Carole & Michael Middleton are moving into an apartment at Kensington Palace?

A week ago, we discussed how Carole Middleton was being extremely hands-on with her first grandchild, Prince George. After Kate and William moved into the Middletons’ home in Bucklebury for the first weeks of George’s life, William then had to go back to work in Wales and after a few weeks, Kate joined him. Kate brought along her mother and the baby. While Carole didn’t stay longer than a weekend, many of you have been wondering aloud if the Queen and Prince Charles are watching this situation closely. While I think most people think it’s nice that Kate is so close to her family and William is close to them as well, it does feel at times like William is actively trying to snub his father and grandmother.

When we talked about it last week, I actually wrote these words: “It’s not a palace. Because if Carole was trying to ‘move in’ with William and Kate in Kensington Palace, then the Queen would say something. You know? Because that would be “too much” for the Queen.” I said that half-way in jest, because I thought it would be absurd to think that Carole Middleton would try to move into Kensington Palace. Guess what? Carole Middleton is trying to move into Kensington Palace now:

She has already taken the unprecedented decision to use her mother rather than a nanny to help look after Prince George for the first few precious weeks of his life. Now The Mail on Sunday can reveal that the Duchess of Cambridge – with her husband’s approval – is setting aside a ‘granny flat’ at the couple’s 21-room Kensington Palace apartment so that Carole Middleton can stay and be on hand.

The lavish apartment is currently undergoing a £1 million renovation and it is understood that a suite of rooms within it is being created with Carole and her husband Michael in mind. Believed to comprise two bedrooms, a bathroom, a sitting room and a dining area, the suite will allow Kate’s parents to stay at a moment’s notice.

The move suggests that Carole’s influence on the upbringing of the young Prince will continue for some time to come. The Middletons already own a £1.2 million apartment less than two miles away from Kensington Palace in addition to their £4.5 million pile in Bucklebury, Berkshire. But the rooms at the Palace are set to give them additional privacy and security when they wish to visit their first grandson.

‘Separate living space is being made available for Carole and Michael Middleton within Kensington Palace for when they come to stay,’ said a source familiar with the new layout of the Palace apartment. ‘The guest area will allow Carole and Michael to be near Kate whenever possible. William is really pleased they will be close by – he really is behind the idea.’

The Duke and Duchess’s apparent willingness to allow Carole to stay at their home is the latest in a series of ground-breaking moves by the couple, who appear to be determined not let Royal tradition dictate how they raise their family. After George’s birth at the Lindo Wing of St Mary’s in Paddington last month, the Middletons were the first to visit the hospital, arriving ahead of Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall.

William also insisted on driving his wife and newborn son home from the hospital himself. Days later, Kate moved back to the Middleton family home in Bucklebury, where she received only a few relatives and friends.

Last week, the first official pictures of Prince George were released to the media – they were taken by Michael Middleton rather than a Royal photographer. Kate and George are scheduled to leave Bucklebury next month when the Palace refurbishment is complete. The Duchess and her mother have taken a keen interest in the decoration of the apartment, overseeing every detail of the interior design. The 21 rooms are arranged over four floors.

‘Kate has obviously been really engaged in the whole thing and she has good taste,’ said the source. ‘The apartment is absolutely beautiful. It is mainly decorated in neutral tones but with lovely textures and furnishings.’

The apartment was previously occupied by Princess Margaret until her death in 2002. The apartment’s extensive overhaul has included the fitting of new wiring, the removal of asbestos and the replacement of a large section of roof. The £1 million bill is being met by taxpayers, while the expensive interior redecoration has been paid for privately.

Prince William is due to complete his posting at RAF Valley in Anglesey in mid-September, although he has not announced the exact date he will leave. Sources say that the owners of the cottage William and Kate occupied during their time in North Wales are keen to move back in.

[From The Mail]

My harsh side says that this was always the end-game. It’s not enough that Kate was made a duchess (or a princess, by William’s own wording) and that Kate gave birth to the future king. Now Kate’s family must be treated as royalty too, right? Here’s what I don’t understand: is the intention for the “granny flat” just some space set aside, like the palace-version of a guest room? I think Kate could get away with it if she was just calling it the “guest suite” for whoever wanted to visit. But I think there will be problems if this space is considered specifically FOR Carole and Michael Middleton.

Also – I didn’t know the interior furnishings were being “privately financed”. Is Will paying for it out of his trust fund? Doubtful. I bet either Charles or the Middletons are paying for the decorations. Or maybe it’s Dodgy Uncle Gary, who hopes that Kate will set aside a Casa de Bang Bang Suite of rooms at the palace for him too.

Photos courtesy of Michael Middleton’s portraits, Fame/Flynet.

 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

199 Responses to “Carole & Michael Middleton are moving into an apartment at Kensington Palace?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. PHD Gossip says:

    Sheesh! What about Pippa? Does she get an apartment in Kensington Palace too?

  2. LAK says:

    I smell a trial balloon. However, Uncle Gary jesting about a Goldsmith wing in BP wasn’t jesting afterall?

  3. erni says:

    i really think William loves his in-laws. It seems the Middletons give him a sense of warm and close-knit family.

    • daisieb says:

      Very early in his relationship with Kate, I believe William found in the Middleton family everything that was missing from his life. Before we know it Charles will be king and his already very formal way of life will be even more so. William wants his children to experience the close relaxed atmosphere of a loving extended family. It provides the perfect balance against those who call the shots for “the palace” when it concerns Kate. From articles that pop up from time to time there is often mentioned a beloved nanny who has cared for a royal child and once the child is shipped off to school at adolescence the nanny is let go. That woman is the single most important person in the child’s life. Obviously William has made his choice. This is why he married Kate and it is most likely why she would agree to marry him.

      • RocketMerry says:

        Yeah, William desperately wanted closeness and warmth. Kate, well-instructed by Carole, played the part nicely. I don’t really get the feeling that the Middletons are such a sweet, innocent, happy family: they clearly had their sights on getting ahead socially and after good planning and years of waity-ing they succeeded.

        Now, while I don’t condemn social climbing nor think this is a new practice in royal history, I do think William seems more and more like an immature man, easily fooled by a pretty woman and lots of sweet words, and I’m kinda hoping that the palace will do something about Carole’s end game: effectively becoming more and more of an influence in powerful people’s lives.

        Or, you know, just let Harry become king. At this point he seems way more mature and role-conscious than his brother, crazy as it sounds! And unlikely rulers seem to do best in England. So.

      • Merritt says:

        @RocketMerry

        Prince Harry cannot leapfrog over Prince George. Even if William were to manage to remove himself from the line of succession. Charles is only in his 60′s, by the time he is likely to pass away George will be grown.

      • LAK says:

        Merrit- it depends what sort of document William signs and whether he is willing to subject George and any other descendants to possibility of Kingship.

        The abdication instrument signed by DOW includes descendants.

        If William removed himself from the line, he could be asked whether he would be willing to include his descendants in the removal.

        Given his reluctance for the role, I think he would include them, but Carole would never let him remove George if she couldn’t persuade him to stay.

      • Merritt says:

        @LAK

        But in the case of DOW, he did not have descendants already. That is a very different situation. If William were to remove himself, which he likely won’t, if he was considering that, he would never have married and had a kid.

        My understanding is that DOW was pretty despised over everything at that point anyway. Wallis never even received the HRH, he lobbied his brother so hard for.

      • LAK says:

        Merrit – The decision to include his descendants was as mean spirited as the refusal to give Wallis the HRH.

        Throughout history, they’ve been claimants to the thrown whose line should have been excluded forever based upon all sorts of things eg the tudors. By including his descendants, let alone Wallis, they were removing possibility of anyone down the years/decades/centuries (if we still have them) from ever claiming the throne based upon their descent from DoW.

        Since we’ve had the 2 types of exclusions ie where descendants are excluded/included, I think that gives William a precedent to follow.

      • Merritt says:

        @LAK

        I don’t see excluding DOW’s potential descendants as mean spirited. He didn’t actually have any, or none that were legitimate if there are illegitimate one I haven’t heard of.

        It would be very bizarre for George VI to reign and then have the throne pass to a potential child of DOW, thus passing his own daughter over. I think it was done less for meanness are more for clarity.

        Considering how both DOW and Wallis treated George VI, I don’t think she deserved the HRH. And given their later tone deaf actions of meeting Hitler etc, they were their own worst enemy.

        As for the Tudors, I don’t see how that is relevant to the current royal family. The Tudors had such a difficult situation in part because Henry VIII kept changing whether or not his daughters would be eligible for the throne, and his issues with his own sisters.

      • SISI says:

        @RocketMerry, LAK
        Dream on!! Harry’s chances of becoming king are getting slimmer & slimmer by the day as William & Catherine are planning to have more children, thus consolidating/establishing the Cambridge’s (Windsor-Middleton) line.
        Fatherhood has embolden William – He seems dead serious about being king. No way he will deny George his birth-right, IMHO.
        As already mentioned, William would NOT have married and have an heir if all he wanted was to step-aside. Crazy!
        If anyone should step aside is Charles …after all he & Camilla did to Diana, whose tragic (& convenient) death continues to be questioned.

      • LAK says:

        Merrit: There was a very complicated dance as to why Wallis shouldn’t get HRH which was primarily fuelled by QM and Queen Mary.

        We could argue DoW’s subsequent reputation but you have to remember that there was a huge PR machine in place to make the new King look better than the ex-King. Especially a popular ex-King even if DoW was supremely unfit to govern.

        I always take the Nazi sympathising with a caution simply because the entire establishment was for Hitler. They all thought he was doing the right thing and when he started to show his true colours, they were all for appeasing him, even the new King, George VI.

        Once the full horrors of Hitler were laid bare, the entire establishment rushed to deny and whitewash their reputation. DoW/Wallis were denied this opportunity and so their reputation remains as has been painted.

        My point about the tudors is to illustrate how a descendant can have a claim to the throne. To wit;

        1. The tudors’ main claim to the throne was via Margaret Beaufort.

        2. Margaret was a great granddaughter of John of Gaunt.

        3. John of Gaunt was a 3rd son of Edward III.

        4. Her grandfather was illegitimate because his mother was John’s mistress, Kathryn Swynford, though he later married her.

        5. All the illegitimate sons were later legitimised BUT they were barred from barred from ever succeeding to the throne.

        6. Henry Tudor (Henry 7) was Margaret Beaufort’s only child.

        That’s how distant in blood and generations their claim right to the throne was.

        DoW, being the eldest son of a monarch had a much stronger claim. He would have passed along that superior claim to all his descendants. We see how the children of current royals, married to catholics, still claim their right to the throne even though their parents have been removed.

        DoW was a fairly young man when he married. She may have been old, but older women giving birth isn’t a new phenomenon. If she’d had a child, that child would have a superior claim to the throne than our own dear Queen and George VI.

        Further, few thought the marriage would last, given it was her 3rd marriage. There was always the chance that he could remarry and have children to the same effect as above.

        Adding a caveat that removed any descendants removed that possibility. You could say, they were forward thinking because when he signed that document, he hadn’t married Wallis yet.

      • Merritt says:

        @LAK

        Henry Tudor also made it known that he was claiming the throne by conquest. So while he had a distant right to it, he also defeated Richard III in battle.

        DOW’s fictional children being able to claim the throne would have been a convoluted mess. I have serious doubts that the monarchy would have survived it. Basically DOW would have had a child, and then what that child could just take the throne from George VI? Or have been the heir when George VI died. I don’t think there was much of a chance of DOW’s fictional children inheriting the throne anyway, I think it was written into documentation to give the public assurances that everything was steady.

        By abdicating without a living and legitimate heir, DOW knew exactly what he was giving up for any potential future children. DOW had already ascended to the throne, which also makes it a different situation. This wasn’t a case of attempting to leave the line, since he was already at the top.

        I don’t think that could be realistically compared to William. William is unlikely to relinquish his place. And even if he did, he has an heir making his situation competently different.

      • LAK says:

        Merrit: Henry Tudor, despite claiming the throne by right of conquest had many rebellions on his hands due to claimants of the plantagenet line.

        There wasn’t a neat acceptance of his reign simply because he had won the battle and Richard III dead.

        This was a recurring problem for all the Tudors, from Henry Tudor through to Elizabeth I.

        They all took pains to emphasise their tenous claim by a combination of marrying a plantagenet, imprisoning and or killing various Plantagenet descendants (from Edward Plantagenet, son of George, Richard III’s brother, thorough to Edward Courtnay(sp?) a great grandson of Edward VI) and employing propaganda to both bolster their claim and to tarnish the plantagenets.

        Descendants claiming the throne is always messy. Look at Richard, Duke of York’s own claim to the throne from Henry VI. Yes, they had various disagreements, but he used his superior claim to assert his right in usurping Henry VI.

        With regards DoW’s imaginary descendants, you are looking at it from hindsight, knowing the outcome. THEY didn’t know the outcome then. Every single person who has been removed from the line of succession hasn’t been required to also do the same for their descendants including someone like Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha who sided with Germany and later joined the Nazi party. This is still the same today when various members have married Catholics. They haven’t been asked to sign a document that includes their future descendants, which they sign ahead of any marriage and thus any imaginary children they may have.

        In the days of conquests, the descendants were simply put to death, but again, their rights were never rescinded, and their descendants would pop up to claim their rights to the throne, just as Henry Tudor did.

        DoW’s descendants being included was unprecedented just as the HRH being denied Wallis.

        The reason I say William has options is due to British using historical precedents as guidelines.

        The precedent of removing descendents was allowed with DoW, so it exists. Just as the precedent of excluding descendants also exists. So should William decide to step aside, he has the option of including/excluding his descendants.

        Also, don’t forget that there now exists a loop hole of George being a great-grandchild. He isn’t under the legal guardianship of the monarch as all children/grandchildren should be, so William can speak for him and remove him as his own descendant without causing major legal problems.

      • Merritt says:

        @LAK

        But again the Tudors are not relevant here. Thrones are no longer claimed by conquest or these types of means, it doesn’t matter in present day.

        My understanding is those who currently have been removed from the line of succession but have been allowed to have their descendants in the line, are also so far down that they are unlikely to ever get to the throne. Prince Micheal of Kent for example, he is not in the line due to his marriage to a Roman Catholic. His children are in the line but are very far down.

        What you are talking about with DOW is fictional children being able to then take a claim over Elizabeth I. This is why they clarified it all in documentation. Because would would have created a bizarre succession situation.

        Who knows if William would speak for Prince George if he were to make that choice.

        The reality is that it is not going to happen. He never would have married and started a family if he was planning that.

      • LAK says:

        Merrit: i think we are going around in circles because you don’t understand the point i am trying to make.

        I should make it very clear that i agree, William will never voluntarily give up his place in the line of succession irrespective of George’s appearance. He is very Princess Margaret in that regard.

        With regards my other points;

        The current Monarchy uses historical precedents as guidelines for their current actions with very few excepions. And once a precedent is set, it is very rarely changed.

        I can think of only one occasion where there wasn’t a precedent and the Royal Family floundered badly. That was their handling of Diana’s funeral week.

        We have 2 precedents as far as future descendants are concerned which can be used if someone chooses to step out of the line. George may be living, but he counts as a descendant. Further, due to the loop hole, he isn’t under the guardianship of the monarch as all children/grandchildren are. This means that until he comes of age, William is his guardian and can make decisions for him. Would it be messy to remove George? of course it would. It is always a mess when a descendant claims. That doesn’t change, however it is done, abdication or conquest.

        BTW, William having George is irrelevant as far as his own position is concerned. Not having children wouldn’t have destabalised his position. There are many examples of crown passing sideways to brothers or cousins.

        All the different examples i have given were to illustrate:

        1. that future descendants can claim the throne. The Tudors got to their position by right of conquest, but in order for Henry Tudor to mount his conquest, he had to rally supporters by asserting his very distant claim to the throne.

        2. Removing someone from the line didn’t automatically remove their descendants. This point has been demonstrated repeatedly over entire Royal history including presently. Exception DoW.

        2b. Never say never about the lower ranked people in the line to the succession because they can suddenly become the rulers, again as illustrated repeatedly throughout history.

        3. And it seems no matter what one does as in the case of Charles Edward, you can be removed, but not your descendants. Exception DoW.

        Finally, I am aware that we don’t claim by conquest anymore, but there are legal courts. Victoria herself tried to claim her German titles and territories via legal means so any new claimants would have to go the same route.

    • Stef Leppard says:

      @rocketmerry

      “easily fooled by a pretty woman and lots of sweet words”

      I’m not sure I agree with you. He was with her for nearly a decade before they got married. I think he knows who she is.

      Kate wants her family to be involved in her and George’s lives, and she is the wife, so she really controls their personal life. Even in this case where her husband is a prince, she’s still the wife and therefore the boss 😉

      • Ktx says:

        Agreed, Stef Leppard. William has had plenty of time to see all of their “true colors.” If he was fooled at first by sweet words or obsequious behavior, I doubt that is still the case. Whatever else the Middletons are, I do think they are a close family, and I think that William enjoys that closeness.

      • bluhare says:

        The Queen is the boss, actually. And when she’s had enough, we’ll know.

      • LAK says:

        Bluhare – the public’s reaction when HM finally reacts is always amazing to me. She let’s a lot slide, and people grumble while it’s happening, but when she reacts, everyone says she’s being mean when the situation should have been nipped in the bud a long time ago.

      • bluhare says:

        LAK, totally agree re HM. She comes across as passive aggressive, rather than effective by acting this way.

        I understand she doesn’t want to alienate William any more than he appears to be now, but she’ll get more grief than she planned on if she lets it get too far.

        The RF is starting to look ineffectual. Not a good trait.

    • tobritt says:

      Middleton’s are opportunistic users. This family will be the end of the Monarchy by the time they are finished taking the royalty out of royal life. What’s the point? No wonder all the tv specials and interview with. PW tanked in the ratings. PW just looks like a tool for the Middleton’s.

    • tobritt says:

      The Middleton’s are just user’, people can make all the excuses for them they like. William is weak. Kate and William need Carole in the marriage, because she’s always orchestrated this couple from beginning.

  4. Emma says:

    Carole would look so much lovelier if she canned the black around the eyes. It is just making her small eyes look smaller. Ah well. people develop habits which are hard to break… she probably feels naked without it!

  5. lamamu says:

    What is the deal with the Middleton women and black eyeliner? Going by the mother, I guess it’s a genetic condition.

  6. QQ says:

    Well played Wisteria Sister, Well played as fuck

    • lady mary. says:

      well said qq,well said !

    • bettyrose says:

      LMAO literally. Thanks for that.

      • QQ says:

        Im saying ya’ll we gotta give it up, For all her mousy looking, geisha styles silence vs her Parched for attention, always pap mugging sister, who really took her game to the next level? QUEEN OF ENGLAND NEXT LEVEL AT THAT!

      • ReebKev says:

        It always looks that way, but having observed the Royal family for 35yrs, I’ll say anyone who believes they are getting over on or getting the best of the Royal Family are sadly mistaken in the end. No one beats this family at their own game in the end. No one. Pr.Charles is still standing, The Queen is still standing on the Throne and those who thought they had won, have come and gone. No one beats this family and the biggest mistake the Middleton’s may make is moving to their turf, Big mistake.IMO The Royals and Courtier’s are just laying in wait, with napkins folded. There is a reason Kate hasn’t moved under a royal roof alone yet, methinks she did not like her first few experiences within the Palace as a royal bride on her own. She went running back home to mummy and now she wants mummy in-house to buffer and coddle her.
        No one finds it odd that Kate has yet to spend even a month under a royal roof which contains the royal family? She won’t last in this Royal game, if she can’t live amongst them and she hasn’t yet, in almost three years she hasn’t really lived amongst the Royal family. The real games are about to begin. The Queen and Prince Charles are masters at playing the long game.

      • Suze says:

        Charles can come off as a blithering fool, and he has made lots of errors throughout the years, but he is the consummate long game player. Diana beat him at tactics for years, but he had the long term strategy.

        Right now, I think the royal family is laying low vis a vis The Middleton Issue. They want Kate to be happy, and if having her family around is the key to that, so be it.

        And for the record, I personally don’t see the problem with having a guest suite in the KP apartment and letting various relatives (probaby mostly Middletons) stay there for short periods.

        Moving in is another matter but that hasn’t happened yet.

  7. Talie says:

    So? William clearly likes his in-laws.

    • aemish says:

      I second that emotion.. what’s the big deal?

    • janie says:

      I think William has a sense of family with his in-laws. These two dated for a long time, they are very close. Contrary to what anyone thinks, it’s not unusual to have a great relationship with the in-laws. Considering his side of the family, thank goodness he has the Middletons.

    • emmie_a says:

      It’s great he likes them but my question is why do Will and Kate need them around so much??? Shouldn’t their focus be on building their own foundation for their future family? It almost seems that Will’s true love is the Middleton family, not necessarily Kate. And it seems that Kate needs her mommy because Will isn’t there for her, physically or mentally.

      And a new marriage and a new baby, not to mention royal life (although we all see how much they invest in royal life), is enough — why get the in-laws so heavily involved? I think it will only add up to future troubles for them.

    • Seattlemomma says:

      Amen. I have no idea what all the side-eyeing is about. So they built a guest quarter with the in-laws in mind. They clearly love them and want them around. Should we all be so lucky. Carry on, royals. Nothing to see here but a close-knit family. *rolls eyes at all the nasty people out there looking for scandal*

  8. aims says:

    Is her family really that loaded?

  9. HappyMom says:

    It sounds like a guest suite in their house. That is completely different than moving in. We had one in our old house so that when my MIL came for extended visits she had her own space.

    • julies29 says:

      I agree. I know lots of people with MIL suites. And oddly, none of them are royalty. ;-) I don’t think it is so strange.

    • SISI says:

      — I agree, that’s all it is – a guest suit in their apartment (her parents have their own home where William, Catherine & baby have been staying).
      Can you imagine William & Catherine residing in a 21-room palace apartment and not have readily available accommodation for any guests, should they be invited (or needing) to stay??
      Any family, no matter the size of their home, would have arrangements in place for relatives & friends coming to visit and possibly stay, especially the grandparents.

  10. Susei says:

    William really loves his new mummy and daddy. I bet Carole sings a lullaby to him every night.

  11. els says:

    This is sad.
    William’s love for Kate and her family smells like desperation of a traumatized lonely little boy that takes what he can get because he doesn’t know any better.
    The Queen and his dad have tough times ahead since the Middletons are here to stay.
    The duchess will keep smiling and keep manipulating her way into royalty.

  12. hadleyb says:

    Love the dress the mother is wearing.

    Who cares if they have a set of “rooms” in the palace apartments? I know several families with a room in their daughters/sons house for when they come visit.

    I am sure if people had huge ass houses or palaces many in laws/ parents or other relatives would have a set of rooms for visiting or staying etc.

  13. Ellen says:

    If I had a 21-room apartment, I’d have a guest suite for my parents, too. We have had other guests over the years, but even our guestroom/spare room gets called “the grandma room” by our kids.

    I think part of what makes this weird is that Diana and Sarah’s mothers were famously estranged/distant from their daughters, and no one really cares about Sophie’s family life. (I mean, who knew that she had TWO nannies, right?) It’s been a long time since in-laws have mattered much in the royal family.

    The other part is that everyone seems obscurely and irrationally pissed off at Kate for being “middle-class” and loving her “low-class” family. Would everyone be happier if she kept it a secret that her parents were still a huge part of her life?

    • TheyPromisedMeBeer says:

      Oh, I don’t think people would mind at all if the Middletons were middle-class, actually. But they aren’t. They’re no-class.

    • LAK says:

      Sophie’s family is welcomed to all royal events. Since her father was widowered,he is invited to Sandringham for Christmas though it’s never publicly commented upon. Which is actually funny since he is always in the pics then and at various royal events. Perhaps people assume he is a retainer. He is so low key that he makes Michael Middleton seem like a show-off,

      I don’t think anyone would be reminded of the class divide and prejudice if the Middletons themselves didn’t behave in a way that showed that class matters to THEM.

      You have all the families of Autumn, Sophie, Mike who are very welcome at the royal table, by royals and public.

      • Green Girl says:

        I think the difference is that Will is second in line to the throne. The public in general doesn’t care as much about those who are way down the line of succession, and they really don’t care about the in-laws showing up to various events. Since Kate is married to #2 and gave birth to #3, the actions of her and her family take on more prominence.

        And on another note, I really don’t see a problem with the Middletons having a suite of their own in the Palace. It probably means they can keep clothes and toiletry items on hand, because who wants to pack a bag every time you spend the night?

        Besides, I thought Pippa and/or James were living in the apartment? If it’s not very big anyway, or at least gets too crowded for any extended length of time, then having a suite at the Palace sounds like a great solution for everyone.

      • LAK says:

        Greengirl: My response was to a strain of thought, per above poster, and in general that the royals might be snobby and unwelcoming to the Middletons based upon class.

        There is a concerted effort by Middleton PR to play this class card to make them seem like they are at the forefront of some sort of class war where they win because they are salt of the earth people made good.

        This image is in direct contrast to the reality of their actions where they make it very obvious that THEY care about the class divide and due to that, the public is free to comment on their perceived pretensions.

        With regards this KP apartment, the only thing that bothers me is the taxes involved. Kate/William and George have a public contract that enables them to live at KP rent free. Carole and Michael Middleton do not. They are receiving a tax payer funded residence without a public contract.

        And finally, they should sack their PR for these ham fisted balloons which leave an impression of entitlement worthy of a L’Oréal ad slogan!

      • Green Girl says:

        LAK – my apologies. I also hadn’t thought of the tax angle, and that’s a very valid point.

        I am just curious if it would make a difference to you if the suite was only used by the Middletons occasionally (but they could still hang their clothes or keep toiletries on hand) versus staying there for weeks at a time.

      • taxi says:

        LAK

        If the “Middleton suite” is part of the 20 or 21 rooms @ KP, it doesn’t matter for tax purposes who occupies them. If it isn’t additional real estate beyond the original apartment, it should be used for anything the assigned occupants choose. Would you fret “taxes” if it were just Kate’s hat room or arts & crafts studio? How about William’s hobby room or billiard parlour? They should use any part of their KP housing however they like without critics crying “taxes!”

        It sounds as if you’d like any overnight or weekend guest to pay a per diem fee reimbursing for “tax” to the exchequer. Would this apply to any overnight staff too? Won’t they have friends visit as well as relatives? If Carole M applied for compensation for her nanny work, I could understand some concern.

      • LAK says:

        Taxi – it’s being promoted as specifically FOR Carole and Michael, not as a guest suite for anyone.

        Further, as anal as it sounds, the Prime Ministers and Foreign secretary have to pay out of their own pocket for all the non-business visitors to their various town/country resides. They cover any sums over their daily allowances as well.

        A system that Kate and William can follow, but they won’t because they are funded by other people namely Charles and the tax payers.

    • Suze says:

      Who is everyone?

      Because the non-royal in-laws (many of whom are upper middle class, like the Middletons) are accepted by the royals and pretty much ignored by the public.

  14. ADD says:

    “Kate and George are scheduled to leave Bucklebury next month when the Palace refurbishment is complete”- I though they were in Anglesey? Are they back at her parents’ house again?

  15. Crystal says:

    Man, I thank god that I decided not to live there. I would rip my hair out from all of those taxes.

  16. Suze says:

    The Middletons have a flat in London already. I’m not sure why they need to be on top of the Cambridge family when they can be nearby in the blink of an eye.

    That said, I am sure that flat in Kensington Palace would have a guest suite regardless so I don’t see this as a huge deal.

    It will be interesting to see if Carole is this hands-on when Pippa and James have kids or if it’s the heir to the realm that is the major draw. We’ll see how it all pans out.

    And yeah, ditch the eyeliner, Carole and you’ll lose ten years.

  17. Barbara says:

    This just seems very wrong to me.

  18. Jennifer says:

    I think that Prince Charles and possibly the Queen are paying for the decoration. Prince William is the heir to the throne, but has no duchy to provide him income yet, like the Queen and Prince Charles do.

    • SISI says:

      The taxpayer is ONLY paying for the changes to the structure of the building (owned by the nation) to make it habitable again (~1 Million renovation costs)- such as new electrics (wiring), plumbing & heating systems, security upgrade, removal of asbestos and a new roof. The rest – ALL the decoration, furnishings, etc. (costing also ~ 1 Million) will be paid by the Queen from her own (private) money. She’s also allowed William & Kate to borrow (original) works of art from the Royal Collection and antique royal furniture kept in storage to decorate the various rooms as they wish. Kate is overseeing all the renovations/decoration of both Apt 1A at KP and Amner Hall (their country home).

    • ctkat1 says:

      Yes- the taxpayers are paying for the renovations to the apartment, since Kensington Palace is a state building (or whatever the equivalent is over there). The furnishings and decorations are being paid by Prince Charles.

  19. Itwillrain says:

    I would prefer to have my family member helping rather than a nanny whom I could not necessarily trust completely (look at Diana’s butler, for example).

  20. Decloo says:

    When I had my first child I had HORRIBLE post-partum depression. I went home with the baby to my parents’ house (with husband, who was very hands on but had to go to work every day) and they basically took over while I collapsed in puddles of tears. I could never have done it without them. I absolutely regressed to a whimpering child myself. I can’t help but wonder if Kate is overwhelmed and her parents are stepping up like mine did. If so, I salute them.

  21. Julaine says:

    You know who else had their mother-in-law move in after the wedding? That would be the Queen. Prince Phillip’s mother, Princess Alice of Greece and Denmark lived in a suite of rooms at Buckingham Palace for many years and actually died at BP in 1969. Somehow I don’t think that Her Majesty is going to raise an eyebrow at the thought of Catherine’s parents staying in a guest suite in Kensington Palace where there is plenty of room and privacy when they are visiting their daughter and her family.

    In fact, did you know that the Royal family’s long term nickname for Kensington Palace is the Aunt Heap? It was given that name because it was used to house so many minor family members and their in-laws since before the time of Queen Victoria. Victoria, her widowed mother, the Duchess of Kent and the Duchess of Kent’s family from her first marriage lived there while she was growing up and of course, only Victoria made the move to Buckingham Palace after her ascension.

    Currently Kensington Palace is also the home of several other minor Royals including Prince and Princess Michael of Kent and their family. The Kent’s and their children were next door neighbors of the Wales until the death of Diana.

    Even without a strong family history of taking care of their minor relations why would anyone think it would be strange that a 21 room apartment would have a guest suite? I would think it strange if they didn’t.

    • Suze says:

      Alice was an admirable and fascinating woman, a Righteous Among Nations, but she also entered her waning years with little money and no home. The Queen and Duke provided her with some security and a place to live.

      The Middletons are not broke and they already have a flat in London. The situations are different.

      The modern monarchy under the guidance of Charles is also trying to move away from the KP reputation as an aunt heap. I believe the Kent’s are now paying market rent, for example.

      That said, a guest suite is expected in an apartment of 21 rooms. Who cares if the Middletons stay there on occasion? If they take up rent-free occupancy, that would be cause for outcry, but I think they re too wily for that.

    • m says:

      Alice lived at BP because she had no where else to go. The woman saved thousands of Jews during the war and by the time she moved to BP, many people wanted her head so she moved there for saftey. She was also elderly, deaf, and in bad health. That situation was complety different from these social climbers.

    • bluhare says:

      I think another one of Philip’s relatives lived with them too. Princess Andrew? She was a bit of a whackadoodle if memory serves me right.

      • Julaine says:

        Princess Alice WAS Princess Andrew. Andrew being the name of her husband. She was born Princess Alice of Battenburg. After WWI the family name of the Battenburg’s was changed to Mountbatten. She was the great-granddaughter of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert and was born in the U.K.

        Princess Alice was born congenitally deaf, struggled with an unhappy marriage and was diagnosed with schizophrenia in 1930, after which her husband basically abandoned her and their 5 children. During WWII she refused to leave Greece and devoted most of her time to the Red Cross and a religious order that she founded. She is credited with saving the lives of hundreds if not thousands of Jews in Greece during the war.

        She may have been essentric and struggled with various mental health issues during her middle age but she was hardly “wackadoddle”.

    • SISI says:

      Thanks, I totally agree! …I would also add that The Queen was also VERY close to her mother and sister, and had them helping/living with her & Philip at Buckingham Palace for many years, even though The Queen Mother had her own official residence (Clarence House), and Philip did not get too well with his “interfering” mother-in-law in the beginning (those feelings were mutual).

      • ReebKev says:

        All those people you named were Royalty, born under the Roof of the Royal household, they did charities, worked for the Crown from the time they were born.

      • Suze says:

        Royals who actively do public appearances have a different status.

      • SISI says:

        @Reebkev & Suze – you are completely missing the point (perhaps deliberately). I’m specifically alluding to how close the Queen was to her own mother & sister (also father) – same as Catherine. Therefore, she would not only perfectly understand & support Catherine also wishing to remain close to her parents & siblings, but she (QEII) herself set a precedence many years ago with her mother, sister, and mother-in-law living with her at BP (as pointed out by Julaine)

      • Suze says:

        Nope, I got your point.

        All those people were close to their parents. That’s hardly an unusual situation. In fact, it’s almost universal.

        Free housing in royal residences is different though. That was my point.

        However, I do agree that this particular situation is a tempest in a teapot – the Middletons will visit the Cambridge family on occasion and continue to live in their own, rather large, estate in Bucklebury. They aren’t living in KP, they aren’t royal, and they aren’t doing royal appearances.

  22. The Original Mia says:

    This is ridiculous. At some point, the umbilical cord must be severed. The Midds have a flat in London. Why do they have to live with them in Kensington Palace? Is Kate completely incapable of being on her own without her mummy & daddy there to assist her?

  23. bluhare says:

    Well, this moves on very nicely from the news a while back that Carole was moving into KP. I get the guest room thing, and I even get Kate wanting a place for her parents. Pippa and James live at that apt. so it might be a bit crowded until they move out (if they ever do).

    So why does it feel so weird?

    (And did anyone see the headlines about Andrew and Fergie being lovers again? That’s the fun story!!)

    • The Original Mia says:

      I saw it. Told my mom if the RF allows the Midds to use their connections without impunity, then why continue to punish Fergie? I say “Viva Fergie & Andrew! True love prevails!”.

    • Violet says:

      I’ve always liked Andrew and Fergie together, and thought they could’ve made it if his job hadn’t kept him so far away for most of their marriage. They were only in their mid-20s when they got married, still very young. Sarah had to deal with two babies, endless royal protocols and a boatload of public scrutiny while her husband was never around. I can see why she cracked under the pressure.

      • mslewis says:

        Fergie had a very public affair with some man from Texas. She made Andrew look ridiculous. That is why their marriage broke down. She also tried to make money using Andrew as a lure so she could cover her debts. That is why the royal family dislikes her and banned her from events.

        The fact that she and Andrew are supposedly back together does not surprise me. It has been a few years and their children are grown and perhaps Andrew has always loved her and wants her back in his life.

      • Violet says:

        @mslewis

        I agree that Fergie wasn’t an angel by any stretch of the imagination and I’m certainly not condoning her behavior, but I don’t think she would’ve acted out the way she did if he hadn’t been away so much.

        Incidentally, Andrew himself far from perfect:

        http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/08/prince-andrew-201108

        They’re a skeevy couple, but seem to still have genuine feelings for each other, all these years and endless scandals later.

      • LAK says:

        Irrespective of their various misdeeds, they were never allowed to have much of a marriage.

        However, once the misdeeds happened, they were also never allowed to review to try to make the marriage work or not. It was straight to divorce, bypassing all the steps ordinary people take when the marriage hits a few snags.

        Neither wanted the divorce, but it was forced upon them.

        I think that’s why they continued to live together after it. They’ve both dated other people since, but it’s never taken, and frankly, if at 53 they’ve decided to rekindle what they have, I think good luck to them and hope they are wiser 2nd time round.

      • bluhare says:

        Sarah’s problem was her lack discretion, wasn’t it? Isn’t the unwritten rule that once you do the heir and spare thing if you’re aristo/royal, you can do what you want? Her husband was away and she did. But then she got caught.

      • LAK says:

        Bluhare – absolutely. Sarah’s crime was being indiscreet. Do you remember the letter Margaret (without a blush) wrote her in which she admonished her for embarrassing the family?!

        Funnily even the media talking heads concentrated on that aspect of her scandals as opposed to the content of said scandals.

        With regards the toe sucking, that was one of the more egregious invasions of privacy that we love to discuss with regards paps.

        She was at a remote villa with trees screening. The paps dug a ditch (or trench?) along the walls and lived in there for days until they got there ‘money shot’.

        It wasn’t an unguarded villa in terms of being able to snatch photos using long lenses.

      • taxi says:

        It’s been so long I may have forgotten the details, but I thought Prince Philip never liked Fergie – she was far too ebullient than older RF liked.

        Fergie & Diana were for a few years quite close & seeing the 2 sisters-in-law playing & frolicking, maybe going out dancing in public, probably didn’t set well with the ever-so conservative Firm.

        We’ve all heard the nickname “Randy Andy” since long before his marriage & heard about his less than upstanding business dealings & slimy friends for years since he left the Navy. Fergie has never shown any reserve or discretion. Considering she lived rent-free on somebody’s sixpence not her own & didn’t need to worry about child-support money, it’s hard to understand why we should feel sorry for her. Her debts resulted from her extravagances. Oh, she wrote a children’s book & shilled for Weightwatchers. That wasn’t enough to live on? Do citizens fret about her apartment at Andrew’s place or does Andrew separate out the taxes & reimburse for her share?

        If Andy & Fergie get back together, it will be nice for their daughters & presumably good for them. Philip is probably over it by now & Andrew is QE’s favorite so she could just override her husband on this one. Maybe they hope it will incur some favor with Charles, too, but I don’t really see that.

    • Suze says:

      Sarah is a mess. But she does seem more stable when she is with Andy, so if they are still in love, then they may as well get back together.

      I don’t say that with much enthusiasm, because those two are just a frayed and worn out version of the people who married with such love and fanfare back in the mid eighties. I find them both very depressing.

      But they have lovely daughters and if something can be salvaged of their relationship, so be it.

    • SISI says:

      Sarah had many affairs and embarrassing moments bordering on the illegal, but the one that tipped the lot and precipitate the divorce was the toe sucking scandal with her financial adviser from Texas – she was pregnant with Eugenie and Beatrice was with her at the time. The Royal Family was horrified.

  24. mslewis says:

    I have a theory . . . I think William is very happy that his mother-in-law is helping to care for his baby. I think he does not trust having too many outsiders caring for his family because of what happen when Diana died and it seemed that all of the people who had worked for her all of a sudden were writing books and doing interviews. He probably felt such betrayal, especially from that butler that Diana loved. He probably feels Kate’s family won’t betray them and feels comfortable with having them close.

    I don’t see anything wrong with this but I do see something wrong with the Daily Fail making it sound like there is some sort of conspiracy going on. There isn’t and I see nothing wrong with the arrangement.

    • ReebKev says:

      William can’t see that the Middleton’s have leaked for years and campaigned the press for Kate,even when he dumped her. The problem with the Middleton’s is they don’t know how to stop grabbing. Always trouble down the road for people like that.

      • mslewis says:

        I seriously don’t understand this. “Grabbing” for what? They are already millionairs so they don’t need money from telling tales. Carole and Michael are already the parents of the future queen and grandparents of the future king, they don’t need to grab for more, they have it all. Plus, they seem to hang out only with their friends rather than any of the aristos their children hang with.

        And I seriously doubt any of the press in England played a part in William deciding to get back with Kate. In fact, from what I can remember (and my memory is not that great since I wasn’t paying a lot of attention at the time) the media seemed to be happy that they had broken up so they could report on whatever new girl William was dating.

      • LAK says:

        Mslewis – clearly you missed Kate’s media tour of 2007. The sycophantic articles in tabloids and hello magazine all talking about what a great princess Kate would/could make….

        People have to remember that great press is something the RF needs and it can influence their decisions because their marriages are a public affair. You don’t just marry senior royals, you marry a very public job. Kate looking great in all the major papers on a seemingly daily basis for 3mths as the press lavished her with praise was bound to trigger something in William.

    • Suze says:

      There may be some truth to this, but I will lay down bets that they hire (more) nannies in the future. Although she will be a presence, which is right and good, I don’t think Carole will take the place of nannies throughout the kid’s childhood.

      And Carole will probably have other grandchildren down the road, and her attention will also be diverted.

  25. anne_000 says:

    I bet Pippa & James will start using KP as their mailing address.

  26. ctkat1 says:

    Didn’t Prince Charles once say that he only saw his mother for a half hour every day, when she would stop by to visit the children? And Diana would have to pull shenanigans to get an evening or afternoon alone with her boys?

    The old-school Royals don’t parent the way that we do. The children are raised by nannies, and shipped to boarding school as soon as they are old enough. The Royal Family refers to themselves as “The Firm”- not exactly a warm description for a family.

    William seems determined to raise his children in a family, not in “The Firm”- hence no nanny, no boarding school, close relationships with granny and grandpa. At this point, given how much William, Kate and George have improved the tarnished image of the Royal Family (and you may not like Kate, but she’s injected new life into the Royal Family, and baby George will as well), I imagine William is being given more flexibility in how he wants to do things.

    • Suze says:

      What kind of rewriting of history is this? Diana spent an enormous amount of time with the boys, both before and after her separation/divorce. No shenanigans required.

      There is an enormous amount of interest in Will and Kate but the queen is highly admired as well and there has always been a lot of interest in both Will and Harry. Where was the tarnished image? I don’t buy that Kate herself reinvigorated anything. Anyone Will married would have generated interest.

      And where is the “no nannies, no boarding school” coming from? They do have a mothers helper already and probably will have nannies and boarding School in their future. There’s nothing wrong with any of those things, either.

      I just don’t see Will and Kate as such royal rebels.

      • ctkat1 says:

        Wow, people are invested in the royals. Yikes.
        I believe it was Diana herself who said that she would have to plan ahead excuses not to go to royal functions in order to stay home with the boys. She seemed to be a very involved mother, but she was able to be such because she had to work-around her royal duties, ie. not going to a function in order to be home to put the boys to bed. That’s what I meant by “shenanigans”- that she would have to actively work against her Palace sanctioned schedule in order to spend time with her children.
        William and Kate have said that they won’t send George to boarding school- we won’t know until he’s school aged, but it is what they have said.
        The Royal family was hugely tarnished after Diana died; there was a lot of talk about abolishing the monarchy, etc. Will and Harry injected fresh life, and Will marrying a commoner is a part of that.

      • Suze says:

        ctkate,

        You seem just as invested as the rest of us! Yikes right back at ya!

        For example, I have never heard those stories about Diana, despite all I’ve read. I have never seen any statements, from anyone, on George’s education. Perhaps these stories are true, I just haven’t seen anything to that effect. You have apparently read things I’ve missed.

        Diana died sixteen years ago. A lot of rehab has occurred on many levels since that time – Will and Kate’s marriage included, but not exclusively. For example, the queen has risen to an 80 percent approval rate. Charles married Camilla with little fuss from the public, and Camilla has surprisingly been pretty much accepted. Harry and William have worked diligently on their charitable involvement.

        It was a group effort.

    • bluhare says:

      I agree re the flexibility, ctkat1. And I actually think that’s nice. But William needs to make sure that the inches he’s taking don’t turn into yards or else the suits will descend.

    • LAK says:

      Diana had to pull shenanigans to see her boys??!!

      Kate reinvigorated the RF??!!

      No nannies, no boarding school??!!

      To be fair, schooling has yet to happen, so they may indeed go that way. However, the nannies are already in place. They admitted as much to people magazine except they used American wording for a person in that role.

      And let’s not forget the 2 people, one a cook and the other jack of all trades job description who were taken on ahead of George’s birth and were installed at Bucklebury since the birth. All available to look after the new family excluding Granny Carole’s contribution.

      As for how the royals parent ie nannies and boarding school at 7yrs, that is the standard upbringing of many people who are upper/upper middleclass. Boarding schools aren’t full of royals’ offspring alone.

      Diana, for good or bad, is the one who reinvigorated the royal family. She changed the expectation of what a royal should be in the modern world. And even she was following on a grand tradition started by Edward VII.

      As for reinventing the wheel, again, earlier generations of royals broke several traditions. Kate is actually following in other people’s footsteps eg giving birth in same hospital as Diana. Why not the Portland (as Sarah Did) or King Edward (as Sophie did).

      Attending school outside palace walls…wait, Charles was sent to Hill House, so that’s Philip breaking the tradition of at home tutoring for the royal children….

    • Suze says:

      Don’t forget that both Will and Kate, as well as their siblings, spent many years at boarding school. I would be stunned if they didn’t choose that route for their own kids.

      The Middletons didn’t claw their way to the upper reaches of the upper class to live like lower middle class people.

  27. Green Girl says:

    I also thought I’d add that Will saw his parents’ marriage break down. He probably knows that a happy Kate = happy monarchy, so if she wants her mom to stay with her it’s really not a big deal in the great scheme of things.

  28. Anne says:

    William has been always close to the Middleton family (and not in a healthy way)and seems like that he’s easily influenced by them.

    The Middletons should never be treated like royals or live in royal residences.
    If that’s true I really hope The Queen and Charles will stop that and if William really wants the Middleton at KP he should pay for the rent like some rooyals do.

  29. OhDear says:

    I don’t think this is a weird arrangement considering (1) she only gave birth a couple of weeks ago so they’re probably there to help out, (2) this is her first child and (3) many people prefer having family help out with a child rather than a stranger that they hired. It’s easier if they’re in the same building, as opposed to having to get in a car or whatever every time a problem comes up/at ungodly hours in the night.

    That being said, it doesn’t take away from the fact that the Middletons are a socially ambitious bunch.

  30. Maria says:

    Can ALL the Middleton women just put down the eyeliner and step away. Or at least stop trying to line the lower lid all the time as well, now at least we know where Kate and Pippa get this from! It’s not doing anything for any of them.

  31. Jennifer says:

    William was VERY close to Diana, and I’m sure hasn’t forgotten how she got screwed over by the queen and Charles. So maybe he feels Kate’s family is a better presence to have around his child.

    • ReebKev says:

      So sad to see Diana’s son get taking advantage of… maybe he’s just emotionally twisted and Carole and Kate are picking him like grifters for everything they can get. So sad to see William is so weak. People can’t see it but it’s so obvious the guy has some emotional issue he’s trying to resolve through this family. Maybe he needed a good psychiatrist instead of marriage.

      • GeeMoney says:

        Who says he’s being taken advantage of? He dated Kate long enough to know who she is and how her family is. Maybe he’s on board with what his wife’s family wants…??? I’d like to think that he is. Give the man some credit.

        I have no idea why this story is even news. Who cares if Will and Kate want to build a flat for her parents to visit/live in? And who cares if her parents live two miles away? If I was rich on top of rich on top of rich, I’d build a suite for my mom to come and stay in at my house b/c… *drumroll please* I can. Period.

        I’m happy for Will and Kate and whatever they decide to do and how they want to raise their baby. And everyone else should too.

        And let’s keep it real – Queen Elizabeth has the last word in all of this. The royal family is well aware of what’s going on, and if they feel that they are being taken advantage of, they will handle the situation accordingly. Like a boss!

        PS – And do we really care if the Middletons are social climbers anymore? They’ve already reached the pinnacle of it – their daughter and grandson are royals. I’d like to think that the rest is gravy at this point.

      • taxi says:

        Wow! Isn’t this quite a stretch? I doubt PW is as malleable or weak as you think & calling his wife & m.i.l. “grifters” is nasty. Unless you know them all personally, maybe you’re reading too much gossip.

      • Suze says:

        Honestly, I think everyone who matters – Will/Kate/Middletons/Royals-who-need-to-be-involved are in agreement on this.

        There will be a guest suite in the apartment, and WillKat can have whoever they want stay there. While the kid is young, it will probably most often be Carole and possibly Michael.

        I really don’t think they’ll end up living there. They have a big house and a business based in Bucklebury.

        There were probably family visitors in Diana/Charles apartment back in the day, too. Just no internet for all of us to get all up in their business.

      • Fargus says:

        I so agree, the Prince is weak as hell, Carole’s got his b&lls and is Now twisting them. Hes being played, like a violin.

  32. Sway says:

    It’s so fascinating how mother and daughter do their make up in the exact same way.

  33. India says:

    I am so sick of these nasty people. The very idea of that social climbing viper faced Carole moving into KP. There is going to be a huge back lash from the public about this. Bad move Billy Boy.

  34. lisa says:

    the royal family has a history of supporting down on their luck relatives with free room and board. i dont see why kate’s mom cant stay with them.

  35. Mitch Buchanan Rocks! says:

    In the top photo Kate looks like Christie Brinkley.

  36. Flower says:

    The ultimate granny flat, did anyone really think they wouldn’t have their own room/s set aside in Kate’s new mega mansion. I wouldn’t be surprised if Pippa uses it from time to time as well.

    The real question is will the Queen make them pay rent like the Kents have been made to?

    A little known fact is that Princess Anne also has a small suit of rooms at Kensington Palace, used mostly by her husband and children when they are in London (Anne usually stays at Buckingham Palace with her mother). So the Middleton’s new London bolt hole really isn’t much different to normal royal practice.

    • Suze says:

      I think it’s all a bit overblown, myself. There will be a guest suite in their flat, and the MIddletons will use it – on occasion.

      I don’t think they’ll be living there full time. They have that big brute of a place out in Bucklebury!

  37. aang says:

    All 6 of my aunts on my fathers side live within walking distance of my grandmother. Next door, across the street etc. My dad is an Iriquois Indian and they are a matrilineal and matrilocal society. This is totaly normal to me. If I had to work when my children were small my mother would have been my first choice for a sitter. Why hire a nanny when you can have a blood reletive do the care taking? There is even evidence that close proximity to a maternal grandmother increases the nutritional outcomes and decreases childhood mortality for children in food insecure areas. Obviously does not apply here but shows how important grandmothers can be.

  38. Amy says:

    I am seriously laughing at some of these comments. Some of you are making this sound like the plot of a George RR Martin book! This isn’t Game of Thrones guys! The Middletons are not the Lannisters. They aren’t royal and they know they never will be. They always wanted the best for their children, sure. But Michael and Carole Middleton did not specifically plot that their eldest daughter would marry the most eligible bachelor in England (though I know many of you believe that and that’s fine, it’s not what I believe). They may have encouraged her, but some of you guys make them sound more insidious than they are.

    Kate and William want to have a guest suite for her parents when they come to visit. I don’t see a problem with that. Kate is close to her parents–so what? They want to be involved grandparents. No harm in that. I don’t see Prince Charles being a very involved grandfather (wasn’t it said he doesn’t like being around babies?) since he was raised in that era in which he almost never saw his mother.

    • Suze says:

      Well, it’s fun to gossip. And CB didn’t have a ton of stories posted on a Sunday.

      I do think this particular story is kind of a non-story about a guest suite and a couple of in-laws who will be occasional guests. I doubt they are moving in – I really do. They have a big house in the country and a business there.

      Plus they do have two other kids who will require some attention. Once the baby novelty wears off, life will go on.

      I do disagree about Charles, though. I think he’ll be relatively involved. Way back in the day, when William was born, Diana was quoted as saying something along the lines of, “Charles couldn’t wait to get back in the nursery.”

      The parents will manage the various grandparents involvement without my help, though.

    • LAK says:

      Perhaps you don’t realise that the war of the roses ( a 15th century war between various cousins for the throne of England) is the basis for GAME OF THRONES?!

      Most of royal history is gossip, planning, social climbing, bribery, several wars (though we don’t approve that anymore),finances, some politics, PR….

      Would anyone have thought that a King would give up an empire for love? And yet it happened in 1936.

      Would anyone have thought the shy, 19yr old child bride of the heir to the throne would outshine them all and nearly bring about it’s collapse? And yet Diana did.

      Would a King start a new church so he could marry his side piece? And yet that’s what Henry 8 did. Also didn’t see the serial killer of wives thing coming….eekk!!!

      What about the Queen who became a professional virgin? That would be Elizabeth I.

      The various families scheming to trap a King? Take your pick of any medieval family with a comely maiden daughter that could be used to catch the King’s eye. I think the Boleyns/Seymours/Middletons all had varying levels of success and outcomes.

      Royal history is sometimes better than the fiction. And we don’t know how it’ll turn out, but we can speculate.

      • Amy says:

        Most of what you cite happened hundreds of years ago. The role of the monarchy has changed drastically in the past 100 years. If you want to believe Kate trapped William into marrying her that’s fine. However she will never wield much influence since the royal family are now simply figureheads. She is there to sit and look pretty and that is rather harmless if you ask me. She won’t be starting any wars and that’s why I brought GOTR as a reference.

      • Aeryn39 says:

        +100000000000!!!
        And sign me up for LAK’s blog as well!

      • LAK says:

        Amy – Those were just a few examples of why Royal history is interesting to us. Some of those examples that happened 500+yrs ago have shown up today e.g. the Seymour/Boleyn parallel with the Middletons.

        For what it is worth, i do not necessarily think being socially ambitious is a bad thing. Whether or not i believe that Carole Middleton enacted a plan, it could have been anybody since many mothers sent their daughters to St Andrews to attempt to catch William. She’s the one that got him, so kudos.

        Since you brought up pop culture, clearly the author/makers of GOT are Royal history buffs too. Using history that is more than 500+ yrs old to entice a very modern audience who may not be history buffs at all. Again, yea for history for being so inspiring!

        The Royals aren’t mere figureheads. They may not have the full range of powers that they had, but they influence in so many subtle ways. They have influenced society as long as they’ve existed. And some of those influences are still with us.

        Some examples:
        -white wedding dresses [Victoria], -Christmas trimmings [Victoria again], -Justice system in terms of bail, innocent until proven guilty, legal represantation [Richard III],
        -Religious freedom [Elizabeth I], -Showbusiness [All Royal and Rich patrons who were trying to impress the royal court],
        -courtly love AKA the romance business [the French Royal courts of Lanquedoc]

        etc etc and so forth.

        In terms of non social things, there are documented examples of royals influencing certain outcomes eg when Charles wrote to a Middle East Emir to stop the development of a building on the old chelsea Barracks site.

        Further, Kate may be silent and pretty, but we want more from our royal consorts as demonstrated by the long dead Diana and the QM.

    • SISI says:

      Amy – couldn’t have put it better myself. THANKS!
      My take on this is …Catherine’s mother and William’s old nanny are ALL that little George needs, really (for now at least). – They will not only keep an eye on each other, but will make SURE the little prince has the best of both worlds, and that he’s always with family around him. Both Carole & the old Nanny are not-royal, yet staunch monarchists themselves.
      William & Catherine are not fools; they are working together as partners (a Team) to make sure the system works for them!
      …No wonder the Queen looks so relaxed, proud and HAPPY!!
      …William has his eye on the ball, he is dead serious about becoming king …The only snag is he must wait, be patient – Charles comes first …and there may not be a Monarchy left after he & Camilla help themselves (!?)

  39. TG says:

    Wow I love reading the comments on articles about Royals. I always learn so much history. Anyway as someone who has been independent since I turned 18 about 18 years ago I have no liking for weak adults who can’t get by without mommy. I had no idea how much control Carole Middleton had over Kate. They seem to have the same type of sick relationship PMK and her Prized Pig have. I thought Carole had a company to run. Also I don’t see Prince William as even wanting to be King. He seems almost embarrassed by it and both of them are too lazy to work. If for some reason he makes it to the throne he and with a heaping help of Middleton’s will be the death of the monarchy.

  40. taxi says:

    Is it possible that William doesn’t act as if he’s eager to be king because:
    1) it isn’t imminent &
    2) chafing at the bit to be king might seem very rude & disrespectful to his grandmother, who’s still in place, & his father who hasn’t yet had a turn.

    What do you think he should do to appear more wanna-be-kingly? If he trotted around displaying a taste for authority, he’d step on toes & insult the monarch & PoW. He certainly can’t voice political opinions without causing trouble.

    • LAK says:

      And yet, his ‘party prince’ brother is showing more attributes that make him a better prospect when there is hardly a chance of his being King.

      Telling the world often that he doesn’t like his public role doesn’t foster confidence in the public.

      And using Charles as a talking point is actually to miss entire point of what Charles has done with his life whilst he is waiting.

      Charles is the first POW to make job out of his title. His ‘job’ isn’t something William can inherit. William can only inherit the title. Nothing else. So far, William isn’t demonstrating in any way that he can make something of his title that is an indicator of his future role.

      We can actually judge how Charles will do as a monarch because we can see the example he has set as an heir.

      He would be in his rights to have spent the past 60+ waiting years partying and vacationing as all other POWs in history have done, instead he has created a role for himself.

      And he started doing that in his 20s.

      • Aeryn39 says:

        Yes, Yes, Yes!!
        Lordy LAK, you’ve got to start a blog!!
        I just said “Amen” out loud reading that post! Yep, and I’m at work. Got a side eye from someone walking past my office…
        Well said!

      • taxi says:

        Do you mean his architectural & organic farming interests? He was widely ridiculed at the time for the opinions he expressed about architecture in London.
        Seems to me Charles had little gravitas until after his 1st marriage, when he was what, 30? That disappeared for some time during the marital & extra-marital scandals. He’s worked his way back to a stronger position over the last 15 years.

      • LAK says:

        Taxi – The Prince’s trust was started 1976 when Charles was 28.

        He started discussing his ideas around organic farming and architecture a long time ago. I remember as a child of the 80s the people making fun of his views. Isn’t it amazing that we have all come round to his way of thinking?

        The debacle of his first marriage overshadowed the fact that he kept on working throughout. A fact only appreciated once Diana died.

        Inspite of William being sold as the modern face of the Monarchy, the once frequent calls for Charles to step aside seem to have stopped since WK made their debut.

  41. SISI says:

    Read between the lines… HM The Queen has gone out of her way to give her grandson and his wife, quite early in their marriage, TWO of the best properties in her portfolio – her sister’s Grand-Apartment at KP and Amner Hall in her own private estate (very close to her), both of which were definitely not available but were made so by Royal Command! To gift them such fine historic buildings – so soon after their marriage, and allowing Catherine to oversee all the renovations, decoration, etc, is a clear sign of her approval and confidence in her granddaughter-in-law’s abilities, and their marriage. Prince Philip in particular was very pleased with the way Catherine renovated Nottingham cottage in KP
    …Make no mistake; these are Very Important and Substantial (royal) renovations, not seen in a long time. Catherine’s good taste, artistic bent, sense of tradition and knowledge of history, are (once again) proving very useful for the Royal Family.

  42. Emily C. says:

    I see a lot of people freaking out that this English family might not want to follow the American tradition of getting as far away from one’s parents as possible as soon as possible. Even in the U.S., this “tradition” only arose in the highly prosperous 1950s and it’s dying because our society can’t afford it any longer, either economically or emotionally. It was an extraordinarily strange tradition, confined to a small space and time.

    It did used to be common for female royalty to be sent far away from their families when they married, but that was not the way the rest of society worked. And this is the 21st century. Kate not only wasn’t born an aristocrat; she is not a member of the American middle class of the 1980s. She doesn’t have to be sent away from her family and she doesn’t have any silly ideas about how the parental bond is magically severed on one’s eighteenth birthday.

  43. Justme says:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-george/10264912/No-suite-of-rooms-for-Middletons-at-Kensington-Palace.html

    Well the Telegraph is reporting It quite differently

    “according to a Palace source, there are no arrangements for the Duchess’s parents to have their own designated quarters at the royal apartment.” and “It is believed there will be at least one guest room there where Carole and Michael Middleton could stay, but no suite of rooms set aside for them in the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s 21-room home.”

    The DM knows how to wind people up!

  44. Ashley Yeah I said it says:

    WHOA the middleton women and their DAMN love for eye liner….

    you guys are not Elizabeth Taylor 1960′s Cleopatra….it looks unsuited and over the top ESP when you have frumpalicious outdated clothing….STOP

    a red lip or mascara would do and scream classic !

  45. Xantha says:

    Hey CB I’m sure by now you saw the pictures of Kate grocery shopping in Angelessy. It’s been a while we saw her pictured doing that. She looks slim already and I truly hope she doesn’t lose any more weight.