Friday, September 14, 2012

Nice dress

Apparently, my dislike for the ... err... I suppose we must now call her the Duchess of Cambridge ... is eliciting comment in some circles. No idea why. What is surprising about a Traditionalist Catholic - one whose life's work is to repair the societal ravages of the Sexual Revolution - disliking a woman who made her name parading around 4 fifths naked, allowed the photos to be published, and then publicly shamed herself by living in an immoral relationship with another man for ten years? A man who, moreover, would some day sit on the throne?

That this is now accepted behaviour, even by Her Majesty, is a testimony to what has happened to that country. But it really never seems to have occurred to anyone over there, anyone, that it is perhaps just a wee bit of a scandal that the grandson of the monarch should be, first, publicly keeping a concubine and then marrying one. One might have thought that someone, anyone, might have looked at the trouble caused by the outrageous behaviour of the late Princess of Wales (how many were there? did anyone count?) and give some thought to turning back the clock a little. But it seems never to have occurred, even to the Queen, that the disaster All That caused should have prompted a revival, at least within the family, of more, shall we say, old fashioned standards of behaviour.

But no. We're all fine with this sort of thing now. We're the New Britain. Whoopee!

But more importantly, the fact that her pretty face has so turned the heads of my readers that they are surprised by my calling her a tart, will perhaps be an indication that they, not I, need to rethink a few things. Yes, she's very pretty. I believe that was the point she was making when she took off her clothes and flaunted herself in front of the cameras and the son of the Prince of Wales.

I'll say one thing for her, she's got good taste in clothes ... when she chooses to wear some.

I do sincerely hope that is taken into account for her when she is standing in front of the Judgment Seat.



Oona said...

I just don't understand the furore, either. Harlot gets cross when rumbled. One is very lucky that one doesn't live in Egypt.

Also. she can't say "palliative care". she said "palliatative care" in Malaysia. Honestly.....

Teresa B. said...

I didn't really know much about her before she got married. Didn't know they lived together before they were married.
I heard about the photos today.

But then the British just got over the scandal of pictures of Prince Harry, which didn't really stay a scandal for long.
You are right - this is the
New British.

Dymphna said...

When I read about the pictures this morning I wondered what you'd say.

Anonymous said...

The Royals have not always been known for great family/sexual morals. In the modern era, Victoria, Georges V and VI, and the current Queen had them, but not Edward VII or VIII. Victoria's father/uncles weren't great family men (remember Prince's Lodge in Halifax).

Anyhow, Wills and Kate are "above average" by contemporary standards, and constitute an improvement over Chuck and Di/Camilla. Arguably, the trajectory is upward.

Apparently the current photos were taken by a high-range lens, so it's not like she was flaunting it in a public place or in front of strangers.


HJW said...

Here's an idea, Glen. Why don't we make it a rule that the future queen of England only take her clothes off in the privacy of her rooms?

Let's let the bar start there.

Anonymous said...

Hi Hilary,

Of course, no one can disagree with what you say. I'm sure, simply for reasons of self-interest, one will see more caution and decorum from the younger Royals.

What strikes me: Your feral hatred of the girl. Even in terms of sources of scandal respecting such matters, she's nowhere near the worst or the most harmful source. Indeed, it doesn't seem she has much of a personal history by modern standards, and she married the guy she was with. So, relative to the laddette UK culture, she's arguably quite a good example. What's driving your singling-out of her?


Anagnostis said...

What's driving your ferocious "Traditional Catholic" judgement of her? Very, very ugly.

HJMW said...

Wait til I get started on people who dive into commboxes with, shall we say, "jugemental" comments, without the guts to leave a real name.

If you want to comment again, read the commbox rules posted to the sidebar to the left.

Oh, and

shove it up your arse,

stupid troll.

HJMW said...

What's driving my "singling her out"?

Are you serious?!


Going. To. Sit. On. The. Throne.

The throne of my country.

(Shee! are we there yet?)

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...


Guys the woman got married in a booty dres . Are you all not normally sexed or something? - Karen

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Hi Hilary,

I hear you: I'm a big time monarchist, to a great extent because of the good character and decorum of George VI and the current Queen.

However, as I understand it, she thought she was in a private place. Do you think she intentionally engaged in a public exhibition? Do you think she was wrong to sunbathe privately (or so she thought) in her husband's presence? It's not like she was parading about topless on the Riviera. She was careless, and will pay a big price for that carelesness, but the real fault lies with the photogs, publishers and the public who consume this.


Hilary Jane Margaret White said...

Are you as insane as they are?

Would you walk around without your shorts on outside the house?

What the hell does "sunbathing" even mean? To me it means being outside in a bathing suit. These garments are usually regarded as being complete only with the top on, but maybe I'm weirdly old fashioned.

Anywhere not inside your home is public, because people. can. see. you.

What is so hard to understand? You don't go outside your home without your top on.

And she knows full well that the paparazzi are following them around with enormous zoom lenses.

And I'll tell you what is bothering me about her. It's not her. She's just a normal modern British skank. Dime a dozen.

It's that everyone who I thought were sensible people are falling all over themselves in adulation of her. Why? Because she's married to a prince? Because she takes good photos? Because she's got a decent dress sense?

Where are your collective brains?

Hilary Jane Margaret White said...

Read the commbox rules, Tess.

And ask yourself, if you were invited to sit in my living room with a cup of tea in your hand, would you address your host in those tones?

Anagnostis said...

You know who I am very well. The reason I left "Catholic Traditionalism" was because I realised - not least from the effect it seems to have on people - that it has nothing whatsoever to with ancient Christianity. It's just another poisonous ideology, like Marxism, a vehicle of choice for those whose "life's work" it is to sneer, bully and coerce. I logged on here for the first time in ages to reassure myself about your health. I'm sad that the sounding brass and tinkling cymbal in you seem even more clamorous than before.

On judgement day we'll all be buck naked. St Francis de Sales has read your stuff.


Anonymous said...

Pop a Valium Hilary :-)

1. Seriously: For one so keen on visitors' social obligations, you're tone deaf to the host's.

2. I for one am not falling over myself about Duchess Kate. I reacted to your, well, somewhat "unbalanced" comments.

3. "Envy" is the only sin proscribed twice in the Ten Commandments.

4 (a) Is she really a "skank"? She's married to the guy she's been with for ages, and she's only about 29 or something, so she hasn't been running around. I go back to a previous question: Are you alleging she intentionally exposed herself? If not, then she was just careless, and not "skanky" (whatever is the precise definition of that term).

4 (b) Somewhat off topic: Is "skankdom" an immutable state?


Louise said...

I'm with you, Hilary. Modesty is a virtue, and, like all virtues, it must be respected and practiced. Modesty is not something that you put on and take off. It is not a virtue you treat carelessly. And it has nothing to do with prudishness--or royalty.

The use of profanity in one's speech is similar. I used to tell my children that if they never swear at all, then they will never swear when speaking to someone whose good opinion they cherish. If swearing is something you just don't do, you will never embarrass yourself or others.

Dymphna said...

I guess she is popular.
because she seems to be livng proof that you can be sexually loose and still end up with the alpha male and the wedding.

BillyHW said...

Beautiful people can get away with anything.

hw said...


You didn't leave Catholic Traditionalism. You left the Church.

It's called apostasy.

HJW said...


you mean she just blundered blindly out of the house by accident without her top on while she was dressing?

Oh, no? Did you mean that she just somehow went into a fugue state and took her top off and wandered off and suddenly woke to find herself outside the house?

how did this happen inadvertently?

And what the hell is with this 'envy' bullshit?

are you cracked? There are plenty of people out there I"m wildly envious of.

You mean looks? There's an 80 year old woman who is an internationally famous model, with perfect skin, gorgeous hair and waif-like frame, with a beautiful foreign sounding name I can't remember right now. I'm envious like hell of her.

Or maybe talent? There's a painter who started training at a sensible age and who is selling beautiful paintings in galleries all over the world, and doing the work that I can only dream of doing.

Or money? Rank? There are two women about my age who come regularly to my parish who are both heirs to ancient royal titles and unimaginably huge fortunes, palaces, art collections, one of them owns a whole town.

Settled happiness? I'm surrounded by married couples bursting out with babies.

Why do you imagine I could be envious of this person I've never met whose only talent so far is to turn the sensible heads of the people who goggle at her in the newspapers.

I object to her being held up as a moral paragon when she is just another member of that class of Brit who has ruined my culture. A product of it, as well as a perpetrator of it. Why are you and so many people like you defending her, or the multitudes of those like her who are in reality paragons of nothing more than the anti-culture against which we strive.

I think perhaps the shrill accusations of "envy" are telling me more about you than about me.

Jonathan said...

All right, I don't usually post comments on the blogs I read, but this is just too ridiculous to leave be.

Anonymous -- We're all sorry you were dropped on your head as an infant, and will be taking up a collection for your benefit soon. Please post your physical address so we can mail you a gift basket while waiting for the collection. Don't worry if it's on fire when it arrives. Just stomp it out with your feet.

GJJ -- "Feral hatred," really? Surely royalty ought to be held to higher standards than the rest of us, even than elected officials. At least here in the States politicians have a limited shelf life in the highest positions, but in Britain they will have to live with this girl until she's not, well, living any more. Also, "envy?" Really? What's wrong with you?

Anagnostis -- Why don't you slither back down to the frozen circle of Hell you came from? That's where apostate traitors belong, as I recall. You can leave the commentary about traditional Catholic morality to the real Catholics. The day an apostate has anything worth saying about the True Faith is the day Satan devoutly sings a hymn.

How about we stop defending the indefensible, and stop attacking those on the side of the Good and the True? Her Royal Tartness doesn't need a legion of chivalric knights rushing to her defense. All she needs is to keep her shirt on.

This is some fractal incompetence, here.

Anonymous said...


Actually, it was "Tess", whom you presumably know and whose post you removed, who pursued the envy angle. I simply noted that "envy" is the only sin proscribed twice in the Ten Commandments. Evidently, that simple observation irked you greatly.

I don't think any commentor here held Kate Middleton up as a moral paragon; they simply commented on your hostility towards her, which is so striking and rationally inexplicable as to be notable. Surely you're not holding her especially responsible for the state of our culture, particularly as she is even younger than us. It is difficult to believe you truly believe she merits the level of criticism you've directed at her.

Now, on a personal level, I've never once attacked you personally on your blog. Yet, you seem quite willing to spew crap such as I'm cracked, or insane, or what not. First, this betrays not only poor manners, but a serious lack of Christian charity and sensibility. Second, it is sad to see that someone who has spent so much time on pro-life and Catholic "apologetics" use the low-rent techniques - personal attack and insult, the straw man, and misstating others' positions - rather than addressing the real issues directly and honourably and honestly, with facts and logic. Whether such tactics and tone betray a moral and/or an intellectual deficiency (or more charitably a health issue of some sort), I'll leave to others.

As a permanently parting note, do you think your hateful invective will be "..taken into account for [you] when [you are] standing in front of the Judgment Seat"?


Rudy said...

When I heard about the photos, I just felt sorry for Kate and William. I have no doubt that they thought they were in private. She seems like a very nice woman, and while I obviously don't approve of their cohabitation before marriage, as a previous commenter noted, there's no one telling them there's anything wrong with that.

For all those reasons, don't you think a little compassion is in order? Especially if you think her going topless was sinful--I don't. She was with her husband, and I would bet anything that if she knew the paparazzi or anyone else was there, it wouldn't have happened-- *especially* since she doesn't have the Faith to guide her, and that she'll burn in hell for her sins, shouldn't you feel a bit more pity for her rather than so much rage?

This kind of thing, Hilary, and comments like "Why don't you slither back down to the frozen circle of Hell you came from?" from Jonathan make it hard for me to blame people who think Catholics are hateful.

I'm with GJJ-- Just as Kate Middleton will be judged for whatever sins she's committed, so will you, Hilary. Jesus never spoke half so much about sexual morality as He did about the importance of compassion for sinners.

Hilary Jane Margaret White said...

Well, Glen,

you don't like what you're reading, you're free not to visit.

Jonathan said...

There's a lot of blather here about how God will judge people on the Last Day. I think he might have something to say about people who call evil good and good evil. And Rudy, Jesus had compassion on repentant sinners, not on the unrepentant. Being sorry you got caught with your top off is not the same as being truly sorry.

Sarah said...

Actually, I believe Jesus said from the Cross, "Forgive them, for they know not what they do..." He was definitely referring to unrepentant sinners then, dontcha think?

Jonathan said...

There's a vast difference between unrepentance and ignorance, which is what's actually implied by "they know not what they do." You've read the parts of the Gospels where Jesus calls the unrepentant Pharisees "fit for Hell," yes?

Anonymous said...

The really important thing to discuss/gossip about, if we're going to discuss/gossip, is the fact that the woman visibly does not have enough body fat to support a pregnancy, and has musculature that is extremely unlikely on a woman of her frame without androgen use. Actually I will go ahead and say it's impossible.

I personally think the topless "scandal" was engineered to prepare the public for a withdrawal of journalistic scrutiny to allow the couple to pursue a surrogate pregnancy.

This is now what it is to be a woman in Western culture. The highest state we can aspire to *as women* is that of hetera. We can aspire to plenty else as humans, but to be a *woman* is to be *sexually appealing.* Put that in your nonjudgemental pipes and smoke it. - Karen

ps Miss White the captchas are getting impossible

Hilary Jane Margaret White said...

Golly Karen,

Way to derail the hate-Hilary-fest.

When looking for distraction tactics, nothing like a good conspiracy.

I think next time I want to be unpopular, I'll definitely have to have a go at Harry Potter as well as Duchess Tart. Throw in a few comments about women not wearing trousers and how disgusting it is to be forced to observe women breastfeeding in restaurants, and we'll be boosting site traffic all over the place.

Then of course, I'll have to shut it down for a few weeks.

Hilary Jane Margaret White said...

Oh, and Johnathan,

easy there bruiser. Cool your jets.

Anonymous said...

Anything that Kate Middleton has done with Prince William is something that he, royal from birth, has done with her.

That doesn't make it right, but I fail to understand why you hold the woman of common birth to a lower standard than the man who should know better.

Also, by all accounts, she's had exactly one sexual partner in her life, and she is currently married to him.

None of that makes it right, but I can't understand why your venom is directed exclusively at the Duchess.

Frankly, if all young women in Britain (and America) only had sex with their future husbands, we would be better off. I have a hard time using "skank" to describe a woman whose morals are better than most of those around her - even if they are far, from ideal and represent a lot of foolishness.


Anonymous said...

(Which is to say: I would feel more well-disposed towards your argument about sexual morality if you would throw in a "Crown Prince Man-Slut" or somesuch in there. Traditions of "boys will be boys" aside, a man whose progeny will one day sit on the throne ought not fool around out of wedlock, especially in the age of genetic testing.)


Hilary Jane Margaret White said...

Now, you've got a point there, Bridget. And I shouldn't have been holding back from pointing out, as you quite rightly do, that the prince is the one who should be held to an even higher standard, and for particularly practical constitutional reasons. The media held off pestering the boys through their school years, so, as is quite correct, I think, we know nothing much about what they got up to. But if their current behaviour is anything to go by, I can imagine it was not much better than that of anyone else raised without a moral compass in that (literally) God-forsaken country.

The only reason I have held back, I think, is that I figure at least William (and Harry) are doing something pretty useful with their time. He flies around in a military helicopter rescuing people off the side of mountains, and Harry goes off to do military things in dangerous places. Not that this makes up for a morally compassless life, but at least it's something manly and active and positively useful, whereas the Duchess seems to be good for little more than photo-ops, celebrity tea parties and acting as a clothes hanger. Surely a woman with a business background can think of something to do with her time that will be of benefit to someone else.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry that I weaned my last one so I can't tell you anymore that I'm breastfeeding in a restaurant RIGHT NOW. - Karen

ps while reading Harry Potter

pps but not while wearing trousers, ugh

ppps wearing skirts is not sufficient ladies, please remember proper underthings as well. Stays not skanks!

Anonymous said...

But she's so darned cute!

PS - You'll have to guess who I'm talking about.

PPS - I had to say SOMETHING. Heck, 36 posts is a record. I was feeling left out.

Anonymous said...

My problem with what the Duchess is doing, or not, is that she's been married a year and a half and isn't yet pregnant.

Non-royal women have the freedom (perhaps the freedom to engage in folly) to wait to bear children until their mid/late thirties. But the Duchess of Cambridge gave up that freedom when she s firstborn child with severe genetic abnormalities, or not having a child at all, is not a risk that is hers to take (IMHO), given the repercussions of such.

(I get a bit miffed when women marry into wealth, tradition, or a name, and then throw a fit when they can't carry on life exactly as they did before. What were you thinking, sweet cakes? It's all a lovely, cushy ride with no additional responsibilities? REALLY?)


Anonymous said...

WOW, that second paragraph got mangled. It should have read,

"Non-royal women have the freedom (perhaps the freedom to engage in folly) to wait to bear children until their mid/late thirties. But the Duchess of Cambridge gave up that freedom when she said "I do." Having a firstborn child with severe genetic abnormalities, or not having a child at all, is not a risk that is hers to take (IMHO), given the repercussions of such."

Mea culpa!


Rudy said...

Woah, woah, woah... You people are really *blaming* her for her infertility?

Okay, it *could* be her fault, but we have no way of knowing that it *is.* You guys read Hilary's blog-- what happened to following The Real and not The Hypothetical? As for it being androgen use: a woman I know has her exact build and very similar musculature, and has five children.

I just think it's horrible and a bit shocking. Many, many women are infertile through no fault of their own and we have no reason to believe she is any different.

Infertility is a very painful thing. Can you imagine not only being unable to bear children naturally, but also have the entire Western world waiting for a baby bump to appear and looking over your shoulder at the negative pregnancy tests?

Simply awful. This whole thread just made me sad for all of you.

Hilary Jane Margaret White said...


apparently you are the one not reading my blog. I've never in my life told anyone not to think about "the Hypothetical".

The what?

If you go back, my railings are against indulging in Fantasy. And Fantasy I have defined as "adhering to personal preference in the face of contrary evidence".

If you want to make up something new, I would be happy to show you how to create a 'blog. But I would appreciate you not willfully misreading or misrepresenting mine. Particularly not it's foundational concept.

As for Mrs. Windsor's private habits, I will say only that I would not have brought it up myself, but that given the mindset that she obviously lives in (hemmed around in Fantasy as she so clearly is) I would not be surprised if she is availing herself of the current pharmaceutical means. However, I emphasise that this is decidedly not my business.

Rudy said...

You don't see how theorizing to the point of stating something as fact like,

"This is now what it is to be a woman in Western culture. The highest state we can aspire to *as women* is that of hetera. We can aspire to plenty else as humans, but to be a *woman* is to be *sexually appealing.*"

is not its own kind of Fantasy in which you try to conform the facts and the world to what you want to believe about it?

I'm not trying to misstate your views, but c'mon, Hilary. You're a smart lady.

Rudy said...

Oh, and as a side note:

As an Englishwoman, can you please explain to me the role of royals today at all? I understood from your post and previous comments that the reason you find her behavior so shocking and inappropriate is because she "will sit on the throne."

I honestly don't know anything about British politics, and I have no doubt you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the monarchs of England don't really, um, *do* anything in so far as actually *ruling* the country is concerned. Isn't that now parliament's job? Aren't the modern English royals basically just representatives? Glorified ambassadors that give the English tabloids something to sell papers with?

Hilary Jane Margaret White said...

I agree with it wholeheartedly and it has nothing to do with Fantasy (I do encourage you to go back and read what I have written on that subject since you seem to be making things up) but with plain observation and experience. Our culture, thanks to feminism, has reduced the value of women to being sex toys and created a pressure to be sexually desirable to the exclusion of nearly any other endeavour.

I say that this is our societal value, not that every person adheres to it. The exceptions, however, usually prove the rule. Those of us who reject this new norm are societal outcasts, Catholics, fringe-dwelling religionists and freethinkers. We are not in the society that places this as the ultimate value, but only after many long years of suffering under its demands.

Hilary Jane Margaret White said...

You have failed to understand what constitutes the British polity. The monarch does not have to "do" anything. Her existence as a monarch is what validates the constitution. Most of British civil society rests upon the Monarchy for its validity.

It doesn't have to, and the monarchy is constantly under threat from people who think that to be important one must "do" important things. The busybody (and peculiarly Protestant) ideas of how a state is constituted are gaining the upper hand in Britain I am sad to say. But the Monarch is not about maintaining The State, but about embodying the Nation.

Anonymous said...

I am not blaming her for her "infertility." There is no indication that the Duchess is naturally incapable of bearing her husband's children; what is far, far more likely is that she is using contraception.

Fantasy: Kate is a poor, misunderstood, infertile woman who is aching for children.

A far more probable reality: Kate is a thirty-something royal woman whose firstborn will inherit the throne and who is deliberately avoiding child-bearing (for the time being).


Rudy said...

... which is why my comment obviously wasn't directed at you. It was more or less directed at Karen, though I really don't think her use of contraception is any more appropriate to speculate on since we have no actual evidence of such things.

To me, believing in The Real (though apparently that's not what Hilary means...?) is not believing in something for which I have no empirical proof.

I have no *emperical* proof that Kate Middleton is taking contraceptives or androgens. Therefore I don't have any reason to believe it.

Hilary, I'd rather be unintentionally mistaken about what I interpreted your meaning to be, than to be someone who immediately interprets that mistake as "making things up." Yeeesh.

Anonymous said...

One thing I know your blog never does, Miss White, is make you miss the subtle and scintillating social intercourse available from the sparkling wits of North America.

It's just... so... EARNEST.... ALL.... THE... TIME....

- Karen

Anonymous said...

though I really don't think her use of contraception is any more appropriate to speculate on since we have no actual evidence of such things.

A 30-year-old woman who is not using contraception has a 63% chance of getting pregnant every year:

(Over two years, that's about an 90% chance of getting pregnant.)

Thirty year old women on contraception have about a 1% chance of getting pregnant every year.

1% versus about 90%. Hum, it's almost like there's evidence for the fact that Kate Middleton is deliberately not getting pregnant....


DP said...

Cool Britannia.

For my rebellious colonist part, the Royals' squawking about the photos is a bit...unconvincing. No, the French tab paparazzo shouldn't have taken the shots.

But, really--did the Royals truly believe this was impossible? The paparazzi are everywhere, and they are going to get their photos using their astronomy-quality telephoto lenses.

Cover up, for pete's sake.

Hilary Jane Margaret White said...

Good heavens! If you have become an empiricist, please don't blame me!

Anonymous said...

"My problem with what the Duchess is doing, or not, is that she's been married a year and a half and isn't yet pregnant."

Well Bridget, what do you say to my friends who took 9 and 10 years to have their first (and probably only) children due to fertility and reproductive problems, even though they had married at a relatively young age, were healthy and had never used contraceptives?

I have been married for over a year now and have not fallen pregnant. It's heartening to know that there are people out there possibly damning me for supposedly using contraception simply because all the 'evidence' points to the fact that I should have fallen pregnant by now.


Hilary Jane Margaret White said...

I've never understood the strange English habit of referring to pregnancy as a disease.

One "falls" ill.

Anonymous said...

It's not just in English that you find this: the French say 'tomber enceinte' which translates as 'fall pregnant'. In Hungarian, the verb 'fall' (esik) is also used to describe the act of becoming pregnant.


Anonymous said...

One also falls asleep, or falls in love...neither of these are illnesses either.


Anonymous said...

"Well Bridget, what do you say to my friends who took 9 and 10 years to have their first (and probably only) children due to fertility and reproductive problems, even though they had married at a relatively young age, were healthy and had never used contraceptives?"

Well, Lydia, you are presumably (a) Catholic, (b) did not shack up with your now-husband for years before marriage, and (c) not married to the crown prince.

If you can't tell how those things make you different from the Duchess of Cambridge, then that's your problem, not mine.


Anonymous said...

Being Catholic does not stop people from making unwarranted judgments. Especially since there should be a "90% chance" of getting pregnant in the second year of marriage. I'm sorry but statistics can't say much about individual situations. All they lead to is hasty judgment.


Anonymous said...

Pregnancy is just like being ill, but with a magical toy surprise inside! - Karen

HJMW said...

Karen, I wish there were a like button on these things.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hilary Jane Margaret White said...


you're cut off. Enough now.