Duchess Kate desperate to hire a new nanny before Australian trip next month


So far this year, Duchess Kate has racked up a total of three public appearances (not counting private parties at Battersea bars with William). I’m being completely serious. There are several reasons for this. One, Prince William has been largely MIA, going back and forth from Cambridge for his “bespoke” program. Two, we always knew that once Kate had a baby, the baby would be the perfect catch-all excuse for why she isn’t working. Three, I get the feeling that everything is building up for William and Kate’s big trip to Australia and New Zealand next month. We’ve been hearing about this trip for months and months already, and just last week, it was confirmed that they would definitely be bringing Prince George too. Which I never thought was in question – of course they would bring George.

Anyway, we are getting more details about the trip. The whole visit will be three weeks! That’s kind of awesome considering their gigantic “Asian tour” lasted all of eight full days. UK sources now say that not only is George coming with them, Will and Kate will bring George along for some of their activities/photo-ops, to meet Australians and New Zealanders. The Queen actually had to give Will and Kate “special dispensation” to travel as a family overseas. Apparently it’s a thing about two heirs flying together.

And as many of us have expected, it turns out that dragging William’s retired nanny out of retirement to look after Prince George was not the best idea long-term. Jessie Webb is going back into retirement and she’s leaving before the Australian trip. But K, you might ask, doesn’t Kate employ several nannies? Yes, of course she does, but suspend your disbelief long enough to worry about poor George and how he will be nanny-less unless the nanny service comes through in time!

Readers of Royal Watch will have known for some time that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are on the hunt for a full-time royal nanny to help take care of Prince George. As the couple’s forthcoming tour of Australia and New Zealand approaches, the Daily Mail reports today that the couple have turned to a posh U.K. agency, Nannies of St James, to try and find a nanny for Prince George.

I reported last month that the couple’s current help—Jessie Webb—who looked after Prince William when he was a boy, has come to the end of her contract. The 71-year-old matronly Jessie, who has white hair and a way with infants, understandably wants to put her feet up, and only came out of retirement last summer as a favor to Prince William.

Now the couple are said to be “desperately” seeking a replacement, as they need someone to accompany them to Australia and New Zealand in April. Although Kate is said to be keen for her mother Carole to take care of George, aides have put the kibosh on the idea, because the trip is being funded by taxpayers. “It simply won’t happen,” a source tells Royal Watch. “Carole will not be going on the trip.”

The couple has asked friends for recommendations, and in a last-ditch measure, has apparently sought the services of Nannies of St James, in Fulham, South London. The agency offers five-star help at home and, according to the Daily Mail, is “used to scouring the world for the best childcare for wealthy clients, including Middle Eastern royal families.”

The Palace would not comment on such matters, insisting Prince George’s care is a private matter.

[From Vanity Fair]

Poor George! I mean, I guess they could get one of George’s other nannies to look after him? No, of course not! George only had the one nanny, obviously. I feel like the UK press is trying to turn Jessie Webb into a villain for not delaying her retirement even longer “in service to the crown.” But for the love of God… George is a growing boy, he needs a young nanny who will love him and play with him and roll around on the floor with him. I admire Jessie Webb’s resilience in dealing with such a fussy baby. And Prince George.

Also: “Kate is said to be keen for her mother Carole to take care of George, aides have put the kibosh on the idea, because the trip is being funded by taxpayers.” Well, taxpayers didn’t take issue with Kate and George decamping to her parents’ house before and after she gave birth, with all of those added security costs! It seems like bringing Carole to Australia would be relatively cheap compared to that production.

Update: Apparently, the royal handlers briefing the press yesterday about Kate and Will’s Australian trip said that George already has a new nanny. That was fast!



Photos courtesy of WENN.

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

106 Responses to “Duchess Kate desperate to hire a new nanny before Australian trip next month”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Anna says:

    This is a little old – they’ve already hired a 22 year old foreign nanny.

    • Victoria says:

      Yeah. DM reported a few days ago it’s a “Eastern European” foreign nanny. The peasants are gathering pitchforks now.

    • Juliette says:

      Yup. Big news over on the Mail, because apparently “European nanny” was code word for: dirt-cheap, Eastern-European, quasi-slave. Kate wears clothing that costs as much as the nanny will be paid for a full year’s worth of work. Even worse, the job description put out by Kensington Palace apparently utilized the term “servant.”

      So, there we are. It’s 2014 and human trafficking is alive and well and in service to the Crown.

      • Victoria says:

        They ought to pay their “servants” more than minimum wage for sure. Besides the basic duties outlined, also following em around the world and cleaning up after em, etc. must also follow stringent protocol. Can’t look at or talk to your boss. No life of your own. They deserve waayyy more than that. Like 100k+

      • Candy love says:

        Don’t for get Mariah Carey who in her own words while vacationing pick up a girl from Puerto Rico.

      • coe says:

        Seriously! 100K + (in cash no less) is what the rich pay on the northeastern coast of Long Island. I know b/c my friend runs a concierge service and put me up for a gig when I took a break from my corporate job. I almost did it, except they want at least 1-2 year commitment. How do you begin to explain nannying on your cv when you return to the real world?

  2. Tulip Garden says:

    Love Baby George, that is all 🙂

    • Lisa says:

      Why? Do you know them?

      • bluhare says:

        He’s a baby! Most of us love babies.

      • Suze says:

        It’s probably the cheeks.

      • Tulip Garden says:

        Strangely when I posted that, I knew someone wouldn’t be able to resist such a clever retort.

        That was my planned answer 🙂 Thanks for saving me the trouble.

        It is the cheeks along with the “grumpy” and “wailing” 🙂 Also, he shares a name with my beloved Grandfather who has long sense passed on. Funnily enough, they also look kind of alike: chubby cheeks, bald pates, and most everybody likes them 🙂

      • greta says:


      • FLORC says:

        I love babies, but if they cried as much as we were to understand George cried… Well, I get migraines very easily. That baby would be less cute by the minute in person.
        I do love babies though d their faces when they’re learning. My neice-in-law or whatever you would call it just got introduced to bouncy balls!
        I had to share. It was awesome.

      • bluhare says:

        She’s your niece. You’re her Auntie FLORC not her Auntie in Law FLORC.

      • vangroovey says:


        Na. Babies are shady — and the worst conversationalists!

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Love him, too, Tulip Garden. He’s adorable.

  3. original kay says:

    I like the idea of Carole going and taking care of George. seems a good plan, she’s his grandmother.

    • Delta Juliet says:

      On the one hand I agree. My mother takes care of my son two days a week and it is great for both of them. On the other hand, George is heir to the throne. I think his care should probably be on a different level than Carol Middleton.

      • Tulip Garden says:

        I actually think it’s a good idea for the strength of the family. Perhaps, it isn’t such a good idea as far as the public face of the monarchy. Also, I would agree that his education when he is older would need to be on a different level than Carol but, c’mon, Grumpy George poohs, cries, and sleeps like most babies (I’m pretty sure) so why not use a grandmother?

      • aang says:

        who would love and care for him better than his granny?

      • Tsarina says:

        Ladies, we are talking the heir to the throne. Carol is not equipped to handle taking on the task. She may give him love and all that (my mom watches my son three days a week), but these nannies are trained (I hope) in a manner that Carole is not. Plus, like it or not, Wills and Kate cannot bring Carole along when this is a “working trip” (for lack of a better word) and the tax payer is footing the bill. Like it or not, these two are not a MODERN as they claim. They like doing what they want, when they want and it being on the people’s dime. So, in order for that to happen, they must play by the rules.

      • Thinker says:

        I think bringing Carole would be the more modern, economical choice. Most modern couples on a budget use the grandparents as sitters when they can.

        However, it would be economical if it were to be ONLY Carole. Not Carole plus an extra back up nanny. Not Carole plus a dressing staff. In my family, Mom is both nanny and fashion consultant. The reason the public wouldn’t take Carole as the Cambridge’s traveling companion is because the royals only have 2 categories:
        1.) Companions/Peers
        2.) Staff

        Kate’s family was hailed as modern because they were “close knit and middle class” – the antithesis of which is the royal dichotomy. Carole was once both companion and staff (all “normal” mothers can relate) but the royal world requires one or the other. Never both.

    • My2Pence says:

      I suspect the majority of UK, Australian, and NZ taxpayers would disagree with the idea that Carol(e) should take a three week vacation on the taxpayer’s money. The Middleton family is not royal and taxpayers are already angry that it has been proven taxpayer money (Duchy) has been used to protect Pippa and upgrade the Middleton family home.

      • bluhare says:

        I agree, Tuppence. The nanny will never be seen, but I’d bet money that if Carole were there she’d be holding him and handing him off to his parents at engagements.

      • Tulip Garden says:

        I absolutely agree with what you stated and therein lies the problem. That is why Carole won’t be allowed to nanny. It isn’t about money. It’s about the perception of who holds sway over Princes’ William and George. I actually understand it and find it sad at the same time.

      • bluhare says:

        Exactly, Tulip Garden. Thanks for saying it better. I really do dislike saying his grandmother shouldn’t go, because who loves a baby more than his parents and grandparents?

      • FLORC says:

        On 1 hand George needs a strong bond with all family members that want to love him. On the other he’s no ordinary baby and if they’re meaning to or not the Middleton’s are making out like bandits by wanting to be with George. It really is genius if it’s intentional. Million+ in home renovations… Covered security… Trips. All while having nannies around anyways.
        Still though. Carol and Michael are spending loads of time with George (doesn’t he live with them?). Is it out of line to expect them to let William have time with Kate and their son while doing their jobs and not have the Middleton’s tagging along.
        Is that too snarky?

    • Montréalise says:

      The problem with that idea is that this is not a family vacation, it’s a royal tour – i.e. members of the Royal Family plus their entourage of employees and servants. So where would Carole fit in? If she accompanies Will and Kate in order to look after baby George, will she be treated like any other nanny – sharing accommodations with the other servants and generally staying out of sight? I don’t think Kate (or Will or Carole) would be happy with that. Or will she accompany Will and Kate to official functions as though she were a member of the royal family (which she is not)? I don’t think the taxpayer would be happy with that.

      • Suze says:

        This is a very good point. This is work, not a vacation.

        And Carole really shouldn’t be treated like a paid servant.

  4. Red Snapper says:

    Behind the times I’m afraid. They’ve got a 22yr old european nanny. Because why bother to hire british? I really think they’re separated. All the clues point to this. Make for a fun tour!

    • Mitch Buchanan Rocks! says:

      This is an intriguing post – and I’m crappy at reading people – What are the clues that they are separated? also is one of them shagging the 22 year old nanny?

  5. Victoria says:

    That crazy face picture of her showing off the ring is great!

    • My2Pence says:

      Along with the ever-present cocker spaniel curls, that picture does bring to mind the idea of a dog raising a paw to shake.

      • LAK says:

        Maybe she’s showing off her new eternity ring. You can just about see it when she holds her hand like that.

      • My2Pence says:

        LAK. It just seems like an odd way to hold up her hand. Wouldn’t most people extend their hand out, palm down, fingers straight to show off a ring? My original point being it is just a funny – and not flattering picture – that brings to mind the gesture of a dog shaking paws. Or maybe she was caught in an Austin Powers “oh behave” sort of hand gesture?

      • FLORC says:

        I almost want to say she looks overly aware of her gestures and is catching herself mid motion. Then I see the video and it blows my theory out of the water. Looks like how actors portray overly posh characters. Very over the top to me.

  6. Christin says:

    Love the line about admiring the older nanny’s resilience in dealing with a fussy baby — and George. I hope she was well compensated for coming out of retirement to care for the baby of the fussy baby she tended. Will was known to be a terror as a toddler.

    Is there one nanny who is basically the head of the child’s caregiving (with lots of backup duty nannies that are never really mentioned)?

    • LAK says:


      • bluhare says:

        I imagine that’s Jessie Webb. I’ve read stories that she is going to stay on, just doesn’t want to go to Australia, so do you think she’ll be supervising nanny and the new one reports to her?

      • FLORC says:

        Always straight to the point LAK. I do enjoy your comments. No fuss or fat. Just answers.

  7. jackie says:

    Willaim and Kate do not look happy and very miserable

  8. raindrop says:

    I’m sure a nanny comes in handy for Kate’s grueling 8-10 hour exercise, makeup, and outfit-selecting sessions.

  9. Liberty says:

    Okay. Here we go.

    Chapter Seven: Prince Harry and The Eastern European Servant Nanny


    Bent on seduction, cold, controlling William Baldtop pursues innocent young literature student/gymnast-turned-royal-nanny Romina Steglanovich through palaces, university digs, airports, banquets, the High Street and ski chalets!

    “But — the child!” she protested, panting.

    “That is no child – that is — an heir!” he growled, grabbing at her homemade crocheted apron with such force, he broke the twine holding the precious stamped tin holy medal from around her neck.

    “No, nyet, I am ruined!” cried the 22-year-old lit student, too faint from hunger to fight harder. “Oh if only your wife person lived here too, she would stop this! OH –Harry, oh where be the nice funny man Harry! Helps me, sir Harry! ”

    “Ha!” snarled William with an icy chuckle, “That dancer-chasing ginger boy? Be glad I want you, I have Daddy’s checkbook! You’ll have love AND a Zara wardrobe! — well, maybe TopShop, actually! Or Marks and Sparks during the sales! Now, what ho, be my little polo pony, won’t you, that’s a good wench!”


    • Lisa says:

      OMG — so funny — well done!

    • bluhare says:

      Good one, Liberty. What’s Book 2?

    • LAK says:


      You rock!!!

      That is so funny. In my head, it reads like Barbra Cartland’s finest.

      A pink feather and chiffon dress and hat to you!!


      • My2Pence says:

        To be considered part of Dame Cartland’s finest, we’d have to replace all the dashes with ” … ”

        “But … the child!” she protested … panting …

        “That is no child … that is … an heir!” he growled … grabbing at her homemade crocheted apron with such force … he broke the twine holding the precious stamped tin holy medal … from around her neck.

      • Liberty says:

        chiffon!!! (curtsies in gratitude)

        hahahah @My2Pence! You are …. right….. dare I??? 🙂

    • Dame Snarkweek says:

      You stopped just when it was getting good! “Wife person”. Hilarious!

    • Sixer says:

      Oh more, please, more!

    • Hazel says:

      I’d buy it!

  10. Audrey says:

    Okay. I hate sounding like the mommy police. I know I’m throwing shade but I don’t mean to.

    I honestly don’t know how these moms do it. How do you have someone else raise your baby?

    Before I had a kid, I thought a nanny sounded awesome. But now I can’t imagine having one. I love being a hands on mom.

    Of course she needs help during events but it honestly blows my mind when women want nannies so their baby doesn’t disrupt their social activities or whatever.

    Yes I probably sound judge. But other than help while working, I just don’t understand it

    • bluhare says:

      Well that was the story, wasn’t it? That the nanny was only going to be part time to help out when they couldn’t be there. And now, three engagements into the year, there’s no more talk about part time nannies (well, other than the spare ones). Now there’s a full time nanny.

      I don’t get it either. I wonder if William is having some trouble adjusting to the amount of time a baby takes, and if Kate really was doing all the caregiving, how much attention was focused on the baby rather than William. No clue, though.

    • Suze says:

      Your life is far different from their lives, though. Prince George will grow up far differently from his mother, and from your baby.

      To each their own. That’s one thing I don’t shade those two for – the royal servants/nannies.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      I get what you’re saying, and I sometimes wonder why certain people bother to have children, but I think there’s a middle ground between no help at all and someone else raising your child. I think you can have someone helping you and still be a hands on mother.

    • taxi says:

      @ Audrey –
      Their social calendar might be busier than yours? How about the dinners/receptions they attend? Bringing an infant to such an event isn’t great for the baby or the parents. Someone has to hold, feed, diaper the baby. Do you expect parents to go home when it’s sleepy-time?
      Having a nanny doesn’t mean someone else raises your child. It means there is a qualified assistant to perform child-related tasks when the parents cannot be present to do so, whether it’s work, a friend’s wedding, a business/social event, etc. And the RF, aka “The Firm”, does consider itself a business.

      • My2Pence says:

        Yes, Taxi, but that doesn’t explain that Middleton has only done 2-3 engagements this year and it is already March 4th. Surprising that they have multiple nannies to assist a woman who barely works for the family firm. Even if she were actually having “secret, behind the scenes” work meetings at KP, she’d be able to bring the baby with her and it would be touted as “a breath of fresh air, breaking with royal tradition.”

        Kate Middleton needs at least one nanny for the baby so she can keep flitting around shopping, going for coffee, and spending 3 hours a day, 3 days a week at the hairdresser – NOT because she is working her fingers to the bone.

      • Original N says:

        @ taxi – the dinners & receptions they attend are ‘work’ & Audrey did the leave the caveat ‘but other than help when working…’ Which is what? Two, three or MAYBE four days a month for Waity?!

        ETA- M2P’s response posted before mine….what she said above!

  11. Mich says:

    Whoa. They hired a foreign nanny? That is just wrong given who they are.

  12. anne_000 says:

    It seems like a really bad idea to hire a 22-year old to take care of a baby, whether her own or a Royal heir. That sounds way too young, too inexperienced, & not mature enough to take care of a baby. Why didn’t they hire a 30-/40-something nanny with a decade or two of nanny-experience?

    I wonder if the reason they didn’t hire someone older than themselves to take care of their first-born is because Kate has control-issues? Easier to order around someone a decade younger than herself than someone her own age or older?

    • My2Pence says:

      Anne_000, the control issues idea makes a lot of sense. I’d guess Kate Middleton and her mother were intimidated by the professionalism of the previous nanny. Very difficult to control an experienced professional and far easier to intimidate a 22-year-old. Others have suggested that as Middleton clearly has few friends of her own, maybe spending time with a random sycophantic 22-year-old who is sworn to silence gives her some company?

    • AV says:

      A lot of people at 22 are not equipped to take care of a baby, I agree. But I’d also like to add that I was a nanny at 19 whilst also working another job and attending school, and I worked my hardest to make sure the baby was always clean, happy, and engaged. I was far more worried about germs, scrapes, and tumbles than his parents. 🙂 But perhaps there ARE control issues; that would make sense to me, given the personalities at play.

      • anne_000 says:

        I think there is a difference between a part-time baby-sitter and a full-time nanny. The former doesn’t require as much maturity & responsibility as the latter. I think 22-yrs old is too young to have your own child let alone be a full-time nanny for somebody else’s baby. I would be more comfortable having an older, highly-experienced nanny.

    • Lex says:

      I worked as an au pair at age 22/23 and even though it is a different job to being a nanny I was definitely mature enough and had about 9 years of paid babysitting experience with babies and kids by that time (including overnight stays).

      It’s not necessarily a bad idea. It depends on the individual. An older nanny often thinks they know everything and have all the answers when really, babies often do things for no rhyme or reason. I’ve seen older mothers get easily flustered when they can’t ‘fix’ what’s wrong because ‘this always worked before!!!’ Someone younger/with less experience could be more open to adapting to different needs.

      • AV says:

        Lex — I was offered an au pair job, but decided not to take it — did you like your experience? I very much agree with you that it depends on the individual. I had a very similar background in childcare (plus several full-time jobs at camps and year-round after-school-care) by the time I became a nanny, which was fairly status quo in my area. Most of the au pairs and nannies I knew were between 22 and 27, and a lot of families outright expected that you would have begun minding children as a teenager.

        Anne_000 — Whatever makes you comfortable, you should do! I started as a part-time nanny, becoming full-time as the little boy grew (and we still keep in frequent contact), but from my experience, I very much agree that most people are not a good fit for the job at that age. A few young women working as nannies at the same time I was that made my hair stand on end; caring for a child of any age requires a lot of a person, mentally and physically.

  13. justme says:


    Now they are saying she is British:

    “As it stands now, though, we don’t really know much about her (or him!) at all. The Daily Beast reports that, while the identity of the nanny remains unknown, she is “believed to be English, in her twenties and already well-established with the family at Kensington Palace.”

  14. My2Pence says:

    Bill and Kate Middleton’s PR is sinking fast and the tour hasn’t even started. The Maori King was rightfully insulted by their only granting him a 90 minute slot for this tour so he declined. He is the King, they are the heir to the heir, wife, and another heir and clearly do not understand culturally-appropriate behavior and requests. They should have felt honored that the King would grant them a visit AT ALL, instead they (and their long-suffering team) choose to insult a monarch.

    It also seems odd that they’re potentially dragging this child out for multiple photo ops, up to six possible photography sessions/opportunities in three weeks. The two privacy-obsessed individuals who sue about photos will trot this poor child out to improve their PR? They’ve hidden this child from the UK media for months but will photo op him all over Australia and NZ.

    Prediction: Nanny will be hidden from view and Middleton will carry the child down the stairs of the plane herself (again unsafely with one hand in her hair instead of on the handrail). Skirt will blow up on the tarmack revealing lack of underwear (KM has allowed this to happen twice before on official visits). No photos of the Nanny with child will happen.

    Question: Why did this post just jump off the front page to an out-of-order section on the second page?

    • bluhare says:

      As to why the post moved, happens all the time. It will bump back up if enough people post.

    • LAK says:

      The Maori King thing was a serious head scratcher for me. What the hell is wrong with the forward planning team? They went out there to prepare, research this trip.

      90mins seems like a lot of time, but if that’s not the custom, they should have known.

      And the failure of the forward planning team is compounded by the current team who allowed the King to cancel with a risible response.

      The Moari King might be a blow hard, but observing local customs is why many people succeed in business.

      It’s made me so irrationally cross that they are letting this blow up in their faces when they haven’t set foot in the country yet.

      • My2Pence says:

        This news was known several weeks ago, wasn’t it? That they had only agreed to 90 minutes with him and he refused as it was a cultural slight. They had plenty of time to solve this in the past month without it blowing up again. Someone has chosen to make this negativity happen. Not sure if it was Bill and Kate or the planning team playing hardball, or the Maori King refusing to kowtow to the schedule of culturally-inept outsiders visiting his country.

        What also really annoys me are the comments on the DM proclaiming that the Maori King is in the wrong. A very strong “who does he think he is they’ve put him in his rightful place” colonial attitude coming from DM readers. Unfortunately not surprising I suppose, but disappointing.

      • My2Pence says:

        Sorry for the dupe post. News about the slight was published January 24/25 so they had plenty of time to solve this.


      • TrixC says:

        I dunno, I’m a New Zealander and frankly the Maori King is not that high profile a person. He’s not recognised as king by all Maori, just by some specific tribes. I’d be surprised if many non-Maori NZers could even name him. The role is a ceremonial one that was created in the 19th century following British colonization. I’d say 90 minutes was fair enough.

      • My2Pence says:

        @ TrixC. At least two questions remain for me:
        1) “Maori King Tuheitia was approached by staff from the Maori Affairs ministry, Te Puni Kokiri, with a list of demands and a tight timeframe that would have broken proper protocol on his marae.” They knew on January 24/25 that their demands were breaking proper protocol and could have solved it. They didn’t.

        2) Are you Maori yourself? If not, it may be that a Maori (or another Maori if you are Maori) might feel differently than you do about this. He may not be high profile to you, but he may be to the members of the tribal groups who recognize him as their king.

      • KateBush says:

        I’m a New Zealander and I agree with TrixC. The Maori King is not high profile and I doubt many New Zealanders would know his name. NZ Maori are very diverse with nearly 100 ‘iwi’ or tribes and many iwi do not recognise the King as their King.
        The Māori monarch is a non-constitutional role with no legal power from the perspective of the New Zealand government.

        This is pretty much a non-issue, most New Zealanders are still pro monarchy (no negative press and no talk of becoming a republic as has been the case in Australia) and will be excited to see Will, Kate and George.

      • My2Pence says:

        They may be small in numbers, but Republicans do exist in NZ

        Maori King’s office questions protocol

        And again, if neither of you are one of the Maori who recognize him as your king, the question still stands. Just because you think the Maori king is irrelevant and this is a “non-issue” doesn’t mean everyone does.

      • anne_000 says:

        I don’t know the names of every king or royalty in every continent in the world, esp. of those in smaller countries or groups of people, because most royalty are not high profile people outside of their own country or groups.

        Even so, I believe that W&K’s people should have tried to work it out in a more respectful manner. It’s not like they’re going to open up a new Costco or something. They spend more time on appointments for hair, shopping, weddings, engagement parties, christenings, & just simple partying.

      • LAK says:

        what anne_000 said.

        This Maori King was important enough for W&K’s forward planning team to reach out to him. why not go with his customs? It’s never the big grand standing occasions that break the bank. It’s always little insignificant things like this that do.

        And when somebody like this decides to cause a stink, deal with it appropriately and nip it in the bud, instead they are letting him make them look foolish and culturally insensitive.

        Perception is everything.

      • KateBush says:

        Actually I am of mixed Maori and European heritage and my iwi Nga Puhi ( by far the largest iwi with over 120,000 Maori) do not recognise the Maori King.

        I do agree that it’s bad PR by Will’s people and could have been dealt with better, but it is NOT a slight to the whole of New Zealand or Maori.. Most won’t give a toss!

      • My2Pence says:

        KateBush – Thanks for explaining!

  15. Dame Snarkweek says:

    Prince Charles as head of new, consolidated palace press office = sucks.

  16. aasf says:

    Not a fan of the royalty at all. I only liked Lady Diana.

  17. Peri says:

    Just a question, how many people do they have employed that do duties such as cleaning, cooking, taking care of babies? How many nannies have they had or do they have?

    • LAK says:

      Without breaking it down by function, we know they have at least 27 members of staff at the last count. Before PGtips made an appearance. They’ll have added to that number for his welfare.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Agree with LAK.

        Generally there is one head nanny and quite often two nursemaids (or junior nannies) as well. Even for one child.

        So they easily have 30 staff or more now.

      • LAK says:

        don’t forget PGtips’s personal bodyguards. 3 at least is the standard for all bodyguarded royals. so we can say that baby has a basic staff of 6.

      • bluhare says:

        It’s probably too late for you now, LAK, but do you know if the staff is composed of all household staff or a combination of household and office? I hope it’s both, because that’s an awful lot of household staff if not. Even counting their huge apt, that’s over one person per room! 🙂

      • LAK says:

        it’ll be a combination of both, but office staff are only about 4-5people. rest is household and excludes bodyguards.

    • hmmm says:

      According to Daily Mail they had 6 bodyguards to go to a party.

  18. Tsarina says:

    I found the comment about dealing with the baby and PG HILARIOUS! I used to like WIlls but he hasn’t stepped up to the plate as far as what he and his wifey could be doing. But the final blow, for me, was dragging a retired elderly lady out of her retirement for a few months. How spoiled is this guy? Poor kate, she does have two babies to deal with.

    • bluhare says:

      I get where you’re coming from, but I had the opposite reaction to reading about William choosing Jessie. It said to me she was really good to him as a child and he never forgot it. That says a lot.

      • hmmm says:

        bluehare, I understand William’s need and fond memories and even his desperation. But he doesn’t take into account his ex-nanny’s needs, now does he?

      • bluhare says:

        She could have said no and she’s obviously sticking to her guns over this upcoming tour. So, no shade for William on this one from me. I’ve got plenty of shade elsewhere, but not here.

  19. AnnieCL says:

    How are these vultures relevant to the modern age?! Oh, of course – they’re not! The only thing they’re good for is gossip fodder & no more. They don’t have any other function, ergo they’re extinct – can we get rid of them ALL now please?? MOFO’S!

    • bluhare says:

      Nooooooooooooo!!! I love good gossip fodder and these two can be gold!

      • Suze says:

        And we’re just starting the most excellent modern day Boleyn- Seymour saga with Watercress and Brunette Duchess!

      • bluhare says:

        Exactly, Suze. The Allthruster – Middleton rumble. It can’t go away!

        I see there are photos of Pippa with Nico Suave (that’s my new nickname for him because he looks so oily) in the DM today. And here I thought they might have broken up.

    • Cersei says:

      LOL! +1

  20. Xantha says:

    Okay slightly OT: Is anyone else get barfy over Vanity Fair’s drooling coverage over Kate? They used to barely cover at all and when the engagement photocall came out were actually very snarky asking questions like “Is it us or does it seem like they just met?” and “Is it us or it doesn’t appear that they like each other?”
    Here it is. Funny, you have to hunt for it on their website.


    And there’s their article, “Wills and the Real Girl,” which was not flattering at all when you read between the lines. Will comes off as a dull cheating asshole and Kate appears to be a doormat. And now they are so ass kissy it’s sickening


    I mean what’s Vanity Fair’s game here at all the ass kissing? They’re not likely to ever get an exclusive with The Duchess.

  21. Thinker says:

    Carole cannot be their companion and their staff at the same time. The difference between the Middletons and the Royals is that the Royals believe in staff. Vigorously loyal support people. The Middletons rely on each other.

  22. Jaded says:

    Wills and Kate would do well reading sites like this – at least they’d understand the overwhelming negative sentiment around their lack of work ethic and general nose-thumbing at responsibility. A bespoke course in agriculture during a gap year? Incessant vacations to hunt, ski or sun-bathe in Mustique? Kate making the odd appearance at some hoity-toity function or a brief visit to a children’s charity? Please. She’s a doormat for an increasingly arrogant and curmudgeonly twat, and spends far more time on gym/hair/make-up/shopping than anything else.

    They both have to learn that it takes more than a few public appearances where he looks grumpy and she twirls her hair to win public approval, and actually start to show some solid work for their increasingly lavish lifestyle.

    I actually had more faith in Wills earlier on to turn out more like his mother but he’s taken a few giant steps back on the genetic ladder.