Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cut it out with the “banishment” nonsense. What a load of hogwash.

And yet they went from being friends who are close enough for Rose to be photographed with Kate’s mother to being at the same event and not speaking, being seated quite far away, or being photographed.

Were you there? You have no idea if they spoke to each other. The seating arrangements and photographs at these events are highly choreographed. It's a state banquet, Kate doesn't get to sit next to her BFF even if they were. The seating is based on status and protocol. It's so tiring reading all these assumptions made about people based on barely anything and I have no connection to any of it - I can't imagine being them and having to deal with it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No ring on. Looking scandalously good.

Bad hair, sad little tits, and a pinched face. Is that the look now?

The draping fails to create the appearance of a waist.

I did not believe the rumors until I saw this dress! NO WAY one wears that to a state occasion - sans wedding ring.

Rose knew exactly what she was doing. And when Kate blew up later that night in tears, its not like there would be a 'reasonable' explanation for it.

The dress was a re-wear unlike Middleton's so Kate couldn't say she was trying to outshine her. Same with the diamond tiara in her hair. She just exuded simple elegance and still stole the show. Even Cosmopolitan wrote about it today.

That is how an aristo does a cat fight.

And, here's what they said:
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/a27745161/kate-middleton-rural-rival-rose-hanbury-state-banquet/

Remember the ridiculous reports that Kate Middleton was "feuding" with her friend Rose Hanbury? Yeah, well, here's some evidence to prove it's absolute fiction: Rose and Kate attended the same very fancy State Banquet with Donald Trump the other night.

But before we get to that, a li'l background on Kate and Rose. Back in March, tabloid reports claimed that Kate had endured a falling out with Rose, who was dubbed her "rural rival" (insert eye roll here). Kate was reportedly super pissed about the claims, and the Daily Mail's royal reporter Richard Kay basically confirmed they were fake news.

However, the situation escalated when Twitter started chatting about *false* (again for everyone in the back: F-A-L-S-E) allegations that Prince William cheated on Kate with Rose. Which has no basis in truth, so people need to calm TF down! Anyway, that just about catches us up to Buckingham Palace's recent State Banquet, where both Kate *and* Rose were in attendance, and they both looked completely chill and at ease in white gowns.

Anonymous wrote:Cut it out with the “banishment” nonsense. What a load of hogwash.

And yet they went from being friends who are close enough for Rose to be photographed with Kate’s mother to being at the same event and not speaking, being seated quite far away, or being photographed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still it’s possible. But why have people ruled out other possibilities:
-rose did something else very cruel to Kate. Repeatedly made fun of her, made fun of her kids, cut her out of social events cruelly, etc.
-maybe it didn’t escalate but maybe rose sent William sexts or something that triggered a confessional to Kate

I bet Wills was the one with the sexts to Rose. She knows how to play it.

Well hopefully he sent her photos from back when he was still handsome. I don’t think anyone wants sexts from him now...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Titles come and go with the queen/king.
I realize there are some serious Kate haters here, but get over it.
She’s the princess.
Get over it.

If I read correctly, not the Lord Great Chamberlain. It’s currently split, so it goes to the other side of the family for Charles but comes back to Rose’s side for Will.

Hilarious.
Anyone else wanna go on about Kate overstepping ( not that I believe for second she has banished anyone or anything)
His lordship will be 6 feet under when it’s Will’s turn. I’m guessing Rose’s large teeth and gawky frame won’t age too well. If she misbehaving, she needs to get back in line.

His lordship will likely be dead, but his son(s) will not. Thus, mom will still be around.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Titles come and go with the queen/king.
I realize there are some serious Kate haters here, but get over it.
She’s the princess.
Get over it.

If I read correctly, not the Lord Great Chamberlain. It’s currently split, so it goes to the other side of the family for Charles but comes back to Rose’s side for Will.

Hilarious.
Anyone else wanna go on about Kate overstepping ( not that I believe for second she has banished anyone or anything)
His lordship will be 6 feet under when it’s Will’s turn. I’m guessing Rose’s large teeth and gawky frame won’t age too well. If she misbehaving, she needs to get back in line.

Anonymous wrote:Titles come and go with the queen/king.
I realize there are some serious Kate haters here, but get over it.
She’s the princess.
Get over it.

If I read correctly, not the Lord Great Chamberlain. It’s currently split, so it goes to the other side of the family for Charles but comes back to Rose’s side for Will.

Titles come and go with the queen/king.
I realize there are some serious Kate haters here, but get over it.
She’s the princess.
Get over it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I can’t imagine Camilla getting the Queen’s jewelry collection outright. Maybe a few pieces, but the rest as a “lifetime loan” and/or with a specific provision that they go to Kate once Kate becomes queen.

The Queen will probably distribute some of the pieces she inherited from her mother and grandmother (Queen Mary, who was a magpie for jewels) but I suspect that most will be passed on to the Crown, of which Charles/Camilla will have control. There is no possibility that the Queen would bypass Camilla for Kate - that's purely delusional.

This. All of the jewelry (except small personal pieces with sentimental value like brooches) are the property of the Crown not the person.

So the Queen's crowns and tiaras go to the next monarch -- King Charles who then can allocated 'supervision' of the jewels to his Queen Consort. The same goes for William and George.

The tiaras don't just disappear out of the crown vault after a death, if they did there wouldn't be any LEFT.

What I'm interested in seeing all the crowns and coronets for a King's regalia that we haven't 'seen' in over 90 years. They're there in the vaults waiting for Charles.

Camilla is 70+ years old. She isn't going to have "supervision of the jewels" for long.

Camilla is 71. If she comes to the throne at 76 (Queenie dead at 101), that would mean 20 years of Queen Camilla.

Guess how old Kate will be when she becomes Queen then? That's right 60+ years old. Ageism sucks doesn't it?

Charles is 70. Actuarial tables would suggest he's not going to be king for 20 years.

Lol. Keep dreaming. Biggest determinant of longevity is genetics and his parents are BOTH still alive. Add to that he has had access to the best healthcare and diet his whole life AND is at a healthy BMI. An actuary looks at populations that are not remotely analogous to a monarch.

Assigned.
There is a document listing all of the pairings. It is planned by the palace in advance.

Does anyone know if Rose chose to walk in with the no neck gossip columnist or if she was assigned to walk with her?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I can’t imagine Camilla getting the Queen’s jewelry collection outright. Maybe a few pieces, but the rest as a “lifetime loan” and/or with a specific provision that they go to Kate once Kate becomes queen.

The Queen will probably distribute some of the pieces she inherited from her mother and grandmother (Queen Mary, who was a magpie for jewels) but I suspect that most will be passed on to the Crown, of which Charles/Camilla will have control. There is no possibility that the Queen would bypass Camilla for Kate - that's purely delusional.

This. All of the jewelry (except small personal pieces with sentimental value like brooches) are the property of the Crown not the person.

So the Queen's crowns and tiaras go to the next monarch -- King Charles who then can allocated 'supervision' of the jewels to his Queen Consort. The same goes for William and George.

The tiaras don't just disappear out of the crown vault after a death, if they did there wouldn't be any LEFT.

What I'm interested in seeing all the crowns and coronets for a King's regalia that we haven't 'seen' in over 90 years. They're there in the vaults waiting for Charles.

Camilla is 70+ years old. She isn't going to have "supervision of the jewels" for long.

Camilla is 71. If she comes to the throne at 76 (Queenie dead at 101), that would mean 20 years of Queen Camilla.

Guess how old Kate will be when she becomes Queen then? That's right 60+ years old. Ageism sucks doesn't it?

Charles is 70. Actuarial tables would suggest he's not going to be king for 20 years.

Lol. Keep dreaming. Biggest determinant of longevity is genetics and his parents are BOTH still alive. Add to that he has had access to the best healthcare and diet his whole life AND is at a healthy BMI. An actuary looks at populations that are not remotely analogous to a monarch.

Anonymous wrote:Rocksavage will be connected to Charles and William forever, having to walk backwards in front of them for the rest of his life.
Then his oldest twin son. Will do the same for William and George.
Rose will be around for a long time.

While this is true, Wikipedia suggests that the Lord Great Chamberlain is a BFD institutionally. If Rose dabbled, that was stupid and irresponsible. However, for Kate to take on a family that institutionally important was not very smart. As long as that family has sons, they’ll have that title and job locked up long after the Middletons fade from memory.

At 82? Yes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The amazing thing is that Alexandra still looks great in old-age and apparently they made up because the Queen honored her for her work in 2016.

I don't know or care about her but I hardly think that means they made up.

Yes, after reading the story I can see the Queen would put a show on for everybody before she allowed the...50-year? affair to shame her publicly before the country. At this point, Alexandra deserved no less than a public show of gratitude for all her work over the years.

I’m glad she’s a nice lady and they made up, but this is “looks great”?

Cut it out with the “banishment” nonsense. What a load of hogwash.