The Duchess of Cambridge: Family, Wealth and Background

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

I wonder how many can hold their hands up and say they have never worn a bikini, because I can't see much difference between them. Even Diana wore bikinis before she was married.

And afterwards - remember the photos from the summer of 1997 and the questions about whether or not she was pregnant.

There were also photos of her in bikinis whilst pregnant with either William or Harry or both. She wore a bikini throughout her marriage not just before.

[Wisteria]

Well I have certainly worn a bikini, no problem with that, but I have always kept Victoria´s secret.
Strange world this, you can walk on a beach with a bikini but the same person walking along the beach in her undies is just not the same thing......I don´t find walking along a catwalk in underwear, for charity or not, is very princess like..... Well she wasn´t then, and she still isn´t (a princess that is). About Sophie, she is now part of the BRF family, she has two children and so is out of any discussion on future brides for heirs to thrones nowadays.

[Lady Ann]

Diana wore bikinis before and after she was married. I remember a story about pap taking pictures of her in a bikini while she was pregnant with William.

[Sereta]

Originally Posted by iowabelle

That's not exactly true about Sophie staying out of the press. Remember her Arab sheik comments and her comments about various members of the Royal Family? And denying that her husband is gay??

That Arab sheikh was someone from the press posing as a client dressed in Arabic clothing (wolf dressed in sheep's wool as it were) in order to "trick" Sophie. It's hardly the same thing! All the things you mention were talked about in what Sohpie thought was a "private" conversation. And after reviewing the recorded tapes the royal family deemed the conversation "harmless". And the fact that the press had to go to that level just to get something on Sophie says a lot.

Originally Posted by muriel

There is a difference between posing topless for pictures on the beach (Sophie) and a student fashion show for charity.

Sophie wasn't "posing for pictures" as you put it. It was only one picture and her colleague jokingly pulled up part of her top. It wasn't a very gentlemanly thing to do and it caused her a lot of embarrassment.

[Sereta]

Originally Posted by Zonk

So apparently this "interview" happend in June of 2008 when Mrs. Middleton spoke to a Daily Telegraph reporter.

Kate Middleton's 'vulnerable' mother speaks out for first time - Telegraph

While I wouldn't characterize this had a good thing to do, nor would I consider it to be a bad one. The way people were talking about her alleged offense (along with the chewing of nicotine gum), I thought she was giving specifics about Kate's relationship with William.

Again, it appears to be much ado about nothing. Simply put, some people don't care for the Middletons (which is their right).

No this interview happened in December 2008 (the date is at the top).
It's a general rule that you don't talk to the press when you have Royal links/aspirations. Period!

[iowabelle]

I don't think it's proper to diss your in-laws or discuss your husband's sexuality for business purposes. That shows some lack of discretion on Sophie's part IMO and is hardly better than telling this stuff to Barbara Walters.

[Amelia]

Originally Posted by cd255

That Arab sheikh was someone from the press posing as a client dressed in Arabic clothing (wolf dressed in sheep's wool as it were) in order to "trick" Sophie. It's hardly the same thing! All the things you mention were talked about in what Sohpie thought was a "private" conversation. And after reviewing the recorded tapes the royal family deemed the conversation "harmless". And the fact that the press had to go to that level just to get something on Sophie says a lot.

What happened to Sophie is exactly the same as what happened to Kate's uncle. The both thought they were having private conversations and it turned out that they were talking to journalists. The only difference is that they managed to trick Sophie herself, with Kate they only got her uncle. The fact they had to go to that level to get something on Kate says a lot too.

Sophie wasn't "posing for pictures" as you put it. It was only one picture and her colleague jokingly pulled up part of her top. It wasn't a very gentlemanly thing to do and it caused her a lot of embarrassment

There was/is a topless photograph of Sophie posing on a beach (where she isn't wearing a top for anyone to pull up). Personally I never saw it as a big deal, just a young woman having some fun at the beach. I'm sure she would rather it had never been seen but I doubt she knew at the time that she would one day be marrying into the Royal Family.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Wisteria

Well I have certainly worn a bikini, no problem with that, but I have always kept Victoria´s secret.
Strange world this, you can walk on a beach with a bikini but the same person walking along the beach in her undies is just not the same thing......I don´t find walking along a catwalk in underwear, for charity or not, is very princess like..... Well she wasn´t then, and she still isn´t (a princess that is). About Sophie, she is now part of the BRF family, she has two children and so is out of any discussion on future brides for heirs to thrones nowadays.

Let's remember that when Kate did the lingerie show she wasn't even William's girlfriend at that time.

I don't see a problem with that - if she did it now I would have concerns about her future as a royal bride but not doing it in her first year or so at uni.

[Zonk]

Excellent points Amelia!

Let's see was Sophie a member of the BRF when the "sheik" incident occured? So while it understandable that it was a sting operation, isn't that a prime example of a lack of discretion? Who the heck disses the in laws with a potential client? And feels the need to defend their husband sexuality?

And yet Carole Middleton is being scorned because of her "interview"....again I am not even sure she mentioned Prince William by name.

I would also hazard a guess that when Kate modeled the lingerie she didn't think that she would be dating Prince William 8 years later. Nor do I hold it against Sophie that someone she trusted felt the need to make a buckby selling something that she thought was a personal and private matter between them. Both ladies did things in their past.


Let's just address the elephant in the room shall we?

There appears to be a set of rules for Kate's family that doesn't exists for Sarah, Sophie's, Diana or Camilla's family.

[Sereta]

Originally Posted by iowabelle

I don't think it's proper to diss your in-laws or discuss your husband's sexuality for business purposes. That shows some lack of discretion on Sophie's part IMO and is hardly better than telling this stuff to Barbara Walters.

She did not diss her in-laws. The press blew her comments out of proportion. The palace confirmed this. And regarding her husband we don't know what that journalist asked her or commented but she was simply squashing a nasty rumour that was started. So what? If someone accused my husband of being gay I would certainly defend him too and I don't think that makes me "indiscreet". Having a private conversation with someone is hardly the same as giving an interview with a known journalist such as Barbara Walters.

Originally Posted by Amelia

What happened to Sophie is exactly the same as what happened to Kate's uncle. The both thought they were having private conversations and it turned out that they were talking to journalists. The only difference is that they managed to trick Sophie herself, with Kate they only got her uncle.

No, the difference is Uncle Gary said far worse (and more revealing) things than Sophie in his attempt to brag and name drop. And the main criticism of Uncle Gary was not that he was tricked but the fact the he's a drug dealer and has links to prostitution rings.
To try and put Sophie on the same level as Uncle Gary in order to justify him is beyond ridiculous!!

Originally Posted by Amelia

There was/is a topless photograph of Sophie posing on a beach (where she isn't wearing a top for anyone to pull up). Personally I never saw it as a big deal, just a young woman having some fun at the beach. I'm sure she would rather it had never been seen but I doubt she knew at the time that she would one day be marrying into the Royal Family.

I've never seen a photo of Sophie posing topless on a beach.

[Sereta]

Originally Posted by Zonk

And yet Carole Middleton is being scorned because of her "interview"....again I am not even sure she mentioned Prince William by name.

Carole Middleton knowingly gave an interview to the Daily Mail. She wasn't "tricked" into it. Big difference. I already told you in my original post that she didn't mention William. The content of the interview doesn't matter. Talking to the press is a no-no in royal circles.

[iowabelle]

Originally Posted by cd255

She did not diss her in-laws. The press blew her comments out of proportion. The palace confirmed this. And regarding her husband we don't know what that journalist asked her or commented but she was simply squashing a nasty rumour that was started. So what? If someone accused my husband of being gay I would certainly defend him too and I don't think that makes me "indiscreet". Having a private conversation with someone is hardly the same as giving an interview with a known journalist such as Barbara Walters..

I think anyone can say "I'd rather not discuss that." And how would Edward's sexuality be relevant to Sophie's business dealings? I think Sophie was using her inside knowledge of the intimate business of the Royal Family to land this client, and that was indiscreet. And it was indiscreet of her to make comments without knowing with whom she was speaking. Too bad she got caught on this occasion.

Sophie, having married into The Firm, ought to have known better. What Uncle Gary is aware of is questionable, and I don't think it's fair to judge Kate by her loose screw relatives.

[Zonk]

Originally Posted by cd255

Carole Middleton knowingly gave an interview to the Daily Mail. She wasn't "tricked" into it. Big difference. I already told you in my original post that she didn't mention William. The content of the interview doesn't matter. Talking to the press is a no-no in royal circles.

Can you provide the source of this interview. When I google Mrs. Middleton in the Daily Mail, this is all I get.

RICHARD KAY: Eugenie's terrorism near miss | Mail Online

The earlier link that I provided is when she spoke to the press and it was the Daily Telegraph.

Kate Middleton's 'vulnerable' mother speaks out for first time - Telegraph

Unless I am missing something and they are owned by the same company? I fail to see how she broke some unknown rule but I everyone is entitled to their opinion. Again, I mentioned the lack of particulars about Prince William to note how generic and non threatening (at least to me) her words appear to be but I guess some are missing that fact.

Originally Posted by iowabelle

I think anyone can say "I'd rather not discuss that." And how would Edward's sexuality be relevant to Sophie's business dealings? I think Sophie was using her inside knowledge of the intimate business of the Royal Family to land this client, and that was indiscreet. And it was indiscreet of her to make comments without knowing with whom she was speaking. Too bad she got caught on this occasion.

Sophie, having married into The Firm, ought to have known better. What Uncle Gary is aware of is questionable, and I don't think it's fair to judge Kate by her loose screw relatives.

Honestly we are comparing apples and oranges.

Carole Middleton in her "interview" spoke about the daily intrustion of the press in the life of her family.

Sophie spoke about her in laws (whether or not it was considered harmless or not), she is a member of the Royal Family and should have been discrete. I think that is the key point.

Its not okay for Carole to speak about the press writing stories (both true and untrue) about her family and her lack of privacy. But its okay for Sophie (a member of the BRF) to speak to a potential client about her royal in laws. That's ridiculous.

[iowabelle]

My point is, when someone (anyone!) asks you a question, you don't have to give an answer. Hasn't anybody heard of "No comment"? I used to work in a profession where reporters would give my colleagues a hard time, and I don't think we owed an explanation to the press. In fact it is undignified IMO to keep having to justify your actions to people who don't understand and who don't care to learn to understand.

And if Kate's relatives aren't smart enough to say "No comment", that's not Kate's fault.

[Warren]

Let's see what Carole Middleton actually says in the Telegraph link.

For the record, here are all of the quotes...

"You see, I feel very vulnerable about everything, I'm not a celebrity and don't want to be one. Celebrities have minders and PR people. I don't want a PR person and wouldn't want to have to pay to employ one. I haven't asked for all this."

"I'm concerned about my business; that's my focus, I don't want the attention to detract from that. I'm also worried for my family: I have three children – not just Catherine."

"James is very good with it all, he writes articles and has business projects which he wants to talk about, but then it's difficult when everything else is going on around him and people don't just want to know about his projects."

. . . . . . . . . .

There you have it.
Hardly earth-shattering, or indiscreet, or particularly revealing for that matter.
.

[Amelia]

Originally Posted by cd255

No, the difference is Uncle Gary said far worse (and more revealing) things than Sophie in his attempt to brag and name drop. And the main criticism of Uncle Gary was not that he was tricked but the fact the he's a drug dealer and has links to prostitution rings.
To try and put Sophie on the same level as Uncle Gary in order to justify him is beyond ridiculous!!

What happened to Sophie and what happened to Gary is exactly the same thing - both were caught saying and doing things that they shoud'nt have been. To try and say otherwise is beyond ridiculous. As for who was worse I guess it is a matter of opinion, to me Gary used his connections to try and impress, Sophie used her's to try and make money. Both were stupid and should have know better.

And since when is it a fact that he is a drug dealer and has links to prostitution rings. They are some serious labels to throw around without some major evidence to back them up.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by cd255

She did not diss her in-laws. The press blew her comments out of proportion. The palace confirmed this.

Do you by any chance have the proverbial, because as I recall, she did make comments about her husbands family.

Having a private conversation with someone is hardly the same as giving an interview with a known journalist such as Barbara Walters.

If the conversation had been with a friend, I would agree with you, however it was not. It was with someone she was hoping to get business from, she was blatantly selling her husbands royal status to secure a contract - far, far worse than anything Carole Middleton has allegedly done![/quote]I've never seen a photo of Sophie posing topless on a beach.[/QUOTE]Oh, they do exist and I am sure if you use google, even now you will find them.

[Wisteria]

Goodness. I have just Googled. Sophie and Uncle Gary do have something in common, they both have appeared topless in tabloids....

[Opal]

This incident with the journalist happened so long ago (8 years). Since then Countess Sophie has proven herself to be a discreet and classy lady as well as her family. She appears to be a wonderful addition to the Royal Family and since this is not The Sophie Thread perhaps we are getting off-topic.

[Wisteria]

Originally Posted by rchat

This incident with the journalist happened so long ago (8 years). Since then Countess Sophie has proven herself to be a discreet and classy lady as well as her family. She appears to be a wonderful addition to the Royal Family and since this is not The Sophie Thread perhaps we are getting off-topic.

I totally agree, she is a lovely young lady, beautiful and has two lovely children and is doing her part as a royal. She is one of, if not my favourite royal.
It is off topic, but as the mods seemed to be the first to mention Sophie on this thread, you will see this if you care to read back, so it is not surprising that people have continued to drag her into it.