt.
      As to leaving edible pheasants to rot after being shot,most recreational hunters consider this both a waste and unethical. Most game freezes well. Hunting is an expensive hobby - guns, ammunition, the buying/raising/training of the dogs who retrieve, land maintenance, salary for the beaters on the shooting estates.
      It's the dog's job to bring back all birds who are shot, and the hunter's job to be sure they are dead as it's unacceptable to allow a wounded animal to suffer. This is why hunters spend hours tracking wounded deer (or stag) for hours in foul weather until night falls. Really, it's much cheaper to buy pheasant, venison or other game at the butcher, if that's what you like.
      As for the miniatures in royal orders, can anyone inform us definitively if they are all painted on ivory? Or are there alternatives...
      Sorry so long. Jane would have put this so much more succinctly!

      Delete
    38. royalfan 5:49- my thoughts exactly. I doubt William thought his remarks-if they
      were his words-would be taken literally, let alone quoted in a republican
      forum. Jane Goodall does indeed carry some weight in her field. I imagine
      William thought she would understand his comments in the spirit in which they were
      given.
      anon 12:56-Jane seems to cut off comments in a previous post once a new one is up.Since she is allowing this thread to continue,
      I would imagine she thinks what is being said is worthwhile. I think we are all, as Robin said, being educated. You have provided a valuable and interesting viewpoint.
      Thank-you.
      anon 7:00 pm, 7:54

      Delete
    39. The press was not spying on the conversation William had with Jane Goodall. If that had been the case, I'd think that was unfair. But I don't think any of us--public person or not--should assume we can say anything we wish in a conversation and not be held accountable should the other person choose to share it. Of course, we all carve out exceptions--best friends, spouses, trusted family members--where we feel pretty sure we won't be quoted. But I think it is naïve to expect ALL conversations we have automatically to be "off the record."

      Delete
    40. I have to agree with Lizzie here. William is savvy enough to know whatever he says may get out. Initially, I'm not sure he would have been adverse to the comment being exposed. That may be how he feels . Perhaps, after all the backlash, including that from his own family, he decided to just let the comment drop.

      Royalfan, you've probably had enough of my opinionated opinions:-) but I think any comment by a public person is fair journalistic game unless garnered by surreptitious means. That's the basis of a free press and great investigative journalism. Without it, many public figures would go unchecked.

      Anon 12:00, I've researched The Independent and can not see that it is a republican newspaper. It does sit center left but seems to pride itself on being apolitical and publishing all viewpoints. Maybe one of our British posters has more insight into its affiliations.

      Delete
    41. In these times of the bugging of homes and offices and interception of private
      phone calls by the media, there are ethical concerns beyond "What is truth?"
      At least with an overheard phone conversation, the information is not second-hand.
      That is considered illegal as well as unethical, however.There is not much difference,
      in my opinion, between the two-ethically or journelistically.

      It is not ethical to report a private conversation, especially when the speaker's
      words, facial expression, body language, and intent are not known. Was William
      smiling? Serious-looking? Gesturing?
      If the press report what was said during a public forum,although the speaker
      was unaware a microphone was live, that's fair game.Reporting of a report of a private conversation is tacky at best and probably not ethical.
      Catherine's private remarks said to a group while visiting during an engagement
      are reported often. We have no idea how accurate the quotes are, but they are
      usually harmless, non-political comments about herself or her family. These
      stories are picked up by other forums and spread as authoritative quotes
      Prince Charles is often quoted as saying sometimes very controversial remarks.
      Some of these statements are enshrined in a sort of media Hall of Shame.

      Quoting such remarks is done all the time in news sources. If true, there is a question of ethics.
      If false, a question of libel. A lawsuit only prolongs the time the quote is
      "out there." One is forced to allow false stories to circulate.

      Anyone who has never been falsely accused of saying something damaging or who
      has no feelings of empathy may have a difficult time understanding these concepts.


      Delete
    42. Jane Goodall spoke to The Independent directly about the conversation anon 1:00. There is nothing unethical or libelous about that.

      Delete
    43. Faith 12:11-obviously, our definitions of "surreptitious means" differ.
      I define it as obtaining and publishing information (in this case a quote) without the knowledge
      and/or consent of the original speaker. It is the reason for the time-honored reporter question:" May I quote you on that?" If the quote was not said by the source, the quote must be varified. If the reporter can't varify, you don't print.
      I'm aware there are news sources that don't have the journalistic integrity to do so.

      What is your definition?

      anon 2-5@ 12:00& 2-6@ 1:00

      Delete
    44. First, Faith, no problem whatsoever with "opinionated opinions." I've shared one or two myself. :) (And the rest of my comment will be a combined response to you and Lizzie. One that makes sense...I hope!)


      I agree that the press wasn't spying on William, but even a public person should be able to have a private conversation. If nothing is sacred, then I would expect people in his shoes to share less, and not more, going forward. Counterproductive, no?


      And the concept of investigative journalism isn't relevant here, IMO. William was not the subject of an investigation, nor was he taking part in an interview. He was having a private conversation with someone at a conference, and a degree of discretion is not an unreasonable expectation. JG is an activist and she took full advantage of a private conversation. This was more like tattling on the world stage.


      How different it would have been if, for example, she had stated that she had a private conversation with Prince William and was encouraged by his passion for these issues, and his desire to act on it going forward.


      A statement like this would have had the same media coverage without the betrayal factor. And it would have gone a long way to foster a working relationship between herself (at 80+) and a young man who will have more to say, and more influence, as time goes by.

      Delete
    45. I know the ship has sailed regarding this thread but I wanted to respond to anon and royalfan since both of you were nice enough to respond to me. Anon 4:31, I guess surreptitious means illegal to me which this instance certainly was not. If only direct authorized quotes were publishable, the truth would be pretty hard to find. People tend to edit the truth to their benefit. Fraud and other
      unscrupulous activities are often uncovered by sources relating private comments and conversations. As long as the source is verifiable and reputable, the information is considered viable news. Jane Goodall is very reputable source.


      Royalfan, I agree that the ethical thing to do is ask permission before quoting someone to the press. However, I don't agree that it is not ethical for the press to publish comments without the permission of all those involved. If that were the case, our news would be continuously censored. For all we know, perhaps PW expected JD to go to the press with his comments. We are speculating that she spoke out of turn. They are both incredibly media savvy people and I find it hard to believe that she would speak to the press about an issue he asked her to keep private. However, of course, its not impossible obviously.

      Delete
    46. Faith, I appreciate your response and me thinks we will have to agree to disagree on this one. :)

      I just find it a bit non-Kosher to publish a statement, and imply that it is factual, when it is hearsay (from the paper's perspective).

      Delete
    47. We will have to agree to disagree :-) I can't agree that a reputable, easily verifiable source is hearsay.

      Delete
  20. I love that Kate is beginning to regularly wear 'serious' jewellery from the Royal collection as well as pieces she herself is acquiring. I normally don't like pear shaped jewellery but I'm a big fan of the tanzanite pieces, although, like you Jane, I think that they should typically be worn frequently.

    I also absolutely loved the sapphire Queen Mother earrings and I very much hope Kate will continue wearing the Queen Mum's jewellery!

    Jane, the one piece I can think of that wasn't included are the Mappin & Web earrings worn to Charlotte's christening - I know they were probably bought when she got the necklace but this is the first time we saw them, I think?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Carole & Mike have been spotted on Mustique! Will other family members join them? Or was Pippa & James' New Years Caribbean vacation foreshadowing that this was not a large family vacation this year?!?! Time will tell...

    ReplyDelete
  22. We will probably never gain this info but I would love to know how the DoC stores and travels with her jewelry. I would guess that the family jewels and extremely valuable items live in vaults at KP and Buckingham Palaces but for the pieces she wears more regularly, e.g. the Kiki McDonough earrings, does she have a fantastic traveling jewelry case? I would like to think so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would also love to know unknown! I picture a fabulous jewellery case with cascading layers, with the jewellery organised in perfect order according to the type, colour etc. Most of my jewellery is costume jewrllery that is made to look like the real thing, I can't in a million years imagine being able to wear such fabulous pieces of real gold with real gems. I wonder if she has to pinch herself sometimes when she wears jewels from the royal collection, i know i would every time!

      Delete
    2. If I were Kate I would have the Kiki McDonough earring drops in every stone available! I'm sure she has safes in both of her homes for her precious jewelry. There are special cases for them when they are on a tour just like The Queen has when she travels.

      Delete
    3. Robin, glad to know I'm not the only one who fantasizes about Kiki McDonough to this extent! I adore semi-precious stones and would like to see Kate and other royals wear them even more often.

      Delete
  23. An article about some rather famous engagement rings.

    JC, where are you??? ;)

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3421708/Forget-Mariah-Carey-s-new-bling-Jackie-Kennedy-Grace-Kelly-infographic-details-dazzling-history-world-s-iconic-engagement-rings.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JC got pretty shredded by some in the last round about George having his photo taken while out and about. Maybe she's stepping back for awhile.

      Come back JC, royalfan and I have your back even when we don't quite agree!

      Delete
    2. I really enjoyed that article royalfan! Jackie Kennedy's ring was divine (in my opinion), whereas some of the more opulent and expensive rings were a bit 'meh' in my opinion. Though simple, i loved Audrey Hepburn's ensemble best, it is what i would have picked for myself.
      On another note, my brain cannot register the value of Liz Taylor's and Mariah's rings - literally does not compute!

      Delete
    3. True, Robin. But JC and I have "debated" the subject of engagement rings once or twice before and I hope this does the trick... :)

      Lavieenrose, I agree...it does NOT compute! :) I love the uniqueness of Audrey Hepburn's rings. But I must say I am least impressed by the Queen's ring. It looks very ordinary, IMO.

      Delete
    4. I love love Jackie Kennedy's ring. Different but so beautifully designed. I wonder if she wore a simple thin band with it out of platinum or gold.

      Delete
    5. My favorite was Jackie's ring too. So very very pretty!

      Delete
    6. royalfan- I, too, have wondered about and missed JC.The fact that she is
      obviously appreciated, although sometimes strongly rebutted, speaks for the
      quality of this blog and for Jane's conscientious monitoring of comments.
      If JC's absence is due to the reaction to her remarks, I do hope she realises
      how much she is missed.
      Meanwhile, I will enjoy lizzie's comments, which seem in a similar spirit and
      mode of expression at times.

      Delete
    7. I must be in the minority in not caring for Jackie's ring. I love Kate's ring because it's iconic but, if I had to choose one of them for myself, I would take Princess Grace's ring. It's large but not too large so as to be gaudy (like Liz's and Mariah's are) and it's classic. I also remember it glimmering on her finger in High Society! There are things I would change to make the Queen's ring better but, as it is now, she needs some pavé bands to offset it. Oh, how I love jewelry!

      Delete
    8. Robin, I don't dislike it, but IMO Jackie's ring is more like a cocktail ring than an engagement ring. Kate's is my favorite because I absolutely love sapphires and diamonds and it is such a classic design. Regarding the Queen's ring, well, I think the setting overpowers the diamonds. My preference is a very simple, minimal setting to highlight the stone(s).

      Delete
    9. Anon 12:11, interesting observation and I cannot disagree with you. :)

      Delete
    10. Robin and Royalfan and Anon...yeah, I was taking a step back, trying to figure out why I seemed to offend some posters. Guess that I will have to depend upon you to act as interpreters because I don't get it...all I meant to do was express an opinion re the best interests of the child; it somehow went wrong.

      Now, if you want to discuss jewels and India...my stomach is already churning; so many missteps are possible--and lets not get into the possibility of W&K visiting the Taj Mahal ( but to be clear, I am all for it.)

      On a less controversial note, I do think that 2015 was not Kate's best fashion year but curiously, weirdly, it was both her best--those bracelets! and the Cambridge Lovers Knot tiara!--and her worst--no RFO-- royal jewellery year. Strange.

      Hoping that 2016 is a more obviously glorious year for Kate--altho its not starting out that way; why isn't she in Mustique as we speak?

      JC

      Delete
    11. Halooo, JC!!
      2:03, etc.

      Delete
    12. JC, I am happy to see your comment and hope you stick around! Sometimes I agree with you, sometimes not, but I enjoy your contribution to the blog.

      Regarding Mustique...perhaps the virus? Or perhaps they did not want to enroll George in nursery school only to go on vacation the following week. And yes, I realize we are talking about NURSERY school, but I am sure there would be criticism! :)

      Delete
    13. royalfan, guess youre talking about that crazy new virus--tika?--which seems to be making the social media rounds; but that only applies to pregnant women--what are the chances that Kate, a known HG sufferer, would be pregnant, prior to a big tour? Slim to none, IMO. Nor do I think Mustique would pose much of a tika risk.

      I do agree that Kate might want to be assured that George is happily settled into his Montessori nursery school; she might not want to risk jeopardizing that. Understandable in a first-time mum.

      But royalfan, Kate equally needs to understand that whatever she does will be open to criticism; she somehow needs to grasp the importance of being her own woman, of having viable ideas which just might be better than those of her husband or of HMTQ--not that I think William is quite as awful as his father or that Kate is as kamikaze as Diana.

      I always enjoy, and respect your imput--altho I suspect that there are times when you would like to tell me to *just shut up.*

      JC










      which just might be better than the outdated ideas of the Queen, etc., and she needs to go for it--hopefully, with her husbands backing--and the latter is, IMO, the weak link. (Shades of Charles and Diana--altho I don't think William is quite as awful as his father, nor Kate as kamikaze as his mother.)

      Delete
    14. JC, "just shut up"? Never! :) You are not a hit and run poster, nor do you offer faux support for the lady in question. I'm happy to chat and/or debate with you.

      Regarding the virus... I understand that it poses a threat to *pregnant* women and it was not my intention to imply that Kate could be pregnant, but since when have the facts ever gotten in the way of her being criticized? In a DM-type environment, I could see her being accused of putting a vacation ahead of the potential risk to a [non-existent] unborn child.

      And as far as nursery school is concerned, George just started to attend and a certain degree of flexibility is reasonable given their unique lifestyle. But I also believe that W&K would be skewered if a vacation was the reason for his first absence.

      And I do not disagree with you about Kate being open to criticism, being her own woman, etc. No argument. But there is more than one way to rebel. Sometimes it is an overt action, and sometimes it is as simple as not giving the critics anything to work with. It may not be quite so obvious, but it does not imply that she is in the passenger seat. ;)

      Delete
    15. Interesting take on rebellion, royalfan; I need to chew on that. Guess that I am almost scared to death on Kate's behalf. For sure I don't want her to morph into a clone of HMTQ--so boring, so predictable; wheres the fun in spending every vacation at Sandringham or Balmoral? No, Kate deserves an annual vacation in the sun, where she can hone her underwater photography and just enjoy playing with her kids in surf and sand. And for sure she is equally deserving of an annual ski break. This is far from unreasonable, IMO, given her future--apparently, without retirement, altho I do wish that would change. And God forbid that, for whatever reason, Kate should morph into Desperate Diana; there has got to be a better way to obtain a divorce with a good financial settlement, should it come to that.

      Happy I am that you can see a different way; however, whilst I am pondering that, I would hope that Kate doesn't morph into a doormat; I cannot think of a fate any worse than that.

      JC

      Delete
    16. Happy chewing, JC. :) I recall one of Diana's statements during her 1995 interview: "I'm a great believer that you should always confuse the enemy." There's something to be said for that approach.

      Delete
    17. I understand what you are saying,JC, but-
      a doormat doesn't play Cricket, net ball, and jump over the can in high heels;
      learn advanced SCUBA diving to be able to share more of her
      husband's world;
      wear skinny jeans and corkswoons just because;
      wear whatever jewellery she feels is meaningful;
      I'm sure there are other examples, but you get my drift.
      By the way, one fashion house (Dior?) had every runway model in corkswoon-type
      footwear for a recent show.

      Delete
    18. Been undergoing treatment for double-shock. Were you suggesting, royalfan, that I am Kate's enemy? because I have to confess that she sure has me confused!

      And as for you, Anon @10:39 PM, just the idea the ANY fashion house would sponsor *corkswoon-type footwear* is enuf to put me into a swoon--I had to send my poor husband to our friendly neighbourhood druggist, to ask for some old-fashioned smelling salts! (I, personally, was not fit to drive.)

      Of course, the druggist had no such thing, so I had to rely upon my fathers recipe: a stiff drink, a couple of aspirin, and, if absolutely necessary, an icebag. Seems to have worked, more or less. But you know, a bit more encouragement from both of you would've been welcome. Thankfully, Robin didn't chime in or I might've been done for.

      Seriously, I do think that both the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh have done Kate proud, recently, re patronages. Prince Phillip seemed to understand that via Kate's grandfather, a flier in WW11--the same guy who taught Kate to sail-- and via William, another flier, Kate would be most happy with an airforce appointment, which he offloaded to her--to be sure, Kate might've been almost as happy with a naval appointment if it involved a yacht club; as for the Queen, the patronage of the All England Club--something the Queen only undertook, rather obviously, as a duty (I am led to believe that the Queen only attended 3 times in the the past 60-odd years--stack that up against her appearances at Ascot!) rightly belongs with Kate, a true tennis affectionado, like the Queens Dad, George V1.

      Kate is being recognized, if only incrementally. And therein lies the mistake; Kate needs to be recognized outright. She needs the RFO, and she needs an injection of funds--it is ridiculous that Sophie of Wessex has a greater clothing budget than a woman who has given birth to a king.

      JC

      Delete
    19. JC, oh my goodness, nooo! I was just expanding (granted, poorly) on my prior statement that there is more than one way to be a rebel. But if you are going to reach for a stiff drink, next time perhaps you could find a second glass. ;)

      And I do agree with you regarding the two patronages; very appropriate and meaningful. A double thumbs up from the Queen and PP.

      Delete
    20. JC-I SAID "I understand what you are saying." That's somewhat encouraging.
      Royalan-was the second glass (for you) a need brought on by corkswoons?
      I was just suggesting that the House of Dior knows fashion. If it's good enough
      for them, it's good enough for Kate.
      I personally always felt sexy (is that word allowed, Jane?) whilst wearing my
      Espadrilles, a cousin of corkswoons, I believe.
      anon 10:39

      Delete
    21. Anon 10:39...yes, I thought the second glass might be for me. Are you thinking of adding a third?? ;)

      And I am thrilled to hear someone else use the "s" word in the same sentence with espadrilles! I share your opinion! :) And I do like the Corkswoon wedges, but I would prefer a more modest (heel) version.

      Delete
    22. Royalfan, if you could expand on your statement, re rebellion, I would be pleased--tis the season for colds and flu, and I never seem to escape, hence my current fuzzy brain.

      And for gawds sake, Anon at 2:20 PM, I understood what you SAID. I just wish you hadn't mentioned Espadrilles--I once had a pair and I loved them. Bought them for next to nothing in Spain, and had the satisfaction of seeing my second mother, a true fashionista, drool. Go figure!

      JC

      Delete
    23. Let's all raise a glass to Espadrilles!
      I do fear that those who decried the Spanish baby clothes would find Espadrilles
      anathema.
      Kate probably should stick to her trusty corkswoons.
      anon 2:20 etc.

      Delete
    24. JC, you may have Jane cringing at the thought of me expanding on this...or laughing, I hope!

      I just think there is more than one way to do your own thing, or go against the grain. Sometimes it is overt and sometimes it is subtle. And there's nothing wrong with being a bit unpredictable in the process.

      Delete
  24. Just a technicality that I thought should be pointed out...Carole didn't actually wear the blue topaz chandelier earrings to the royal wedding, but just to the reception. She wore a matching set to the actual wedding; an aquamarine pendant and earrings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it is a fair thing to point out :-) Some mum's, but not most, do a jewelry/outfit switch between the ceremony and reception. I've never seen it done at a wedding, but we know it has been done. She went more classic and "subdued" for the ceremony, then had the full length gown and blingy jewelry for the reception.

      Delete
    2. I have to take a better look at the pendant and earrings (I did not see a color and thought it was diamonds...) Hmmm! :)

      Delete
    3. This is the best close-up I could find of Carole's jewelry. It was quite delicate and I never noticed the color.

      She did look beautiful.

      http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2011/specials/royal-wedding/hats/carole-middleton-768.jpg

      Delete
  25. "The Times" this morning is reporting that HM is passing her patronage of Wimbledon to Catherine and that of the Rugby Football Union to Prince Harry.
    I have always thought that Catherine kept the number of her patronages low to give her time for her children, but also to be able to take over those from HM and Prince Philip, who obviously will need to lighten their load.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for sharing that, Jean. And I agree with you.

      Delete
  26. Exactly! A perfect game-set-match. Both of them.

    ReplyDelete
  27. yes I agree maybe they well cancel the trip for zira virus or they have another plans ahead maybe George wants to be in school or consider they will take princess charlotte and prince George to india

    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!