As expected, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge showed up at Wimbledon today to watch the men’s singles. As patron, Kate attended nearly two weeks ago just after opening weekend, while this appears to be William’s first time this season. However, the couple has made an appearance together nearly every year since their wedding, so it was nice to see them again today, particularly since they have a busy week ahead of them.
Once again carrying her white Victoria Beckham bag, Kate debuted a new white, floral dress by
Ted Baker, a brand I don’t recall ever seeing her in publicly. [UPDATED:] You guys, I was led astray! It turns out the early report that the dress was Ted Baker was incorrect. In fact, Kate is wearing Catherine Walker. My apologies!]
And I have to say, I am still loving this haircut, which is surprising to me. I was a big fan of Kate’s long hair and I have completely hated almost every hair cut she’s gotten to change up her look. This, however, feels natural to me and genuinely does make her look seem younger and fresher. Since we have proof it hasn’t messed with her tiara game, I’m all for it.
Newlywed Pippa Middleton (Matthews? Do we know for sure whether she took her husband’s last name?) has been popping up quite a bit at Wimbledon over the last two weeks, sometimes accompanied by her mother, Carole. Today she was spotted with both her and her brother, James.
And for those who enjoy seeing what Pippa is wearing, particularly given that her style is a bit more daring than her sister’s, here you go:
Moving on to a few other Windsor tidbits, apparently William and Kate, with Prince Harry, attended the Duchess of Cornwall’s 70th birthday party last night at Highgrove. The celebration included not only Charles’s children, but Camilla’s as well.
Reportedly the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh were also invited, but they opted to remain at Windsor following a busy week of entertaining during the Spanish state visit.
The celebration marks the second reception held in honor of Camilla’s birthday, following an earlier party held Thursday at Clarence House in London.
Now, this particular milestone birthday obviously falls right in the middle of a summer that has – and will continue to see – any number of reminders about Diana, Princess of Wales. It’s perhaps inevitable then that this occasion would also be used to re-litigate Camilla’s title in the news, an issue we’ve already discussed here and here.
Andrew Roberts, in an op-ed for the Daily Mail, argues that Camilla should not only be known as queen when Charles inherits the throne, but that she should be known as Princess of Wales now. He says that barring her from using it is just placating a public that has and should have moved on from the outrage of 1990s and it’s “unhistorical, unfair and almost unconstitutional.”
I agree with many of Roberts’ points, somewhat surprisingly, and would also underline the fact that legally Camilla is the Princess of Wales, however she is referred to by the public. In fact, if you google “Princess of Wales,” its Wikipedia page will pop up and guess who is pictured as its current holder? That’s right, Camilla.
That said, during the year marking the 20th anniversary of Diana’s death is not the right time to be making any change whatsoever. Whether you agree or disagree, it will be read by many as disrespectful and refusing to consider that is, in fact, disrespectful. If she is ever known as the Princess of Wales, it should probably come if and when Charles steps in as a regent-like figure should the Queen ever abdicate or retire from more of her duties, altering the nature of Charles’s role.
I would also point out two inaccuracies in the op-ed, one of which relates to which historical royal women have held the title. Roberts pointed to Katherine of Aragon and “Queen Caroline” (by which I assume he means Caroline of Ansbach), and he also referenced “Mary Stuart.” As far as I know, no one by the name of Mary Stuart was ever known as Princess of Wales. If he means Mary, Queen of Scots, well, she was literally the queen of Scotland from the time she was six days old, not to mention she was never married to an English prince, so no. And if he means Queen Mary II, she was certainly never known as Princess of Wales, hence the entirety of the Glorious Revolution. Charles I’s daughter, Mary, was the Princess Royal and the Princess of Orange, but no Wales. So, I don’t know what that’s about.
And, to be clear, there haven’t actually been that many Princesses of Wales throughout history thanks to irregularities in the succession. While I agree the reasons for keeping Camilla from using the title now are misguided, I would also point out it’s just not that big of a deal at the end of the day. Much, much more significant is the argument over her title when Charles becomes king.
Then, in a whole bit about how important titles and continuity are (sure, I guess), he points to how happy the public was to hear that Harry would eventually inherit his father’s title of Duke of Edinburgh. Only, that never happened. Back when the Earl of Wessex married the now-Countess of Wessex in 1999, it was announced that he wasn’t inheriting a dukedom like the Duke of York had at his wedding because he would eventually take over his father’s. It’s unclear when or what title Harry can or will take over, but the current favorite is Duke of Sussex.
Anyway, there’s a little update on what the Windsors have been up to since King Felipe and Queen Letizia returned to Madrid. Never a dull moment! And tomorrow we’ll see William and Kate touch down in Warsaw for the first day of their tour. See you then.