Monday, 09 June 2014 14:59

Bummed-Out Kate Middleton Takes Bow at Ascot?

Written by
Rate this item
(0 votes)

kate-flowersKate Middleton, Duchess of Cambridge, is definitely in exile.

Is her Prozac kicking in?

I’m just kidding!  


About the Prozac. I have no idea whether Kate Middleton is taking Prozac or any behavior-modifying medication. As the National Enquirer is fond of saying, “I am not a physician and I have not treated Kate Middleton.” But the late Princess Diana acknowledged having taken Prozac on several occasions to control, or at least contain, what was then thought to be her wild mood swings and crying jags.

Maybe Prozac is indicated to resolve aggressive tushy flashing!
But I’m not kidding about Kate being in exile. That part seems true. Just look at what used to be called the “Court Circular” that Buckingham Palace now posts on Facebook.   

Is Kate Middleton going to make an appearance at the exclusive Ascot horse racing week?  

Notes Facebook: “The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are not confirmed to attend but the Queen and other members of the royal family will be in attendance.”

Are Prince William and Kate Middleton boycotting Ascot?

In prior years, Kate’s parents, Carole and Michael Middleton, startled Londoners by making their entry in a royal carriage with other visiting VIPs, and then sitting in the super VIP Royal Enclosure area– a sure sign that the meddling Mids were cementing their new social elevation vis-a-vis their eldest daughter’s sexual relationship oops!  Pardon me! I meant “marriage!” to Prince William. 

But Kate Middleton herself seemed to avoid attending Ascot once she’d married into the Royal Family.

Is this because Kate would have to publicly curtsey to the Princesses of the Royal Blood?

Ascot week is, after all, extremely popular with all the Royals, including Prince Andrew’s daughters, Beatrice and Eugenie, as well as Princess Anne the Princess Royal, all of whom are “Princesses of the Royal Blood” and persons to whom Kate Middleton, even as the Duchess of Cambridge, would have to curtsy to and walk behind, by the newly-revised and reissued Order of Precedence (as in, who comes first in the house of Windsor being the Queen, obviously, and then who comes next and after that and so on). This Order was updated shortly after Kate married William so that these matters would be clear.

Why were things “unclear?”

Because Kate, for whatever reason, is often seen curtsying to the Queen and Prince Philip (with an annoying kind of mini-bobbing motion), but never has been seen publicly curtsying to Princess Beatrice and Eugenie. In the near past, Kate’s actually been seen aggressively jumping the line at events where the Princesses of the Royal Blood are lining up. Like at Princess Anne’s daughter Zara Phillips’s wedding in Scotland. Such jostling by Kate while getting in and out of the church had not been seen in quite some time, and kept the lip readers watching such events plenty busy. Read more: and

If Kate goes to Ascot without Prince William and sits in the Royal Enclosure (which is the only place she really can sit), she’ll have to curtsy to almost everyone else there in the royal inner circle because she wasn’t born into royalty, but takes all her titles and status from her husband. Last year, Kate could use the excuse that she missed Ascot and all that having to curtsy to all her in-laws except Sophie, Countess of Wessex (Prince Edward’s commoner wife) because she was pregnant with Prince George, although famously, Princess Diana attended Ascot from the time of her engagement, through her pregnancies, and right up until her separation from Prince Charles. Horsey Camilla clearly adores Ascot, and even though Camilla is also a commoner, Camilla is married to the heir presumptive to the throne, whereas Kate’s husband is merely the heir of the heir presumptive, so Kate must then curtsy to Camilla regardless of whether William is with her or not. Camilla will most certainly be present at Ascot. So much do Prince Charles and Camilla adore Ascot that they used their favorite photo of themselves enjoying Ascot for their 2013 Christmas card

But perhaps the reason Kate Middleton may or may not attend this year’s Ascot races is because of the new dress code.


Hot on the path of Kate’s most recent display of her naked, pantiless backside that was photographed in Australia on her and William’s official royal tour and then tweeted and twittered across the virtual universe are the new rules for ladies who wish to attend Ascot and to sit in the Royal Enclosure. The new rules wipe out two of Kate’s royal wardrobe mainstays: miniskirts and fascinators, those goofy, so-last-year doohickey thingies that lie atop Kate’s head like a dried cow patty with a dead bird sticking out of it.

I’m not kidding!  Kate’s beloved fascinators are now outlawed at Ascot!

Here is what the new rules also say: No miniskirts or minidresses so beloved by Kate!  “Dresses and skirts should be of modest length defined as falling just above the knee or longer.”  Fascinators are also outlawed at Ascot: “Fascinators are no longer permitted in the Royal Enclosure; neither are headpieces which do not have a base covering a sufficient area of the head (4 inches / 10cm).”  Instead, ladies “should” wear a proper hat.  

And, in the hope that Kate Middleton will completely cover her behind, the new Ascot rules suggest: “Trouser suits are welcome. They should be of full length and of matching material and colour.”

Will Kate concoct a fashion first and appear at Ascot in a “trouser suit?”

If she’d worn a “trouser suit” in Australia, or just showed up in a dress the designated Ascot length, Kate could likely have avoided flashing photographers with her naked booty.  It is likely that, after tolerating Kate’s draping of her naked body across an outdoor terrace and other booty-flashing episodes in public while on the Queen’s business, the Palace decided to take some executive action.


Immediately following the taking of these photographs and presenting them for international auction, Kate went MIA. A gala for a cancer hospital funded by American iconic designer Ralph Lauren was hosted by Prince William alone, and William also traveled solo to the Tennessee wedding of friends of the couple.

Where was Kate?

In exile.

Bet on it.

The Royal Family had to go on the offensive with Kate and her hiney-shaking ways, or risk the monarchy becoming a ridiculous institution based on celebrity, based on the idea that even bad publicity is better than no publicity.

Kate’s exile won’t be permanent, of course. But it will likely last for a good long while, to emphasize the Royal Family’s significant displeasure about how Kate continuously fails to wear visible underwear and shows off her naked hindquarters every time the wind blows.

In Scotland, Kate wore a heavy-looking coat over a dress, and neither was seen to fly up over her head.  Kate appeared to be in a fairly subdued mood. She still does not understand that as a royal person, she is not really supposed to pose for photos with her “fans,” or sign autographs (that could be subject to sale), or campaign in a popularity contest. But the best thing that came out of Kate’s visit to Scotland is that all her clothing stayed on, she didn’t flash anyone with her naked body parts, and she had the dazed “deer in the headlights” look of someone who’d been screamed at and threatened by the Queen.

Or by someone close to the Queen, which could be worse.

The Royals have to put some brakes on Kate, and William’s sputtering about his and Kate’s “rights to privacy” should be quickly rejected out of hand by courtiers who care about the Crown.

If people now know (as they surely do) that Kate regularly wears no underwear, well, what’s to stop anyone– the lecherous old men, the jaunty young men, teasers, people hoping for instant internet fame, anyone, male or female– from just giving a slight yank of Kate’s skirt whenever she bends over them on one of her regular walkabouts?


What’s to stop photographers from angling their cameras, a la Kim Kardashian, to obtain memorable shots of what Kate’s NOT wearing that day?


I mean, you’d think that Kate’s personal protection officers might throw their bodies in front of ordinary citizens doing goofy and immature things, but is that really their job? Their job is to seek out threats of genuine dire physical harm, not to block every goofy and immature act of the general public out there while Willy and Waity walkabout to meet their “fans.”  But then, blame these public close encounters on the Cambridges themselves because it’s pretty goofy and immature not to be wearing any panties while walking about in public, wearing floaty-skirted baby-doll dresses, flashing your naked body parts to unsuspecting people in public while officially representing the Crown.

Goofy and immature.

And the Cambridges are not little sixteen-year-olds who have had greatness unexpectedly thrust upon them. They aren’t orphaned twelve year-olds who have unexpectedly and artlessly pulled the sword out of the stone and have suddenly become king or queen consort.

Kate and her husband, Prince William, are heading into middle age. They are, frankly, old. Old, but without maturity, without purpose, without poise.

Old, and without any underwear.

But maybe things have changed since Kate last showed her naked bottom to the world on the Royal Tour of Australia last month.

Maybe the royal riot act has been read to the Cambridges.

Can trouser suits, longer skirts and a proper hat be far behind?



Or maybe the Prozac is finally kicking in.

I’m just kidding!

Bayoubuzz Staff

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Dead Pelican

Optimized-DeadPelican2 1 1