William & Kate went on vacation because their second home is still being renovated

FFN_FLYNETUK_Middleton_William_120513_51278739

Prince William and Duchess Kate had a good reason for dropping Prince George off at Carole and Michael Middleton’s house and jetting off for a luxury vacation in the Maldives, you guys. You just don’t understand. Once I explain it to you, it will all make sense. You’re going to feel so foolish after you realize that it was the only option they possibly had! According to Vanity Fair’s sources – and remember, VF employs Katie Nicholl, who is basically Duchess Kate’s unofficial biographer – Kate and Will went to the Maldives because their country estate’s renovations haven’t been completed yet! I KNOW. What does one do when the taxpayer funded renovations on one’s country estate have taken much, much too long? Not to mention the fact that your palace in the city is completely inhabitable after you accidentally painted everything a garish shade of purple while pregnant with the heir! Bless their hearts. I’m serious. I don’t even know how William and Kate manage to function while their palace AND their country estate are in such disrepair!

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have received some public criticism for leaving seven-month-old Prince George behind in the U.K. while they enjoy a luxury holiday in the Maldives, but Royal Watch can understand the temptation of a respite. As well as wanting some time together, the pair was apparently desperate for a break after the headache of ongoing refurbishments at their country home in Norfolk. They were due to move into the Georgian pile, a gift from the Queen, before Christmas, but the house was not ready. Now I’m told renovations have fallen so behind schedule, the Cambridges are unlikely to be in before the summer.

Anmer Hall, located on the Queen’s 20,000-acre Sandringham Estate, is currently hiding behind scaffolding. “It was due to be a bolt hole for the family at the weekends, but they have been confined to staying in London because the house is still not ready,” a source tells me. “They are doing a huge amount of work both inside and outside and it.”

The holiday to the Maldives is not the first time the couple has left Prince George behind, in fact. In January they enjoyed a night away, just the two of them, at Sandringham. “They wanted to see how the renovations were coming along and left George behind,” says my mole. “It has taken longer than they expected and been a bit of a headache.”

As well as having a new roof put on the property, a garden room has been built onto the kitchen, and a driveway is also being re-routed and trees planted for extra privacy. When it is ready, the house will be a perfect family home—complete with a swimming pool and tennis court for the sporty couple. “They want to be in this summer so they can have some proper downtime,” adds a source.

[From Vanity Fair]

“They want to be in this summer so they can have some proper downtime.” Poor sausages! I don’t even know how they can even function at all. The Queen should give them both medals for dealing with this tragedy. No one understands the panic, the anger, the injustice of a renovation that goes on too long, or of the unseemly nature of being forced to – GASP – spend the weekends in London! I’m surprised that Will and Kate haven’t simply MOVED to a luxury resort to wait out this neverending reno trauma. And then when the reno is finally done (months from now, how ghastly!), then, THEN they can finally have a proper rest. This whole thing has been so stressful, you just don’t even know.

Oh, and we’re finally getting more details about this mysterious “foreign nanny” that we heard about last week. There was some disagreement about whether they hired a “foreign” nanny or an English one, and I theorized that they hired two more nannies, one English and one “foreign.” But Hello (which is the People Mag of the UK) says that they hired one nanny and she’s “Spanish-born” but she’s been living in England for years and years. Sources claim the Spanish nanny “lives for her job,” she’s unmarried and in her late 30s. She’s also worked for other “high-profile families” and that’s how William and Kate knew about her.

wenn21080331

wenn20863965

Photos courtesy of WENN, Fame/Flynet.

 

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

284 Responses to “William & Kate went on vacation because their second home is still being renovated”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Badirene says:

    Poor poppets, my thoughts and prayers are with them at this difficult time.

  2. Sixer says:

    I might take to the streets with my second hand Kalashnikov.

    (That’s a line from a classic UK TV comedy in case anyone panics).

  3. JenD says:

    As much as everyone loves to dump on Kate, a reno plus a small child who is at the age where he’s getting into everything could be stressful. I’m ambivalent so I don’t get all the hate.

    • My2Pence says:

      Again, criticism does not equal hate.

    • Original N says:

      = first world problem when she could be promoting causes for those who would relish having A home with clean drinking water, let alone the wealth to renovate a stately home or SEVERAL homes. It was her CHOICE to renovate so I have utterly zero sympathy.

    • sandie says:

      Here we go again with the “hate”. Do you even own a dictionary? If you did, you would not equate critical comments with “hate”. Grow up.

    • please no says:

      oh yes so stressful with nannys and servants at beckon call. pffft.

    • FLORC says:

      JenD
      If you want to see people who love to dump on Kate go to another Kate blog. This one is well balanced and dislikes william and the press more than Kate.

      And having a little one get into everything can be very stressful. Lucky for them they have a fleet of nannies on top of a full staff and then some for each of their homes. Add in having no job with regular commitments and an endless supply of money I can’t figure out how they’re suppose to be stressed out.

      A common defence is a normal person saying babies are stressful… William and Kate have nothing in common with a normal person. You just can’t compare the 2. It shows ignorance of the facts.

    • epiphany says:

      I’m the last person to advocate censorship, but the word “hate” should be banned when used in this manner. It should be referred to as the “h” word. If you criticize someone, it doesn’t mean you hate them! It takes a groundswell of energy and emotion to hate someone, and these people just don’t mean that much to me; I can’t speak for anyone else. The BRF live their lives in the public eye, accept public monies for support – therefore, when they do something we don’t like, we criticize. Please stop using words as they are interpreted by various performers *hatas are gonna hate* – and use it in the proper context – which doesn’t apply here.

    • JenD says:

      @Sandie – Thank you for your concern about my having a dictionary and the need to grow up.

      Maybe dislike is the better word. It just seems that every single thing Kate does is dissected towards the negative. And maybe I’m not a good celebitchy reader and poster, because I don’t feel the need to get personally snippy with someone for their views.

      • FLORC says:

        JenD
        Sandie was the only comment directed towards you that you commented on personally and I agree. It was petty. It’s not the majority of posters here. Please don’t think that.

        Anyways, many of these Kate posts are directed at William or press for negativity. And more often than not Kate is directly praised rather than directly insulted.
        To be fair she’s done so little that when she does do an event, wear her hair up, or dresses properly she’s praised continuously. And i’m not trying to be insulting by only praising her for those specific catagories. The bar has just been set so low this is all we’re given. Even her fan blogs can only praise her on superficial items.

        And many of the posts on these royal threads are rich with history lessons and facts. Or royaloonie banter that has little if anything to do with Kate. So, if you see a Kate thread that’s 300+comments it’s ften mostly us reading 50 shades via liberty or LadySlppers and Goodnames having a snooty tea party while grasping their pearls.

        So, don’t take anything personally and don’t respond back to those who make you feel personally attacked unless you want to fan the flames.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Oh Florc, you are so wrong about GoodNames and I.

        .:wags finger:.

        Scroll to the bottom and I’ll *try* and explain dearie.
        ;-)

      • FLORC says:

        Oooo I’m in for a wet wiglet lashing, aren’t I… Not the face!

    • anne_000 says:

      The small child is looked after by what seems to be 3 nannies so far. The older one (Will’s former nanny), the 22-yr old, & the 38-yr old, as well as by Kate’s parents.

      The renovation & re-painting are being done by expert designer(s) & contractors supervising everything.

      They have the least stressful circumstances anybody can have in such a situation.

      It’s not hate. It’s criticism based on their actions.

    • sandie says:

      Jen, you must be very sensitive if you took my comment as a personal attack. How do you cope in the “real” world?

    • Dame Snarkweek says:

      In JenD’s contextual defense “hate” is a now colloquial, though over-abused bit of slang. few people who use it these days are referring to the bitter, enemetical, dictionary version of hate. more often than not it means jealousy or criticism. although I do not know JenD’s age, “hate” is often a generational thing.

      • hmmm says:

        Given its origins, its purported uses as slang doesn’t make it acceptable. A loaded word like that at the very least serves to confuse and at worst, inflames. Some words should not be co-opted IMO. I don’t buy this for a minute. People need to think before they speak. (And JenD did rethink it, much to her credit).

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        I’m not sure what it is that you don’t “buy” exactly. If it is the fact that JenD meant “hate” in the pop sense, well I didn”t say that she did. I did not speak for her. If you don’t “buy” the fact that hate is a pop slang expression then I can’t help you because it certainly is. I didn’t advocate its use or misappropriation. It is what it is and eventually the mod use of the word will recede and the original meaning will stand on its own. Until then we should allow for the possibility that when soneone uses the word hate they may possibly just mean jealousy or criticism/dislike. This is especially true if hate is followed by the word “on”.

      • Sixer says:

        Dame S – please may I agree with you but also HATE ON this particular new sense of a word? Eh? Please nicely? ;)

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        Sixxer
        You win the internet today :)
        Your comment made me lol and an emphatic yes to your requst! I hope the abuse of that word recedes like the flood waters in your poor town. Have folks quite recovered there?

      • Sixer says:

        Things are getting back to normal, thankee kindly. The sun was out yesterday!

    • Lou says:

      That would be true, but she has two houses and isn’t living in the one getting renovated.

    • Lola says:

      Maybe some pampered housewives need to get off their spoiled, parasitic butts so they can learn what real work is?

    • ArtHistorian says:

      Jen D,

      I agree that these things can be stress facors. However, renting an entire 45 villa luxury resort halfway around the globe really is overkill.

  4. Shelby says:

    Wow, they surely have ran out of excuses.

    With these two, I don’t know what will happen to the monarchy once William becomes king. To think that many years ago, there was a poll or something that wants him to overtake his father to the throne!

  5. My2Pence says:

    “‘She tried to do the revamp cheaply with the builders who did the kitchen, and she got Dulux paints to match the Farrow & Ball colour palette to save money,’ I’m told. ‘But she wasn’t happy with the result, and one room came out with a horrible, unexpected purple tinge. She’s blaming it on her hormones before the birth.’”

    Just pointing out that she didn’t accidentally paint everything at KP a garish shade of purple, if this DM leak is to be believed. We already have the article about Charles potentially complaining that everything was beige, not purple. They were trying to make us think that Kate Middleton would do anything on the cheap apparently. She was trying so hard to be thrifty, don’t you know, and one room (not ALL 57 rooms of their “apartment”) turned out with an “unexpected purple tinge.”

    That probably just means that one of the many shades of beige she chose didn’t completely cover whatever shade was on the walls before, not that the “poor dear” is surrounded by a fuchsia mess of her own making. Photos from the Princess Margaret years show walls with deep, vivid, tropical colors. If nobody bothered to paint a few coats of white primer first, I can see those shades showing through Kate Middleton’s beige-of-choice.

    None of that, of course, explains why they “need” to completely redecorate Amner Hall as well. Just gives an excuse to use the up-and-coming designer Middleton didn’t know about when she first did these revamps last year. She’s always spent loads of other people’s money not money she earned herself, so why stop now?

    • Juliette says:

      I don’t give a fig how much of Charles’s money Kate spends, its her and William’s wastefulness of the perks paid for by the UK taxpayers that irks me. As long as Charles pays for her decorative blunders, I could care less. The Maldives vacation, with 6 RPOs paid time-and-a-half for the overtime work that goes into overseas travel, plus the renting of all the vacation bungalows, that irks me. With half of England recovering from floods, these two jet off to an exotic destination and spend nearly a million dollars of taxpayer funds on a week-long holiday. It’s UNJUST. If there is anyone who isn’t bothered by that, they should reconsider their own values.

    • TG says:

      @My2pence – Yes but you can’t criticize a pregnant woman. Don’t you know that? *sarcasm* Here is a novel idea. Why can’t these two clowns bunk down with Mummy and Daddy Middleton like they do every chance they get. The added benefit is Baby George is there too. They had no problem taking the heir to their house after his birth for a few months.

    • Carrie says:

      This is what I was thinking, My2Pence, though you’re more charitable than I. I didn’t know about Princess Margaret’s color scheme and so I assumed Kate picked a taupe when she meant a beige (quel dommage!), and didn’t know about the undertones.

      I also like the little comment that the had to go to the Maldives because they can’t go to Sandringham because of renovations….except that they went to Sandringham in January to check on the renovations. Does no one edit anymore?

      • LAK says:

        I loved Margaret’s colour scheme over Diana’s. You can see it on a website called cotes de Texas which is an interior design fanblog. It has a section on KP and the various changes it has undergone since such renovations were made public in Victoria’s time.

        Margaret had a jewel tone deep blue colour on most of her reception rooms. We’ve been told repeatedly that Kate used a professional interior designer. What sort of designer doesn’t know (or doesn’t advise their client) about the hazards of covering strong jewel tones with white/beige palette such that it doesn’t bleed through???!!!

        I didn’t like Diana’s apartment because it’s too yellow. To be fair, I dislike yellow walls no matter where I find them.

      • FLORC says:

        I enjoyed the site LAK and agree. The pale blue was lovely. As well the placement and choices of furniture. The palace apartment looks like it felt cozy and like a home.
        Warning for others going to that site… It took forever to load! I did load all 4 parts of KP at once though.

        On aother note I was shocked at how thin Kate was in those early days…http://lh3.ggpht.com/-5nsBx1Bq3aU/UffITIm_dbI/AAAAAAAB73U/oOwPjex77U4/s1600-h/princess-kate-middleton3.jpg

      • Carrie says:

        Thanks for the link, LAK — I really liked Princess Margaret’s apartment. The colors on the walls are bold, but not garish, and it actually didn’t seem too out-of-date, especially when compared with Diana’s apartment. That looked very 80s — but very lived-in. It felt like a home. I agree with you, FLORC, though: if that yellow is true, it’s waaaay too much!

        I wonder what Will and Kate have chosen. I tend to be very minimalist in my design choices (I hate clutter!), but I don’t carry the expectations of royalty.

      • Lana says:

        @LAK, Wow, I love that site! I need Yolanda Hadid Foster’s horse farm!

      • Sharon Lea says:

        Thanks LAK for mentioning that fabulous blog. I have over 250 royal books and have not seen most of these photos! Guess books/publishers generally will pay for photos of the royals and feel it is a waste to show their homes. But a home tells us so much about them!

      • LAK says:

        Ladies: i love that site. my only criticism is that it’s poorly organised so you can’t find what you need easily.

        that said, i found the start of the royal palaces pages.

        first up, Prince Charles’s country home, Highgrove. [cute family pics]

        http://cotedetexas.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/the-royal-palaces-part-one.html

        Lana: I loved Yolanda’s malibu home until i saw the view of the beach houses at the bottom of that hill. i didn’t realise that they could be seen from the house. they ruin a perfect view.

        one thing i’ve noticed, all these American homes use dark wood which i feel is a mistake as it makes the rooms dark no matter the light.

      • FLORC says:

        …*Looks down at finished wood floors…Up at newly painted Yellow walls… You are not invited to my home LAK! I would feel you judging my decor.

        Well, You aren’t banned I guess. Considering we’re on seperate land masses anyways. And the floor isn’t dark… more warm honey tone with a pale mustard yellow.

      • LAK says:

        FLORC: LOL. how shall we discuss imaginary Charlotte Georgina if i can’t visit you and you’ll shudder at my minimalist white abode??!!

      • FLORC says:

        LAK
        I would! Too clinical for me. I need warm cottage tones with bright, sunny windows. Big comfy furniture you can curl up in and flowers from the garden all over with vases of milk jugs and mason jars.

        I would only marvel at how easy it must be for you to dust and polish as I am a clean freak:) once a week all the furniture gets pulled from the walls and FMORC knows not to approach me for the next 3 hours.

        As a side decor comment.. I do LOVE Gray walls! The right tone only makes the colors pop more in the room.

    • bluhare says:

      I guess I wonder what room. There’s 57 of them.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        One would think that they simply could live in another part of the apartment, right. After all, it has about 50 rooms and two storeys.

        Ah, the insurmountable troubles of the rich and lazy.

      • LAK says:

        Arthistorian: it’s 3 stories, and some hack said there were so many rooms they’d installed a lift!

        you should read up on it on cote des Texas blog. it has something like 3 stories, 9 staff bedrooms, 5 staff rooms, PG tips has his own wing of 2 nurseries [day and night] and his own kitchen, oddly, only 2 main bedroom suites and one guest bedroom suite, several reception rooms [drawing room, library, study, sitting room, dining room etc]

      • ArtHistorian says:

        I remember reading about the lift!

        They have plenty of tape to live in one part of their apartment with being disturbed by what goes on in the other end. It is, in fact, possible. During my teenage years I wnt to a oarty at a classmate whose parents own a huge apartment. it was a loud party, I assumed the family was away. However, they were in another part of the hiouse, and not bothered at all.

  6. Caitlinsmommy says:

    How amazingly out of touch they are!

  7. AmandaPanda says:

    I am intrigued as to what “proper downtime” means in the context of 2 individuals for whom “up time” means 3 hours of work and 2 holidays in a 6 week period. I shall watch with bated breath….

    • Mel says:

      My thoughts exactly. I had to read the word twice.
      “Downtime?” As opposed to what?

    • Eugenia says:

      “Proper downtime” for these wastrels is the equivalent of a Stage 2 coma for us common work a day stiffs.

      • fairy godmother says:

        Down time??
        Forgive me, but just for a week I would trade my life for hers. After all, being a fairy godmother is not for the faint of heart, weak, lazy, or fake person. She would not last 30 seconds!….
        While I on the other hand would bask in the sun and finally have a chance to have my hair done! This is a 24/7 job. It has been at least 600 years since I had a few moments to myself or have my hair done. Oh, if only….
        Now how many more excuses will their PR throw out before it sticks?? Nada, none, zilch! Give it up already it is not working and the PR tactics are making a mockery of the so-called institution you are suppose to remind the public how respectable and honorable it is suppose to be.
        Fire them HM! Fire them all!!
        I need another espresso pronto.

  8. kcarp says:

    I have always liked them and have always taken up for them. HOWEVER, this is ridiculous. I have more of an issue with leaving your baby than the excuses they make up. I know some people do not have an issue with leaving their baby for some “us” time but for a week?? The baby isn’t even a year old.

    Wasn’t she supposed to be breast feeding? What is she pumping then fed exing the milk back? I didn’t breast feed so no judgements if she quit.

    • FLORC says:

      kcarp
      I’d only get judgy in regards to breast feeding if they’re claiming she does so and she doesn’t. That’s more towards a false image I guess and not as much BFing.

      And you’re not alone. Lots of the critics aare at a loss for words with how shameless their behavior has been. Even more when these half baked excuses come out. Out of touch doesn’t cover it anymore.
      The once fans and defenders (like yourself) are finding it difficult to find reason in their bahavior. The image you were sold and believed is barely supported these days with pr fluff articles. This latest vacation can’t be spun into a justifiable vacation or expense. People are fed up on both sides of the issue.

  9. mar says:

    Kate really needs to start putting herself out there more. She has been extremely useless since she became a royal.

  10. Allie says:

    I think her life must kind of suck. Remember when you had your first kid? Met up with other new moms, hung out, talked about drinking too much coffee or not enough, life kind of stopped and flipped over – sure it was terrifying, stressful, annoying sometimes – but it was real life. Then picking up the pieces and figuring out how to get back to work, have time for your man etc. etc. etc. Nannies, purple paint, a solitary walk in Hyde Park with the body guard and then home to your mother, no thanks. She can go to the Maldives as far as I am concerned. I don’t want her life or her hair.

  11. Zimmer says:

    Ahhh, bless their little hearts. They’re practically homeless. Poor dears.

  12. Juliette says:

    Something should be done about the cost of the RPOs to the taxpayer. Its one thing to pay for William and Kate’s protection when they are on UK soil, or when they are working. Its another thing entirely to pay EXTRA for them to have full time protection while they holiday in exotic locales, each and every month.

    Comparatively, the Queen and Charles are very thrifty with their holidays. Both prefer to holiday within the country, enjoying one of their luxury properties. I suppose that’s why William considers renovations to be an excuse. If he had access to his estate, he could holiday there, but as he can’t – Maldives is the next best thing. Twisted logic from a spoilt Prince.

    • Beatrice says:

      Interesting point about the Queen and Charles thrifty holidays. I don’t recall Charles and Diana (in the good years) jetting off to exotic locales all the time. They took an annual ski trip to Switzerland and I think a cold weather break but nothing like William and Kate.

    • Chrissy says:

      Maybe LAK could help with this question: Do the Royal Family have access to an unlimited amount of taxpayer money? Who controls the coffers and how can the general public go about limiting the amount these do-nothing Cambridges have access to? The tap has got to be turned off for these two twits! I’m Canadian and I’m outraged by their behaviour on behalf of the British taxpayer !!!

      • LadySlippers says:

        The answer is simple — they don’t.

        The Soveriegn Grant is actual pulling from the Crown Properties which are profitable but the British Gov pockets most of the profits (and does what with it is the question. Not fix up the properties is one). Only 15% of the Crown Profits goes to Elizabeth II as The Sovereign Grant and she distributes the funds to the working Royals.

        The Gov okays certain things like renovations for health and security reasons but doesn’t decorate. Decorating comes out of personal funds. Something to note, the Crown Properties *should* have had clauses built in for upkeep of properties and various other maintenance items as they arise but doesn’t.

        The RPO salary is absolutely directly funded by the tax payer. However not everything is and that’s a common misconception. There are some excellent arguments that the vast majority of the funds that support the BRF are actually NOT bourne by the tax payer (hard part is Royal finances are difficult to unravel).

      • Chrissy says:

        Thanks for the clarification, Lady Slippers.

      • fairy godmother says:

        Are there any records available that would show how much of their expenses is written off?
        For example, if Charles pays for Kate’s wardrobe to wear at an official function he can write that off any recoup any out of pocket expenses he incurred. Same with any RF member can do. How much is put in there like her make-up, hair dresser, etc.?
        When I read the small cost of the RF to the taxpayers it does not add in all the written off expenses or RPOs and their expenses does it?
        It would shed more light on their actual cost versus their actual usefulness perhaps.

      • sienna says:

        LadySlippers

        Is it true though that many of the castles (esp Windsor) are in horrible disrepair? Maybe rather than just decorating the royals could be using some of their very deep personal wealth to repair the homes that only they have the privilege of using.

        Also, I vote we abolish the Windsor clan after the queen passes and instate yourself as monarch. I am endlessly fascinated by your knowledge of all things royal … and you already have a title! *deep curtsey*

      • FLORC says:

        HRH LadySlippers. Ruler of the Moccasin Realm. Queen of the Flip-Flop. Princess of The Casual Slip-on and Guardian of Stylish Footware!

      • LAK says:

        The Sovereign grant is more straight forward than the civil list used to be.

        Many people don’t understand what the crown estate is and assume that it was royal property to begin with and therefore the government has no right to it and is shafting the royals in some way.

        The crown estate was set aside in Norman times to fund the instrument of government, Judiciary, defence of the realm and the royal household. It’s purpose was along the same thinking that created the duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster except that the crown estate looked after government and Judiciary and the royal household in the same way that those duchies were set up for the heir and the monarch respectively.

        The crown estate belongs to the crown NOT the monarch or even which ever royal family is in situ much like the crown jewels. The monarch was charged with managing the crown estate.

        Unfortunately, successive monarchs proved to be terrible managers and spendthrifts, so the crown Estate was always in debt. The Monarch would often need to go to parliament to ask for taxes to be raised to cover the frequent shortfalls, particularly the household shortfalls. Taxes as a concept was never meant to be a permanent thing as they are today. Taxes were only raised as needed otherwise the crown Estate revenue were supposed to cover any needs.

        Finally, George III decided it would be much simpler to transfer the management of the crown properties to parliament with surplus going to the treasury in exchange for a salary that would cover his own royal household costs which were laid out at the time. This salary is what later became known as the civil list. unfortunately, the amount of money given via the civil list never truly caught up with inflation. The expense items and people/things it was supposed to cover were never reviewed properly and it was always paid several years in arrears. Any reviews always left the civil list woefully underfunded, and despite efforts by the current royal family to be less extravagant, it was never going to catch up.

        The sovereign grant cuts through all the different calculations that were used to work out a final figure, which was different every year. It also simplifies where the money comes from because there was a tendency for different government departments to cover items on the civil list and their was always a grumble about how many people received direct funds from the list.

        The Sovereign grant is simply a flat rate of 15% of Crown estate revenues though the list of items to be covered has been laid out.

        Meanwhile, over time, the crown estate revenues and profits have been used to pay for the primary public services such as Judiciary, Army, Police, NHS, civil service/government depts and of course Parliament.

      • LAK says:

        Chrissy: i think the biggest problem is that they spend other people’s money [taxpayer/charles/HM/random friends] in a very thoughtless way. Making them financially responsible for their own life including security might force a change.

        Historically, the royal family have been allowed to get away with not paying for certain parts of their lives which in turn has made them considerably wealth. As an example, some of them [senior royals] live rent free in government buildings. Their travel and security are paid directly by the government. their expenses are met when they carry out public duties, and they barely pay tax which remains a voluntary exercise for them as opposed to the rest of the tax payers.

        All this means they are being subsidised in one way or another by the tax payers. IF we refused to pay up, there would be a change as when HM was finally forced to pay tax when Windsor Castle was almost burned to the ground in 1992 and she needed govt funds to repair it.

        Forcing HM to pay tax still makes me angry 20yrs later because we had been through 2 extreme recessions during my lifetime upto that point, not to mention the wars *she* had witnessed and the rationing the rest of the country had suffered during and after the wars, and she didn’t think she should pay taxes whilst rest of the country was suffering.

      • Chrissy says:

        Thanks LAK! If only the rest of us could have the choice of whether to pay taxes or not. Nevertheless, IMO the behaviour of the Cambridges brings to light that everything you’ve stated above needs to be re-examined since they’re obviously not pulling their weight! Time for a shake-up perhaps?

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        LAK
        A lot of people don’t know this about HM and the Windsor fire. It would put her in a light most people are unwilling to cast her in because they admire her work ethic and sense of duty. I am also an admirer of HM but I am not a fan of greed. Reportedly, after the fire HM declined a request to distribute bonuses to the castle servants and employees who literally scrambled around with pails of water and formed an assembly line to hustle priceless treasures out of danger. She had a little meet and greet and shook their hands instead. Pffft.

      • UpNorth says:

        We, as Canadians, pay aprox. 3x/person vs. British citizens, for the ‘honour’ of having the queen ruling over us. We also shoulder the cost of each and every royal visit for that family and Canadian journalists aren’t allowed to cover these visits, only the royal reporters that travel with them and then sell photos and stories to the Canadian media. Hence the positive spin on all royal visits. The queen also, gets royalties on each tree felled, minerals mined on queen’s land which is 100s of 1000s of hectres of Canadian soil.

        We are contributing in many ways to the support and wealth of this wealthy family. The current government re-named our forces as (for e.g.) Royal Canadian Air Force. Search online for Canadian water wars, if you want to read about the possible strength, power of this family. Really have no way of knowing if the reports are true or not or what to believe but, I don’t see the value of paying for this family nor having them rule over us. (personal opinion)

        Nothing against the individuals but, we are a grown country and time to live on our own and not with ‘parental’ country, IMO.

        But, point being – Canadians do support this family financially.

  13. Deedee says:

    I see. They were FORCED to go to the Maldives. How that must tear them apart! Really, there was no room at the inn (or the 20 something royal residences) for a poor family of three. What else could they do? Does anyone think Pippa wrote this sugary article? She does try to write for VF on occasion.

  14. toto says:

    Poor homeless family, now it make sense. that was big sacrifice from will Kate part,
    long live the king & the queen of homeless.

  15. LAK says:

    I’m curious. What is wrong with their other homes on Sandrigham and Balmoral that they can’t weekend there whilst Amner and KP are re-done? Whatever happened to the country home being built for them on the Harewood Estate? Can’t they live there instead?

    They need to stop using Katie Nicholls, she gives them the most ridiculous get-out excuses that only draw disdain and contempt.

    • My2Pence says:

      @LAK. I forgot about the Harewood (Herefordshire) house that was supposed to be being built for them as well. Charles potentially had that land in mind for them as far back as what, 2005?

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-451125/Revealed-The-renovated-estate-meant-Prince-William-Kates-lovenest.html

      As TG said up-thread, they couldn’t have just camped out at Middleton Manor, seeing as they spend so much time there already? Nicholl is just spinning the excuse she was given by Will and Kate Middleton. What is ridiculous is that anyone expects us to believe this drivel.

    • Lana says:

      @LAK, Can they use other royal properties? Like Windsor, Holyrood, or any of the Queen’s another houses/palaces?

      • LAK says:

        Lana, in theory they could, but in practise no one has ever tested the theory. That said Edward, Andrew and Anne have flats in BP, the Yorkies primarily live in SJP, and no word yet if Harry has taken delivery of their former home, Nottingham Cottage at KP.

        Further to those options, they also have use of Charles’s numerous homes dotted nationwide, plus the suite built specifically for them at Middleton towers. AND they have a cottage on Sandrigham (in addition to Amner Hall) and one and half cottages on Balmoral. The half cottage is one that was gifted to Harry and William to share.

        It’s really baffling why they would play the homeless game or even renovation game as they have and have been given more properties than their own uncles and aunt and cousins.

      • Lana says:

        @LAK, Thank you! That’s a lot of options. If I were in their position, I would just go from house to house in the UK. I’m sure I’d find something suitable. ;)
        Do they get too pick their own homes, or are they chosen for them? (Sorry I’m asking so many questions, I’m kind of new at the whole royal watching thing.)

      • LAK says:

        Lana, it’s a 2 way street. HM has many properties that are not in use or rented out. Generally, the royal charge is provided with a list of what’s available and they pick the one they like, it’s renovated according to their taste and that’s that. Occasionally, you’ll have someone who doesn’t like what is available and she builds them something from scratch to their taste as she did for Andrew/Fergie.

        HM tends to gift homes when there is a new phase of life eg marriage. The cottages on Balmoral and Sandrigham are provided because not everyone can live at the main house and they can enjoy the properties with less restriction. Any time a news report says someone spent a weekend at Balmoral or Sandrigham especially if they are friends or inlaws or potential inlaws, they usually mean the cottages.

      • Liberty says:

        Thanks, LAK — I’ve heard of this but didn’t know the specifics. You are like a knowledge fountain!! :-)

    • ArtHistorian says:

      I did notice that the article makes the look absolutely ridiculous without any overt criticsm – but maybe that was the point!

      There are many ways to subtly express criticism – fx placing a fluffy “Kate and George on tropic holiday” next to a headline about the floods in Somerset. The juxtaposition of the two stories, and their images, is nothing but jarring.

      William has a history of trying to bully the press into reporting favorably on him and his wife, but criticism can be couched in many subtle ways, which means that it becomes very difficult for him to object. The Daily Mail’s first article on the Maldives trip emphasized the cost of the resort, the expense of the RPO’s, etc. – they never wrote any direct criticism, but the info on the cost of this trip was certainly enough to rile people up. And I bet they knew that!

      • boredsuburbanhousewife says:

        It does — especially since it really makes a point of how Williams was supposedly still on his “course” — further supporting the suspicion of many that the whole “course” was a made up excuse to loaf about some more while pretending to be doing something useful.

        I also note the scathing tone of many DM comments.

      • bluhare says:

        Honestly, if this was supposed to make them sympathetic whoever came up with it out to be taken out and shot at dawn. With no last cigarette either.

    • cinders29 says:

      Or they could move into Emmerdale Home Farm for the duration. Seriously, I’d pay good money to live on the Harewood Estate

  16. Jaded says:

    If anyone is going to cause the BRF to come crashing down it’s Wills and Kate, Duke and Duchess Dolittle. Bring on the revolution I say!!

  17. Barbiegirl says:

    This makes me think of how unpopular and disrespectful for the poor were the French Monarchs in the 1700s, throwing money away on lavish parties and banquets while the poor people were starving. In their defense they were just kids when they rose to the throne… But still they ended up on the guillotine…. Just saying… History has a tendency to repeat itself and people somehow do not have historical memory. Will and Kate they are clearly acting disrespectful toward their taxpayers (I was one for 10 years, I am now in the US). Seriously do some useful work… And nobody will say that you do not deserve a vacation… But then hey maybe Kate sees her job done, as she produced an heir, so now she can live off that… Quite appalling actually…

  18. Talie says:

    Did everyone see the article about Prince Edward’s birthday on the Mail’s site? Holy crap! He and his wife live on a MASSIVE estate. I was stunned! I don’t even think Charles has a place that big to live everyday.

  19. boredsuburbanhousewife says:

    The monarchy may not survive Will and his self indulgence and obliviousness. I am waiting for the tabloids to go Fergie Toe Sucking with headlines like “ANOTHER vacation for Will and Kate????” If their vacations and redecorating start to become a comedy punchline on British and possibly American tv, they are done for.

    Also, I don’t agree with the criticism of the Queen and/or Charles that they need to “crack down” on these two and that they are somehow derelict in “allowing” this to go on. Hey, experienced moms and grandmoms out there — how well does it work when you try to get involved with the choices of your son and his wife? Your grandson and his wife? Didn’t think so. Even if she is the bloody Queen, they are still people and a family. There is a limit to the control one can exercise over grown children whether or not there is a family firm involved.

    • Aeryn39 says:

      I completely agree with you. Cracking down usually doesn’t work in families, however Royal. I think the Queen and Prince Charles are trying to lead by example. And William fully remembers his mother’s example as well. Diana was many things, but lazy was not one of them.

      When Prince Philip was alleged to try to crack down on the family, he was referred to as a bully or a tyrant. Lord, that was poorly worded, but you know what I mean…

      And I’m sure George V and Queen Mary tried to crack down on the Duke of Windsor and we all know how well that worked…

      • boredsuburbanhousewife says:

        Yes and Queen Victoria & Prince Albert tried to crack down on Edward VII.
        I would also think they are prey to the same feelings of guilt and conflict toward their children as the rest of us. As in the Queen may feel eternally guilty she spent so little time with Charles, and Charles may feel eternally guilty about the impact his and Diana’s marital meltdown on his sons. Sometimes you overcompensate.

      • bluhare says:

        Cracking down tends to work when there are purse strings involved. If the Queen or Charles indicated that any funding from them will stop unless they *insert whatever it is here*, that could do it. My understanding is that Charles funds them to a point; not sure about the Queen.

    • The Original Mia says:

      I don’t understand the criticism of the Queen & Charles either. The Lamebridges are in their 30s and have a child. At what point do they begin to take responsibility for their own choices? They’ve decided they want to be lazy and live off the public coin. They should receive all the scorn and condemnation. Not the Queen. Not Charles. They’ve done what was required of them with William. How he lives his life as an adult, as a father, as a husband, as a heir is on him.

    • idk says:

      No one thinks Harry will be King one day but I believe he will. I think he has more leadership qualities than William does.

    • lunchcoma says:

      It’s certainly the fault of these two adults, tough I think there might be something that could be done. Even in ordinary families, it’s understood that if adult children accept money from their parents, the parents have some say in how they spend it. It seems like it should be possible for someone to set a vacation budget for the couple, for instance.

      • Bored suburbanhousewife says:

        @lunchcoma I only wish this were true! I have known far too many adults on the parental dole with an entitled attitude who bitterly resist and resent any attempt to set limits. Typically such folks have a sense of grievance about real or imagined past parental failings. Can be a pretty tortured codependent situation, esp if young children involved and the parents in effect are blackmailed using the grandchildren as leverage.

    • LAK says:

      I find it amazing that the military doesn’t seem to have had an impact on William. I’ve never known anyone in the military with this sort of attitude. They may have it going in, but they definitely train it out of you by the time you’ve spent 6yrs with them.

      Perhaps i’m wrong and there are loafers in the military too, but to me it demonstrates how little application and or effort William put in or was allowed to get away with.

      • My2Pence says:

        @LAK. I doubt the military really had a chance to do anything with him. All wanted the “honor” of having him in their branch of service and none of them was going to rock the boat until a few years in when they saw how lazy and useless he was. He seemed to skip out on each branch just when his welcome was wearing thin. In SAR he wasn’t working proper shifts, barely maintaining his flight hours, then gee, has to quit because it is going private, paternity leave, and gap year.

        That keeps being thrown around by fans, that he HAD to quit mid-2013 since SAR was going private. No, SAR wasn’t going to start going private until 2015 (going fully private by 2017).

        http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-21934077

        He could have worked there until then if he’d re-upped for 3-4 years. Given the BRFs preference of leaving bully William on his own because they cannot deal with him, they probably would have liked them to stay in Wales for few more years. The military wasn’t willing to keep quiet about how little William was really doing. I suspect SAR and the RAF were done covering for him so the royals had to think of something else.

      • hmmm says:

        Good point, LAK. Looks like he was just as coddled in the military. What a joke! I would love to see him skewered in something like South Park. Where are all the British cartoonists/satirists these days?

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        My take on this is that William is an all or nothing type of person. If he doesn’t get his way then he simply stops cooperating altogether. Since he was a small child he wanted to be a member of law enforcement or the military. I suspect that eventually it became clear to him that because of security reasons he would never be allowed to have a meaningful/full career as a pilot. At that point I believe the whole thing just became a nuisance to him. Thus, the slack and indifferent attitude. Of course, with more maturity and character he could have made the best of what he was given (like Andrew and Harry) but William is a long ways from showing that sort of mettle.

      • Mhahaha says:

        DameS, that’s a really interesting comment when put in the context of this bespoke course. Maybe he wasn’t enjoying Cambridge (because they made him work! such a nuisance!) so he’s simply stopped bothering, hence the vacay?

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        Mhahaha
        I am afraid this could be the case. No way to know, of course, but I never felt like it was Will’s own idea. I feel like Charles showed him the common sense of the plan and Will went along with it. And with Will anything going against his grain eventually results in lax behavior. When he started at Sandhurst he was reportedly excited and anxious to see if he had what it takes – as well as relishing his dad’s and grandmother’s obvious pride in his acceptance. But somewhere along the way a light blew out and William has grown resentful, stubborn and maybe even callous.
        Maybe it sucks to know that something you can’t control (your birth) has you in its iron grip and your destiny is not fully of your own choosing. But Charles went through the same thing as a young man and I can’t help but feel that if Will weren’t so stubborn and egotistical he would ask his dad for help/advice. If Will would think of anyone other than himself he would see that being a royal can give him not only chances to change lives for the better but a chance to live his own best life as wel. Other royals have found ways to do this quite well.

      • LadySlippers says:

        @Snark:

        I’ve said the same thing about William. I think if you can work it so he’s doing exactly what he wants is probably a good thing. If not, he’s super passive-aggressive and stubborn as a mule.

        Makes it a challenge to work with and around that kind of person.

  20. Eileen says:

    The Princess of Wales was no saint but she worked so hard for charities and did plenty of foreign trips and other appearances-these two should take note before they make any more p.r. disaster mistakes

    • Inconceivable! says:

      I completely agree! I wonder why these two are not learning lessons from the previous royal generations, especially now that Charles has his group in charge of William & Kate’s PR. These glaring PR mistakes are….as my name says….Inconceivable!! :)

  21. The Original Mia says:

    Ya’ll are a bunch of jellus people. Will & Kate are perfect. They deserve to have everything around them be perfect. Like gosh…expecting them to find some place local to wait out the reno. Really? They are royal. R-O-Y-A-L. They don’t do local. When they go on a weekender, they go to Mustique or Maldives. Ya’ll better recognize that Will & Kate are just keeping it real. They are the modern monarchy.

  22. lunchcoma says:

    Wow. That’s a terrible explanation. Sure, you don’t want to be in your house when it’s being renovated. Most people don’t, if they can afford to be elsewhere. Why can’t they just head over to the Middletons’ for a couple weeks, or go visit Camilla and Charles, or stay with some other relatives? It’s not as if they lack family, and I’m guessing everyone involved has plenty of guest rooms.

  23. bettyrose says:

    But that brown coat is really cute.

  24. CC says:

    wow, they much think we’re complete idiots…

  25. Kayla says:

    She looks so crazy in that one picture. I’m surprised her teeth aren’t cracking under the force of her smile.

  26. idk says:

    These two are hated as much as Kim and Kanye…

    • Xantha says:

      Yeah there’s not much difference between these two couples at this point.

      At least us Americans aren’t expected to pay for Kimye’s lifestyle so that’s a check for them.

    • Emily C. says:

      Kim and Kanye don’t live on the taxpayer dime. They also work a LOT more. I don’t like either couple, but if given the choice, I’ll take Kim and Kanye any day over these worse-than-useless lumps.

    • HK9 says:

      No quite, but they’re getting there. But in all seriousness, I really like Kate, but they aren’t giving me anything to work with. To say these two are work shy is the understatement of the year. I want to think there’s a good reason for this but I got nothing man, nothing.
      (BTW, there PR crew should be fired because if this is the reason they came up with, they should have said nothing at all)

    • word says:

      Emily – you call what Kim does “work”? The tax payers don’t pay for Kim and Kanye’s income that is true, but Americans also don’t pay for Kate and Will’s income yet Americans still don’t like them and gasp at their expenses right? Most British folk don’t care, but they should, as it is their tax dollars.

      • Emily C. says:

        Yes, I call what Kim and Kanye do work. They’re in the entertainment industry. That is their job. They don’t pretend to be anything else.

        I have no idea what the fact that I personally am not paying taxes to support Will and Kate has to do with it. Taxes are being paid by people to support them. I do not have to be personally involved in something to take a moral stance on it. I find spoiled rich people appalling, and Will in particular is one of the most spoiled rich people in the world.

      • word says:

        I see what Kanye does as “work” but Kim on the other hand, not really. That’s just my personal opinion. My point was that we don’t pay for Kim and Kanye’s income and we (those who are not living in the U.K.) don’t pay for the Royal’s incomes either. Yet, we are upset by their lifestyle. Most of the U.K. doesn’t care what the royals do or how they spend their money, but as you can see in my original post, I said they SHOULD care as it is their tax money. If the rest of the world cares, the brits should too. I agree, spoiled rich people are appauling, whether famous or not. Actually, there are some Saudi Princes who could give Will a run for his money. It’s gross, when people are given such great opportunities to better this world with their money and time, but choose to do very little.

      • FLORC says:

        As much as some hate the KK clan it’s true they do work and they or others on their orders aren’t forcing anyone to watch or buy their stuff. If no one paid attention they would vanish fairly quickly.. W&K aren’t so reliant on a fanbase and customers.

      • lunchcoma says:

        Kim is a reality television actress and occasionally a spokesmodel. There’s very little reality to the Kardashian’s show. She gets plotlines, does shoots and reshoots, and does her promotional work. It’s not a very useful job, but it is a job.

  27. LadySlippers says:

    Oh Florc Dahling, I do feel the need to correct you. ;-)

    First Dearie, GoodNames and I NEVER clutch our pearls. That’s just so– so– blue collar .:shudder:. Although perhaps we do *fondle* our creamy, smooth, and sumptuous pearls. Yes those luscious globes invite your fingers to…Stroke. Lovingly adore. Absolutely. Clutch? Oh heavens no.

    Second, we *rarely* have tea. Tsk tsk. We do however, enjoy lavish vacations on: yachts, private islands, exclusive resorts, and in the finest hotels (oh Darling GoodNames I do have a horror story from gracing one of these establishments with my presence and they have the NERVE to send me home with BEDBUGS! .:faints:.).

    Oh wait, where was I? .:contemplates nothing:. Um oh yes, I was talking about ME (my favourite subject) and GoodNames (my dear dear friend). GoodNames and I positively adore shopping! Oh YES! Can’t ever face the shame of wearing clothing twice or out of season. .:shudder:.

    However Florc, our life of privilege comes with MORE than it’s fair share of burdens. We manage large estates with such ungrateful employees. They simply insist on getting paid, having time off (why? I NEVER get time off!), getting sick (the nerve!), and oh my goodness — being called by the name their mother gave them! (How is SHE even a factor? I’m paying them!!!)

    We also have to tolerate those small people assigned to us. GoodNames deals with this SO much better than I (bless her heart). I think she manages to spend perhaps a few hours with them a week. I simply cannot fathom that myself. I cart mine off to boarding school and exotic learning camps just to minimize time with them. And they seem to STILL be underfoot at the most inopportune times.

    I of course have a rotten ex-husband, the former LordSlippers. What a parasite! And GoodNames still has her…lump living with her (I’m going to be honest about GoodNames, I think she might like her lump of a husband just the teensiest bit. Florc I’m afraid GoodNames is a bit of a softie).

    We also have grand houses to manage. That IS a chore. Well, it was for me. Until I burned it down. What?!? It was that or fumigate the whole thing to rid myself of those pests. And it’s been a whole decade since I renovated! So a rodent ‘chewed’ threw wiring and caused the whole thing to go up in flames. Pity, isn’t it? Good thing I slept with my insurance agent so she didn’t suspect a thing
    (I also occasionally subjugate myself to a doctor in order for him to provide me with my ‘pick me ups’. He’s just dreadful! Ugh! The things I do…).

    So Florc, we do SO much more than have tea and clutch pearls. (And I didn’t mention the drinking or the parties!)

    And GoodNames and I simply are astonished at the condimnation for this poor, beleaguered couple. Kaiser is right, it’s so terrible and burdensome to be wealthy. They probably needed the beach to provide them with the MUCH needed vitamin D. So see? There is a PERFECTLY logical reason to fly to an island for that. Everyone simply knows beaches provide the best quality of vitamin D out there. Geesh…

    • fairy godmother says:

      My Dear LadySlippers,
      You poor thing! What you have had to endure!
      If only you had mentioned this to me and I would have rid you of all those pesky and unsightly pests at the wave of my wand and spared your humble abode from ruins and sleeping with the hired help (insurance agent).
      If you ever give up sipping on tea do let me know- I would much rather have drinks (hard liquor) with you and GoodNames.
      As always, your most devout and loving……
      Fairy Godmother

    • FLORC says:

      On 1 hand LadySlippers you have me choked up with laughter!

      On the other I am shamed to have not properly acknowledged your status. How poor of me to claim you would do such common actions. I am ashamed. Please accept my humble apologies
      *backs out bowing profusely*

    • Liberty says:

      @LadySlippers, Simply dying here on the yacht, darling! Thank heavens you responded. It is truly incumbent upon one I think to enlighten the dear “masses” about our “lives” and how one conducts oneself and endeavours to share the golden “sunlight” of our days to inspire those who through no fault of their own (birth, etcetera) can but carry on with their labors and enjoy the droplets of our sun at the end of a day. I do so love the way you try to “step down” a bit and talk about our shopping with the “masses” and really just the labor of tending to our houses and fortunes and art, my god, no one truly understands the difficulty of finding a good private art curator these days to mind the family portraits in the portrait hall and guest rooms!, Or that to amuse ourselves we sometimes mingle with the “masses” in “day jobs” I believe the term is or, as I do, sometimes fly to attend “meetings” with these lovely folk with pens and laptops who understand our investments and how to arrange a meeting with a quite good polo player with thoughts on developing one’s string! Or find new “staff” who won’t simply bore one with “needs” and “expectations” and etcetera. Throbbing head! Pearls! Indeed. I haven’t clutched a pearl over “tea” since one had to attend that wake in Barcelona for some duke’s wife’s mother! How we laughed and then simply shot back to our chateau to put on our skis! Thank you, dear. Off to see which teak barge the hubby wants now! Hugs! You delight me forever, can hardly wait to see you all for dinner in Copenhagen!

    • Xantha says:

      My word. I didn’t realized the privileged had it so rough. Can I provide you a fainting couch, as well as some pink lemonade served in a golden chalice with a tiffany blue straw? You certainly deserve it.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Daaaahhlings! You started the party without me, oh naughty bunnies! I was so so busy today, what with all the phone calls about dahling Slippy and her house of ashes (but not bedbugs!), giving orders to the cook for dahling Mr. GoodNames’s dinner, kissing little foreheads before walkies with Nanny, I’m such a devoted mummy, but I never complain. You are all so perceptive and sympathetic, I’ll be right over with well deserved libations. Kiss kiss.

  28. Xantha says:

    And if you want a case of contrast in Royals:

    Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden injured her leg earlier this year while skiing with her family. Did she use that as an excuse to cancel her many engagements? Nope. She still kept her many commitments, hurt leg and all. And she still keeps a busy schedule even though she’s a mom to a two year old.

    Take notes Will and Kate.

  29. Mrs.Krabapple says:

    I wonder if it will ever get to the point where they are actually “boo”-ed by a crowd?

  30. Liberty says:

    FIFTY SHADES OF WINDSOR: BOOK FOUR

    “The media have enraged me!” growled William Baldtop, pacing the room in lazy, even strokes across the silky waves of carpet, his eyes burning. Beneath his purple polo shirt, a gift from Kate who had flung it at him in tears just that morning in sunny Maldive, his somewhat soft muscles moved with a blend of inherited German energy and English five-pint ease. “Who is talking to them! Is it you?” His longer manicured fingers slipped through his cropped disintegrating hair as he swiveled to face her, licking his girlishly soft lips. “Naff blokes! Bloody weeds!”

    “I, I, what gives this angry, sir!” cowered Romina, the 22 year old “foreign” literature student and nanny, as she clasped her hands weakly over the small red nanny bikini top she had been told to wear. A How To Be A Nanny book lay at her feet with some high heeled beige sandals she was supposed to clean and scent. “The wife persons, I know she is weak like bird with one leg and maybe head injury from predator or not enoughs food when a baby , it happened in our village too, or she maybe run into electric wire climbing a pole when child, and she must be to lie on the table of massage all today, to be better after shock of bead falling off little purse, but –

    He looked so hot, sweat glistening. He flung open a hotel window, not listening to her. “Peasants!” He looked at her sternly, running his hands up and down his own torso. “We came here to care for OURSELVES, to be kind to OURSELVES, because no one cares do they! We are here to escape the ennui of watching common workers in unsightly overalls planting shrubs and painting our new herb room, as any parents would do, but especially ones like us, who become quite physically sick at the sight of work things and bits, shovels, all that! Our genetics, what can we do? We came here to escape a quite large cumbersome scowling infant who only gets bigger, a palace that will not stop sending us calendars with things written in, my midterm exam which was NOT supposed to happen, and the evidence that a woman with a fine arts degree really painted an entire palace apartment Barbara Cartland Purple and what if someone took a picture and I do mean old Beatrice and Eugie don’t I, those very wicked wicked girls! We chuffed for the kingdom for nearly eight hours last month at three separate parties! And after all this instead of worrying about our health, whether we can sleep at night or if our pool water is warm enough, we are mocked!” He grabbed her shoulders and stared into her wide eyes. “What happened to fearing us? What happened to sending us presents to avoid our wrath and all that, ho?” He flopped onto the unmade bed. “What happened to understanding royals are just like dogs, here for fun, right, here for fun, to look at, to throw nice toys to and take to parks, right! No one asks a corgi to go to the office! Peasants! Rocks, booing, unpleasantness! I say, nothing is the same! I just want to ski and do sun things! Like in bloody history!”

    Her eyes flew around the room as she twisted the thin metal ring on her finger that she wore to remind herself that her family had survived starvation and pograms in those dark hours when she felt most alone. “Sir, maybe you play nice video games, or to order new ponies on computer?” she murmured, remembering the delicious release of those moments when William Baldtop was pressing hard with quickening, insistent flicks on his mobile buttons to order more things he wanted or to talk to friends named things like Twangy, Izzy, Titty and Poot and thus, left young Romina quite alone to clean or have some cold tea. “Maybe you calls up the strange loud dog person Jakka and she come here too like loyal animal girl again?” she suggested hopefully. “You can together hunt the rats with sticks, right outside there, see? we do this in my homeland, will be almost like trip to Spain with dear Jesus boy Harry, god bless him, may he help me with his Harry powers of goodness and strong arms and thighs, before I really kill own self with heavy gold room key!” Tears of desire welled up in her eyes.

    “No! I am much too miffed to be seen this way by Jakka, Toots or Chesty!” moaned William Baldtop, rolling about on the heavy pink linen bedding. “By the way, Cressida Two, speaking of the joy that was Spain, my people are telling the tabs that you are a hefty older Spanish woman who lives for brats and tykes and lives on garlic and squid pie and all that, right ho? So you must always wear a giant black head to toe mantilla in public from now on, Carole is having James whip it up out of her old in-flight lingerie collection and Pips is ordering you a quite monstrously large prosthetic ass to wear in the park when you wheel Jack – bloody hell, Geoff — around for the paps and all that Spring, summer, parks, what ho? Don’t you have a wood cross on some twine too? And your black rubber nursery boots. But until then, if you go out of the hotel while we here, you’re not a nanny, eh, got that, you’re a model!” He squinted at her. “I say you do look jolly good at the moment! Come here and mount the battlements, har, the King needs a beef snack, ho, right! Then I’ll want lunch, I am upset! Thank Charles we are in the Maldives! I might just lay here forever! Well, come along, haven’t all day! As you say, I have a mind to get some ponies! Hop on, wench, slap and tickle, right ho, use the scrunch again, right, Pooh in a blanket, har!!”

  31. linlin says:

    So, will the tax payer also pay for a luxurious vacation for all those people whose homes are being renovated right now because of the flood?

  32. Paige says:

    I really like these two and I think the majority of the comments are unfair and mean. They deserve a holiday like anyone else. No one on this thread knows what goes on behind closed doors. The Royal Family brings in a huge amount of money contributing to Britain’s economy. They give to charity, employ hundreds of ppl and that doesn’t include the money spent by ppl who visit Britain because of the Royal Family. I could go on to prove my point but I think ppl get my drift. If you are so unhappy with your situation blame your politicians for the economic woes. Perhaps they should have shut the door to immigration along time ago.

    • Xantha says:

      What does immigration have to do with being critical of Royals? Of course by your logic the BRF will have to go as well because they’re originally Germans.

      And for the last time most tourists don’t come to Britain to see the Royal Family. Royal sites rank rather low on popular destinations in the UK when the stats were done.

      • Maze says:

        What DO the British think of Charles being Charles III? Are there still people over there who would refuse to recognize him by that title and call him Charles IV or even V? Like Dubya was Selector George during his first contentious term in some circles here in the US.

      • Lou says:

        Sure they deserve a holiday… but they’ve had three. About time for some work, yes?

        I’m all for the Royal Family. They do a lot of work. But Will and Kate don’t, and they’ll be the end of the monarchy is the keep this nonsense up.

      • Mel says:

        “And for the last time most tourists don’t come to Britain to see the Royal Family. Royal sites rank rather low on popular destinations in the UK when the stats were done. ”

        Agreed 100 %. None of the people I know – and certainly not myself – have ever visited any site simply because it was “Royal”, let alone in the hope to catch a glimpse of a “royal” person.
        (As for the change of the Guard – which some parochial Brits seem to regard as a high-priorty tourist activity -, it elicits so little interest in my social group that I for one wouldn’t go see it if they paid me. Literally. I consider my time to be priceless.)

        People go to Britain to see the beautiful landscapes and the many historic sites. They would continue to do so even if there were no “royals”.

      • Maggie says:

        Uuummm you are incorrect. Plenty of ppl go to England to see the crown jewels, castles etc. The Royals are a huge draw.

      • Suze says:

        Maggie, the crown jewels and most of the castles that are open to the public are owned by the British government, not the royal family (see LAK’s post above). All that lovely tourist stuff would still remain if the Windsors got on a spaceship and left planet earth entirely.

        But at least you agree that the draw is the historic royal stuff and nonsense, not the current royals.

      • FLORC says:

        Suze
        Remember the year W&K got married and displayed the wedding gown, etc…?
        That was hyped to have broken tourism records with many visits for tours.

        And it was still a pitiful turnout compared to other castle tourist spots like Versailles and Neuschwanstein that get incredible numbers without any royals inhabiting the castles or making news.

        The royals just aren’t the big draw many think they are.

    • My2Pence says:

      Again I reference RepublicUK

      Monarchy MythBuster
      http://republic.org.uk/what-we-want/monarchy-myth-buster

      Not exactly sure what immigration has to do with criticism aimed at taxpayer-funded employees who refuse to work for their supper. Kate Middleton and William are lazy therefore the UK should throw out hard-working immigrants? You’ll have to start with tossing their latest nanny. Talk about out of left field.

      FLORC, LAK, LadySlippers, Dame, anyone: How far back do we have to go to find a King or Queen of England (or of the UK if it turns out to be that recent) who isn’t in some way a result of immigration or married to an immigrant? One who was 100% English (if we’re talking monarch of England) or 100% British (if we’re talking monarch of the UK)?

      • ArtHistorian says:

        Harold Godwinson, who was killed at the battle of Hastings in 1066 (of the House of Wessex, going back to Alfred the Great).

        After that it was Normans, the Anjou, the Plantagenets (all of Norman descent, which means part Danish descent).

        The Yorks and Lancasters (strictly speaking also of Norman descent)

        Tudor (Welsh, French and Plantagent descent)

        Stuart (Scottish, French and Danish descent)

        House of Hannover (distant Stuart relations. German, non-English speaking, at least not George I – however, most importantly, Protestant)

        Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (the name says it all), later changed to Windsor

      • My2Pence says:

        ArtHistorian for the Win! I was too lazy to locate, much less unfold and examine, my giant wall chart of the line back to whenever. (I do have one, just have no idea where on the bookcases it is right now.)

      • ArtHistorian says:

        I must admit that I used Wikipedia *cough cough*

        It is informative but not as much fun as my very own poster of the monarchs of Denmark from Gorm the Old to Margethe II – all done up in a hilarious comic book style. Harald the Bluetooth with open mouth pointing at a tooth that is indeed blue is my fave!

      • Liberty says:

        Everyone, you need a copy of the book my father gave me that he found in some old bookshop — Norah Lofts’ QUEENS OF ENGLAND. My copy is dated 1978.

        http://www.amazon.com/Queens-England-Norah-Lofts/dp/0385127804

        You can get a used one for a penny! This book is interesting, a fast read and kind of delightful with great reference plate illustrations.

    • Violet says:

      Ugh, again this kind of comment. I just don’t understand the point at all of saying this.

      • FLORC says:

        Paige
        Could you please list a site or sites where you’re getting your info? If what you say is true and i’m wrong I would appreciate being righted.

        1 for the tourism numbers, How uch the royal family donates to charity, etc… Or just 1 site that covers everything.

      • Maggie says:

        Florc you are wrong. Go to forbes.com

      • Suze says:

        Maggie, just for kicks I searched forbes.com for royal family info and came away with two hits, one about the “Branding of Duchess Kate” and one brief blurb on Prince George’s birth.

      • My2Pence says:

        @Maggie. I suggest for the sake of logical debate and discussion, that you attempt to refrain from personal attacks. “You are wrong” is a pretty strong statement that could be read as a personal attack. I’m going to ask you to please include a direct link to the specific article you are referencing.

      • Maggie says:

        My2pence, no one is attacking you. I just said you were wrong And you are…. along with the others. I sent you the site were I got the info. There’s more than forbes.com if you are computer savvy enough to look for yourself.

      • My2Pence says:

        @Maggie. I never thought you were attacking me, I was referencing the perceived attitude in your reply to someone else. Again, stating that anyone who disagrees with you is “wrong” doesn’t make for a stellar debate stance. Have you read any of what was written about in point 14 above? There is a lot of information there on the history of the Civil List, Sovereign Grant, etc.

        You chose a personal attack in your reply “if you are computer savvy enough” rather than simply citing the specific article you think shows that everyone else here is “wrong.” Clearly many of us are computer savvy. We have brought forth specific online references that showcase and support the points we are making about royal funding.

        You have once again chosen not to give specific references that might support what you are claiming. If you want to try to convince people that your point is valid, you should provide the references yourself – to the exact article you are referencing, not just a generic site reference like “forbes.com”.

        Why on earth would we waste our time trying to prove your point for you?

      • My2Pence says:

        Quote from that report:

        “Whether or not we can trust the estimates depends on evaluating each of the disparate sources upon which the report relies. The intangible costs – especially tourism – are the most difficult to verify and account for the majority of the valuation. Evidence suggests this may be based on visitor numbers to tourist sites, but this is not necessarily comprehensive.

        It must also be remembered that the £44 billion refers to the ‘brand value’ of the Monarchy – extending from 2012 to ‘infinity’ rather than being an annual figure.”

        This report itself states that the numbers cannot be trusted and that the majority of the valuation is based on tourism. Does not refute the multiple people (yourself included) who have stated that the tourists visit the historic trappings of monarchy (castles, Tower of London) NOT for modern members of the royal family.

      • FLORC says:

        I am late to this bit!

        Holy geez it’s getting personal!

        My2Pence and Suze

        For the record I refrained from commenting on many of Maggie’s posts to lead by example. For some time they were following my posts and only commenting at how my hatred and jealousy of Will and Kate made them laugh so hard.
        I asked a few times to have a fact based debate, but was only laughed at some more.
        So, I try to not engage that poster on these threads. This is as close as it’s come.
        To their credit there have been seperate topic threads and they’re not all that bad.

        And though normally another person can chime in my question was directly to Paige and to know how they specifically were gathering their info. If it were not Paige and it was Maggie I would not have posted at all.

      • My2Pence says:

        I hadn’t seen that back story between you and Maggie. I can see why you would find it pointless to attempt to debate with someone like that. Good example to ignoring it, FLORC. One of these days I’ll follow that example!

    • Kata says:

      Sorry Paige, but I just never understand this argument, “turists are comming to Britan because of the Royal Family”. I mean how and why?

      Are they standing there somewhere where you can go and take a look on them, and make some photos with them ( and I do not mean the Madame Tussaud Museum, that does not count)? Or are we talking about the muggs and plates and other stuff with a portrait of them?

      If I go to England I go because of the history, museums, and architecture. All that would be there with or without the BRF just like in other European countries.
      I can go to Vienna, or Versailles, see the palaces where royals used to live, buy all kind of stuff with portrait of Marie Antoinette or Sisi, and all that money goes to the staates and not to some lazy arogant people, who does nothing else just shop around, goes on luxury vacations, and does renovations on huges estates financed by the taxpayers.
      So could you please explain me that?

  33. ItSetsYou says:

    Someone broke their PR machine – I don’t know what’s going on, but it’s really not working as well as before. Why is this happening though?

  34. Kata says:

    Thank you for this post! I really needed a lough today ( I’m just suffeing from the worst earinfection of my life)! Love your sarcasm.

  35. Thinker says:

    It must be said. William is a disservice to his mother’s memory. He and Kate will do in 3 weeks, what his parents did in 6. That’s what he provides: half the substance.

  36. Caroline says:

    I don’t get the hate from U.S. As figurehead royals, isn’t it their jobs to live in luxury and keep up appearances? If English people have a problem with monarchy, they’d simply abolish it.

  37. bettyrose says:

    The thing is… even if her life is stressful (which it might be in a different way from ours) she could discretely get spa treatments/massages/yoga classes…endless hours of pampering the press would never know about.

  38. melmel says:

    Maybe this is Willy`s fault but I think the whole time from the engagement until now, the public has not seen what Kate stands for. What does she feel passionate about. Of course all people associated with teh charities she is involved with say she is passionate, caring and interested but then again of course they are going to say those things to get the patronage.
    I think both of them start to get a work ethic like the queen, prince charles, camilla, the countess of wessex. These people are pounding the pavement.
    Also never seen the queen take a fancy vacay. If they wanted a get away, there are more than enough royal estates to choose from.
    They are just lazy

  39. Melissa says:

    The all time best reality tv show would be to take away all their privileges and make them get a job.
    This will never happen because they both have families who are very wealthy.

  40. itsetsyou says:

    Looking at the pictures of Kate I’m starting to feel like she was never really given a chance to show her other side of a strong woman and real role model. I mean, yeah, she chose her life, no one forced her to date Prince William and all, but she looks so stressed and meak these days. Compared to that one photoshoot where she was steering the boat? She looks so badass and just awesome! It’s almost as if she could’ve made a better role model if she hadn’t married into the Royal Family!