Prince William wants a ‘stint’ at the foreign office while Kate endlessly decorates


Why are there so many Duchess Kate and Prince William stories lately? They go months without doing anything and then suddenly it’s like “full disclosure!” I kind of wonder if the press office – now under Prince Charles’ control – is pushing for more transparency all around, and that’s why William and Kate have been dominating the press since their return from the Maldives. Anyway, there are a bunch of new stories, so let’s get to it.

First off, there’s more info about the “foreign nanny,” Maria Teresa Turrion Borrallo. Apparently, Maria was trained at an elite nanny school and her teachers say that she will never yell or physically punish a child. No spanking, no smacking, no screaming. But will William get a timeout?! Maria will also be earning (seriously, she’ll be earning that money) £38,000 a year. Plus she’s live-in, so she gets housing and food.

Next up – Prince William apparently has decided what his next move will be after he finishes up his “bespoke program” at Cambridge, because I guess we’re still pretending that he’s taking part in the bespoke program. After Cambridge, William wants to extend his second gap year by doing a “stint” at the Foreign Office. As an American, I think this would be the equivalent to taking an internship at the State Department? Something like that. According to The Mirror:

He wants to have a stint in Whitehall to help him prepare for when he is King, royal aides say.

The Duke, 31, who stopped being a Search and Rescue helicopter pilot last year, is keen to take on another full-time role. And he thinks being at the Foreign Office would give him a grounding in diplomacy. But William has ruled out being an ambassador himself as he doesn’t want to be away from the Duchess Of Cambridge and baby George.

A source said: “He will come to the end of his ‘transitional year’ in the autumn and has made it clear he wishes to begin full-time work again. A post at the heart of the Foreign Office would give an insight into the role of an ambassador and an understanding of relations between countries around the world.”

[From The Mirror]

This is being described as a “full-time job” potentially, although I seriously doubt that. I mean, what the fussy baby wants, the fussy baby gets, so if he wants to do some kind of stint in the Foreign Office, he will. But let’s not kid ourselves about it being “full-time” or anything resembling a real job. It will just be what he does in between vacations. I really want to know – why does William hate the idea of full-time royal work so much?

And finally, I have to alert you to this People Magazine story, “Kate Goes to Work on Interior Design Details for Country House.” The press office is certainly playing fast and loose with the “work” word all over the place, aren’t they? Anyway, it’s a fluff piece about poor Kate and how she just must decorate her country home, Anmer Hall, when she returns from Australia. Poor sausage. Apparently, Kate, “whose eye for design was honed during her years studying art history, is now sourcing all the interior details.” I sh-t you not. Purple-tinged walls not included.

She’s doing the bedrooms in pastels and she’s really studying hard to find the perfect decorations for Anmer. People Magazine has extensive documentation (hilariously) about all of the places Kate has been shopping so far, and what she’s been “studying,” from rugs to lighting to tile to “a particular reclaimed stone used in French castles that she liked too.” Oh, and special handmade mattresses too, because, God knows, this is the place where they’ll go to “have some proper downtime.”

As I continue to say, I don’t have any problem with Kate caring about interior design, nor do I really have a problem with her shopping for decorations for her country estate. She wants to be involved and she wants to create a comfortable home where she, William and the baby will feel safe and comfortable. That’s fine. But it really does feel like this is ALL she’s interested in. She just wants to shop and decorate. Those are her passions. And most people wouldn’t hold that against her if she and William actually “gave back” and kept up a proper work schedule, regardless of their ambivalence.



Photos courtesy of WENN.

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

253 Responses to “Prince William wants a ‘stint’ at the foreign office while Kate endlessly decorates”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. original kay says:

    That’s a pretty good salary, especially when food and housing are covered.
    I would hate the job though (not the kid part, but the public part).
    plus, does she get vacation time (HAHAHAHA!)

    If Kate was spending her own money on trips and decorating, I wouldn’t care. I could shop and decorate for the rest of my life too. But this cannot be all she signed up for. She is in a position to do so much for so many, it kills me she wastes it.

  2. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    So now she’s not using a decorator for the country house? She’s “sourcing” ALL of the furnishings – flooring, carpets, paint colors, wallpapers, countertops, cabinets, cabinet and door hardware, window treatments, fabrics, pillows, lamps, beds, chairs, sofas, footstools, commodes, bathtubs, tile, sconces, curtain rods, decorative items, electronic devices – what an utter load of crap. That does it. She’s either lying or she’s an idiot.

  3. Mel says:

    Why would he have to be apart from his wife and son if he were an ambassador?
    No ambassador I’ve ever met lived apart from his or her family. They all went abroad together.

    Which is SUCH a moot point, I do realise that. :)

  4. CC says:

    Another excuse to be away from wife and son? Getting predictable at this point. Who wants to guess this “stint” would involve NYC and Washington stays?

  5. Eleonor says:

    She has really nothing to do if she spends her days “studying” the lightening, and the colours of the stones.
    I am moving to my next apartement and we had to buy some stuff, a nightmare, going to IKEA after work, moving stuff, now my clothes are half there, half here, mess everywhere. I am exhausted.
    I don’t want even to think about cleaning everything.

  6. mena says:

    If these two are this lazy when the Queen is alive, I can’t imagine how much lazier they’ll get once she’s passed. They put more effort into coming up with excuses than they do into their royal duties.

    I feel sorry for Harry. He’s gonna be making up for these two for the rest of his life.

    • Frida_K says:

      Perfect summation of the situation. You truly did hit the nail on the head.

      Poor Harry, indeed. And HM must be preemptively rolling in her grave as we type.

    • Eleonor says:

      how things change, there was a time in which William was “the perfect boy”, and Harry the mess.
      Harry has for sure his wild side, but he is the hardest working of the two.

    • Dame Snarkweek says:

      Tthis is an exaggeration, imo. It is true enough for now but given the ages of William and Harry I can almost assure you that the media and public opinion will switch sides at least two or three times for the next 20 or 30 years. I mean, dig up some news articles about the royal family from the past and you might see why I say this.the rest of Harry’s life?

      • LadySlippers says:


        Well, who would have *ever* thought the Spare could trump the Heir’s carefully constructed but fabricated image? I’m not saying I agree with the above posters 100% but Harry has been able to pull off a coup that Margaret and Andrew failed to do…

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        Very true. I guess my clumsy emphasis was on the fact that the status of media/public darling is dynamic as opposed to static. Spares are praised and vilified in turns. But they are 100% scapegoated!

      • LadySlippers says:


        I am really curious to see how long Harry will be able to sustain his popularity. Especially as it’s against all the odds. He’s not one for media control but his charm and hard work seems to have that ‘sparkle’ that his mother possessed.

        Hmmmmmm. Can the palace defeat it or will it let William ride his brother’s coattails???

      • mena says:

        @Snark, I too may have been clumsy in my description of what the future might hold. But ya gotta feel for Harry & the position William puts him in.

        The current reputations of the princes don’t seem to me to be the product of a fickle media. For years now, Harry has, imo, legit been doing the royal heavy lifting for the both of them while William just faffs about. And I just don’t see William changing his stripes anytime soon.

        @LadySlippers, would the palace want to defeat it, though? Harry seems the only one able to prop William up. Kate can’t do it. My guess is they’ll keep Harry around as long as he serves a purpose for William. Then when the time comes, kick Harry to the curb, like Charles is doing to Andrew.

      • LadySlippers says:


        It’s the Palace that props up the Heir (or Heiress) at the expense of the Spare.

        As for how long, they’ve been trying to reset the dynamic but it hasn’t worked. I don’t honestly see them tolerating the Spare’s popularity exceeding the Heir’s for any great length of time as the Heir(ess) is seen as the face and future of the BRF. Not the Spare (they’re only useful when they screw up).

      • bluhare says:

        mena, I agree with you and I think it will backfire in the long run if the media slags Harry in favour of William. We all see who does the most, and it isn’t William. I think Harry’s got a lot of good will behind him, more so than his brother at this point.

      • mena says:

        @Snark, saw your reply below but figured it was in response to this thread? So many good conversations going on, it’s hard to keep track!

        Yes, it’s true. I’ve forgotten how promising William once was. He’s been wrongfooting it for so long now that those sparks of promise seem so so long ago.

        For all his faults, Harry seems to still have his spark & I hope it survives whatever the Palace puts him through.

        What would be great is if William could break free of the antiquated practice of making the Spare be whipping boy to make the Heir look good. But that seems like pure fantasy.

        @bluhare, yeah at this point, I just don’t see the public buying a palace smear campaign against Harry to make William (& Kate) look better. Would go very very badly, I think.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        *steals ‘wrongfooting’ and slips it into handbag*
        Can you imagine if Wills and Harry bucked tradition and presented a united front, almost as co-heirs ( at least in spirit)?! Double concerted focus on philanthropical, humanitarian, conservative and ecological initiatives! We royal loonies would fairly burst with pride. But alas, precedance and Will’s ego won’t allow it :(

      • mena says:

        Oh Snark, I would love love love it if William & Harry shook things up & lived out a united princely front. Could you imagine, indeed! That to me would truly be a modern monarchy!

        It feels like the Palace tries to present William & Harry as such. But I don’t think it’s working. Like bluhare said, the public sees who does more and it ain’t the Heir.

        And like you said, I don’t see TPTB or William going along with it either.

    • Mandalynca says:

      When William becomes the Heir he and Kate will have a much heavier diary of engagements. I am not defending W & K, but I find myself comparing them to Charles and Diana when, in fact, they are not in the same position. Charles is still PoW and Camilla is now his wife. Once William is PoW he will have no alterative and, if he finds it too much he should step down as he would never cope with being the Monarch.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Okay. Fair enough. Let’s talk about those points. Your argument might have some weight to it if it weren’t for the fact that Anne, much farther done the line, routinely has 600 Royal engagements a year. Her brother (slightly ahead of her in the line) and his wife, also with a young family, clocks in at a combined 600 engagements as well.

        So if people that have no chance to become king or queen can work hard, and with families as Edward and Sophie do, what’s William & Kate’s excuse now?

        Remember the Line of Succession determines the Order of Precedence. No matter how you look at it, a direct heir and 3rd in line is pretty important. Yes, not as important as 2nd, but way more important than Edward (Sophie) and Anne are. Even Andrew works a decent number of engagements per year.

      • FLORC says:


        Maybe so. The way it’s looking now is William avoids his duties at all costs. Harry and the other royals are carrying the duties to lighten the Queen’s and Prince Philip’s work load. While William is extending his gap year and Kate continues to not prepare for what little she does. Even her public speak abilities have regressed.

        As he becomes PoW the pool of yes men will grow and even fewer will tell him no. His heart doesn’t seem in it and his ego will prevent him from abdicating when the time comes.

        I’m not saying it’s impossible, but very unlikely he will grow a sense of duty.

      • bluhare says:

        Again, I’m too lazy to google, but aren’t the line of succession and royal precedence two different things? I thought precedence was who has to curtsey to whom.

        I decided it wasn’t good to say I’m lazy all the time, so I went and googled. Precedence is the hierarchy thingy.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Order of Precedence is mostly based on the Line of Succession. Prior to 2005 they were almost identical (with married women taking their rank from their Royal husbands).

      • mandalynca says:

        William and Kate are the 3rd highest ranking royal couple but, and correct me if I am wrong, but I thought they were part-time royals. If this is their current status, I would not be expecting them to have a heavy diary. The engagements they carry out at present seem to be connected to whatever charity/regiment or personal interest that William, Kate and Harry are committed to. As I said earlier, if William finds being a part-time royal too much at this level, he will never cope with the demands of becoming PoW, let alone the monarch.

      • LAK says:

        There is no such thing as a ‘part time’ royal. One is senior or junior, but not ‘part time’.

        A person carries out royal duties according to their schedule meaning when they are in ‘royal duty’ mode they give as much as their other activities will allow whether they are carrying out 10 engagements a week or 1 engagement a week.

        ‘part time’ is a media created term to explain away these 2 people’s reluctance to work without actually saying it.

        And do you honestly think a 45yr old man (if HM lives as long as her mother) is suddenly going to develop a work ethic or sense of duty when he has no interests in anything except vacationing and partying?

      • bluhare says:

        (Thinking cap on)

        Ummmm . . . . no?

      • FLORC says:

        LadySlippers (but anyone can answer)

        When you mentioned a few threads ago that Charles was a lot like William, but had a change where he grew a sense of duty. What event were you refering to?

        Would it be possible it could happen to William?

      • LAK says:

        FLORC: i don’t know what Lady slippers is referring to, but Charles has always had a sense of duty. The difference is his tale of woe has receded. He had a phase when he was very self-pitying about his lot in life which was primarily about the fact that he’d had to wait for so long to get the top job and wasn’t being appreciated in his other endeavors. Not to mention the resentment he felt at being overshadowed by Diana and the methods he felt he had to employ to counter her charisma.

        It was all terribly navel gazing and rather grating, but his sense of duty has always been there as was his sense of entitlement with regards his destiny which he was never in question.

        Will William Baldtop snap out of it and discover his sense of duty? may be, but going by his past decade, not so sure he remembers what a sense of duty is.

      • LadySlippers says:


        I do agree with what LAK said. Plus, Charles cares deeply about other people’s opinions. He pleases himself but also strives to please others. He could be shamed and therefore, corrected.

        William isn’t showing any of those traits. Not saying he doesn’t have them — just saying we’re not seeing it to the extent that Charles displayed. Charles also by his mid 20′s was starting to ‘right that ship’. It was a start and steadily grew from there (as LAK stated).

        In fact, when I read about the shiftless heirs of the BRF (and they’ve had a lot), a pattern of stubbornness and obstinacy are often noted. Couple that with a lack of duty — makes for a tragic combination. I just read another book and a great many quotes about David, sound easily transferable to William.

        William is 31 and like David, does not show signs that he either wants the role or is suited for it. I honestly cannot see that’s anything has changed with William since he was a teenager and famously declared that he didn’t want to be king. Although of course, I’d love to be proven wrong, at this stage of the game, it’s getting less likely.

      • FLORC says:

        Thanks LAK and LadySlippers

      • ArtHistorian says:

        I noticed that William in an interview constantly referred to kingship as a “burden” – and that’s not a good attitude to have when he’s going to be king one day. I can only contrast it to Margethe of Denmark who describes her queenship as a great privilege and responsibility. And she was 32 when she became queen.

  7. Christin says:

    Perhaps his definition of “full-time” differs from the rest of the world. I also agree with the part about shopping and decorating not being an issue if she were doing even just a bit more besides that.

    I don’t recall Diana taking large chunks of time off after her boys were born, even though later we learned she was having lots of personal issues for at least part of that time. Diana seemed to like clothes and was known for her hairstyle, but she didn’t get overly criticized because she actually worked. These two sound like a very boring, shallow duo.

    • LadySlippers says:

      Diana was very much criticised. As was Sarah. Both worked hard too.

      I’m not defending the Cambridge’s by any stretch of the imagination but no matter what they do — they will be targets of criticism.

      • Christin says:

        I remember Sarah getting all sorts of flak, and Diana later as well, but I’m thinking early to mid-1980s when the boys were babies she was not *overly* snarked upon. I was a starstruck teen then, so maybe I was just relying on my People magazines to form my view. :)

      • LadySlippers says:

        We Americans get a highly sanitised version of the Royals (I adore the internet as it’s much easier to get foreign news now).

        Diana was criticised for all kinds of things — sometimes quite heavily. For example, Diana changed her hairstyle for an opening of parliament and the BRF was furious as that was all the press talked about. ‘Diana upstaged the Queen’. However, Diana wasn’t trying to do anything of the sort but you’d never know that from the press fury it created.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Oh my gosh, LadySlippers, remember the absolute furor over that hairstyle change? I had forgotten that.
        Diana was criticized for spending too much on and caring too much about clothes, too, as I recall.

      • Suze says:

        To be fair, I think Diana probably spend enormous sums on clothes – much more than Kate or Camilla do these days. It seemed like she had an unlimited budget.

        I’m not saying that’s good or bad, just that times were different. Diana wore mostly bespoke clothing, head to toe, accessories included. She had Catherine Walker on speed dial, and dipped her toes into a few other designers, as well.

        If the internet had been around then, I do think that would have come up for more criticism.

      • LadySlippers says:

        @Suze @GoodNames,

        No one really commented or cared about the cost (it was the ’80′s!). The focus was strictly what she wore and whether it was deemed ‘good enough’. In fact, once Walker became her ‘go to’ designer, she started to actual get kudos for her style instead of mostly criticism. Before Walker Diana’s style was pretty much hit or miss.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        Lady and Mena
        Such good stuff here, ladies! The curse of the spare is wrathful and usually shows no mercy but one can’t help but feel that there is a certain singular, incandescent charm/goodness in Harry that will render him the exception and not the rule. Wouldn’t it be mind blowingly ironic if Diana imparted Harry with the *kryptonite* for this centuries old menace?!
        As for Harry being thrown under the bus, it could still happen but I doubt William will be driving it. Some may disagree here but unlike Charles and Andrew, there is no lifetime of jealousy to contend with between William and Harry.
        And to be completely fair William worked side by side with Harry on many of their earlier philanthropic endeavors. Because of William’s current laziness people are now forgetting the good he used to do. In addition, Harry gained an incalculable amount of goodwill, PR and credibility just for having served in a war zone – something William wouldn’t have been allowed to do in a million years. And yes, he also wanted to go very badly. Now, William is just backlashing and having his little reactionary tantrums, imo.

      • bluhare says:

        This is being written by a true Diana fan, but I have no trouble believing she knew changing her hairstyle would hit the papers more than a boring old speech. I’ve also read Diana was jealous of Sarah at first when Sarah was getting good press. She was used to being on the front page every day and didn’t like being usurped.

    • bluhare says:

      Good point, Christin. He was a full time search and rescue pilot too. Who had to scramble to get enough flying hours, he was so full time.

  8. Carmel says:

    Good Gob, William is so lazy! I wish he’d just take himself out of the line of succession already. Or he could’ve just married a Catholic. That would’ve solved all his problems right there. I bet the queen and Prince Philip are so disappointed in him.

    About the decorating, Kate should’ve just let Camilla’s sister decorate it, like Prince Charles recommended. She did Highgrove and it’s lovely.

  9. Tx says:

    Harry has the reputation of the party boy, but it seems to me he does more work then these two combined. And he actually seems to care, like that Warrier Games he brought back to England. He reminds me a lot of their mother. If I were and english taxpayer, I would be livid that I was paying so much money fo Will and Kate to decorate when they give so little back.

    • Dame Snarkweek says:

      True Harry shows more heart and a stronger work ethic . Untrue that taxpayers fund interior decorating/design efforts – only structural and security/safety upgrades, maintenance and repairs.

      • LadySlippers says:


        People only want to hear that the taxpayers are paying for the full costs of the BRF. Period/Full Stop.

        Remember? Facts be damned. Assumptions are the cornerstones of life apparently.

        Care to boil some water for our morning cup of tea?

      • My2Pence says:

        Even if the Duchy or William’s inheritance from Diana (again, The Duchy) funds this, it just takes us back into the debate about where the Duchy came from, how it was taken from the people, that all their funding still tracks back to the taxpayers via the Duchy, how the Duchy will be returned to the people when monarchy ends, etc.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        This all day long. I learned along the way that perception/human nature is so fallible that, if one can help it, should always favor facts over expediency. And in Will and Kate’s case there are so many legitimate faults/gaffes that it is futile to waste time on odd bits of fiction and exaggeration.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        I will presume upon your kindness and pour a cup for Tuppence as well. Her morning snark makes me think of my dear Plantagenet scamps and that deserves a bit of reward.

      • LadySlippers says:


        I’ve purchased food from the Cornwall Duchy — that goes into the Wales’ pockets as Duchy profits. And I’m American. The Duchy incomes are derived from a variety of sources as it’s a working farm.

        So do you get equally mad at the other historic duchies that still are profitable? This question isn’t meant to be snarky but might come off that way but it’s a fair question.


        Thanks for pouring. I must need my cuppa this morning.

      • My2Pence says:

        LS, you’re verging into assumption and personal attack again. I’m not “mad”.

        I’m not opposed to him making a reasonable salary and profit (and who defines “reasonable”) for work he does to make the Duchy successful. I think much of what he has done with the Duchy is amazing! There is a difference between a royal duchy and other landed estates. I’m not talking about them, I’m talking about the unique situation of the royal duchies. I perceive them as different.

        The point is, ultimately it isn’t his, it does not belong to him. It belongs to the people, and if/when the royals are dumped, it will go back to the people. If after that, Charles wants to keep managing it for the people, he gets a reasonable salary, but records would be open and transparent *as they should be now*

      • LadySlippers says:


        Gosh I must be grumpy as my comments aren’t usually perceived in this light. Sorry. I’m honestly not cross with anyone. :-/

        I didn’t think you were ‘mad’ per se. I was trying to bring up a valid point and also playing devil’s advocate here. I often try and play devil’s advocate to get people (including me) to look at issues differently. Things are rarely as absolute as they appear.

        So how are the two Royal Duchies any different than any of the historic duchies? How are these lands any more the ‘people’s’ than say, the Norfolk Duchy? That’s what I’m driving at. When all these duchies were handed out — the recipients all benefited at the expense of the common people. If we want to try and reclaim those two duchies, we need to do it to ALL the duchies that had land tied to their title. We need to remove all the benefits that wealth, title, and privilege bestow among people. It’s not just the Royals that benefitted — it’s the entire British aristocracy.

      • My2Pence says:

        Maybe eventually all of the other aristocracy will be ended as well. To me the difference is, none of the other landed aristocrats are costing millions in (often hidden costs) taxpayer money to be representatives of government. If the royals decided to “stop being royal”, then a fair payout would be provided to them and they could go back to being simply landed aristocrats.

        That “fair payout” however would involve every single pence of money currently being hidden or claimed as “private” by the royals being examined. A very small percentage of that would end up going to the house of Windsor. Considering how much they’ve hidden and historically how long they got away without paying tax or inheritance tax, they’d be lucky to get 1/1000000 of what they have now.

    • Tx says:

      @snark good to know! But I’m sure they can find a way to pass of some/a lot of remodeling as structure work/maintenance. They tax payer may not be paying for the rug, but my guess is they are somehow paying to move a wall or two.
      @ladyslippers no need to be rude. You’ll forgive me if I don’t know the ins and outs of how the royal family is provided for by taxpayers. As an American the whole concept is foreign to me. I still find it odd that they have to pay anything to support the royals.

      • Sixer says:

        EVERY country pays to support its head of state and its function.

        As a British republican (small R), I am no apologist for the RF – and they are expensive – but it shouldn’t be forgotten that if we got rid, we’d have to replace that expense with one covering a presidential office and set of functions.

        I realise it’s all very counter-intuitive to those across the pond, but there is an office of state there that costs money. No idea how the US finances work in separating out the costs of the OFFICE of president from the day-to-day running of the government, but that costs US taxpayer money. Since most countries separate the head of government from the head of state, it’s a lot easier to compare with one of them.

        The BRF costs about 100x the cost of the Irish presidency but only about 2x the cost of the French presidency, for example. That’s an actual starting point for any cost discussion.

      • LadySlippers says:


        My sincere apologies if I came off as rude. It’s honestly not my intention.

        However, I get upset when people write and post about things that are *assumed* and honestly have no understanding. It’s not just here and with the Royals — it’s everywhere on everything. Sorry if I took it out on you.

        Sixer is 100% correct. Government is, in and off itself, expensive and while we Americans cast off the British Royal Family some time ago — it left a void that’s been filled by others. And Royals in all countries actually have a clear purpose and function to their positions (roles will vary by country and monarchy). Even if William (and now his wife) seems unwilling or ‘unable’ to do any of their assigned jobs.

        Again, I offer sincere apologies if I was or came across as rude.

      • Sixer says:

        Just to add: a quick Google gave me a recent book suggesting the cost of the US presidential office is $1.4bn. I have NO idea if that is accurate – and indeed, it doesn’t really matter other than illustrating the point that the office of ANY head of state is expensive.

        If you include the Sovereign Grant, the security and the lost revenues from the two royal duchies, the RF costs about £200m a year. The Prime Minister costs money too, if we’re comparing the UK and the US rather than a country with a separated head of state, but it’s a comparative pittance. Under £10m even including the country house.

        I’m not making any OpEd on this – I don’t care how much anyone else spends on THEIR heads of state; only that the RF is seen to give value for what we spend on it – but I do think it has to be seen in context.

      • Suze says:

        Sixer, I agree that you really can’t compare the president with the royal family – their duties are only tangentially similar.

      • mena says:

        Hmm interesting stuff, Sixer. Thanks for the explanation.

        From the outside looking in, there does seem to be some money mismanagement going on with the BRF.

        It doesn’t seem right that royal residences have fallen into disrepair while the younger royals splurge on multiple lavish holidays.

        Should taxes be raised to repair & maintain the royal residences? I’m thinking ‘no’. Then perhaps the way the funds have been distributed needs to be reassessed.

      • Sixer says:

        Well, I don’t know about tangentially, Suze, you know? The US president is 50% head of government and 50% head of state. So half your president is EXACTLY the same as the Queen. Same functions of office exactly. As LS notes, practices are slightly different between nations but the principle of head of govt and head of state are the same throughout.

        (In this functions of state and their associated costs scenario, HOW you get to be the head of state – elections or heredity – is irrelevant. But of course, not irrelevant at all in terms of the broad discussion of any monarchy).

      • My2Pence says:

        @ TX. NOBODY knows the true ins and outs of how the BRF are funded. Snark and LS seem to be throwing shade at anyone who disagrees with their stance that W&K aren’t funded by the taxpayer in some way. They may claim they know “The Truth”, but they are only telling you what they believe to be true. That doesn’t make it fact, it doesn’t make it fiction.

        An enormous part of the problem is that everything is shrouded in secrecy, which is exactly how the BRF want it. Like the jokes made in the US that such and such military contractor paid $5000 for a wrench.

        Security costs hidden in other budgets, not publishing accounts of the huge costs foisted off on taxpayers in Anglesey or Buckleburry, taxpayers paying for upgrades to Middleton properties, HM’s factual net worth unknown, where the Duchy came from and who really owns it, etc. It isn’t snark, it is recognizing that there are a lot of lies being spun for the taxpayers; some people believe those lies and others don’t.

        BRF are wonders at obfuscation of the highest order so no TRUE costs are known. If all of that data came to light – all of it out in the open – and the true cost to the taxpayers vs. the BRF’s “private” net worth were known, the Republican movement would be successful.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        *waves* LadySlippers and I are also fellow Yanks :)
        Though you profess a deficiency of royal knowledge you have actually come very near upon a theory several others here have come up with: Charles may very well be backhanding private expenses and repurposing them as official expenses. Not enough transparency to know for sure.
        And if I may defend LadySlipper she is as far from rude as William is from having a full head of hair. We encounter a hysterical amount of “fact allergies” on this site. Your comment prompted mine which prompted hers but the chagrin she displayed was circuitous and not personal to you. I hope you will accept my explanation and by all means, welcome to the discussion!

      • Sixer says:

        Mena – I think what you say gets much more to the heart of the argument against a hereditary monarchy. What do you do when they don’t live up to their duty? You can’t toss them out at the next election. So seriously, you’re left with the equivalent of docking their pocket money, which might well punish them but will actually damage the nation’s assets in the form of the Crown Estate. And that’s cutting off your nose to spite your face, isn’t it?

        For me, this is why I dislike Baldtop’s attempts to quash the press quite as much as I do (and another reason I’m against Leveson). The fourth estate really does have the responsibility to keep these people in line.

      • LadySlippers says:


        Governments suck! It makes no matter what *kind* of government either. Lol

        All governments mismanage money. It’s so common that I now wonder if it’s a part of the job description…

        (Do you mismanage your own income? If so, we have a *fantastic* position for you! We allow you to mismanage thousands, if not millions, of other people’s money. If this sounds like a dream come true, apply at for more info).

      • Suze says:

        Sixer, I don’t know the exact breakdown of how the president spends his time (that would be interesting, though). I’ve never heard the 50/50 split, but it seems to be a bit heavy on the Head of State side (in fact, presidents very frequently deputize head of state duties to the First Lady – which is going on right now during FLOTUS tour of China – and to the VP).

        POTUS has seven assigned roles, only one of which is Head of State:

        Chief of the Executive Branch
        Head of State
        Foreign Policy Leader
        Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces
        Legislative Leader
        Economic Leader
        Leader of His/Her Political Party

        That list is very roughly in order of importance. How that time is apportioned probably depends on what is going on – for example more time spent on the last role during an election year, more time as Commander In Chief during times of war….and so on. The current administration has spend an enormous amount of time on setting/directing economic policy, so I think that would go up the list for Obama.

      • Sixer says:

        Suze – I think that’s semantics, really, sorry. We’re talking in terms of the principles of branches of government. I could counter with QEII being commander in chief or the PM being leader of his political party but that would be equally OT to this topic, which is the main branches of government – legislature, executive and judiciary. The US combines the first two and the UK does not. And that’s what we’re talking about in terms of costs to taxpayers.

        And in terms of costs to taxpayers, it doesn’t matter a jot HOW the president splits his time. What matters is what the office of head of state costs in American tax dollars. And like I say, I don’t really care (no offence – that’s for you guys to sort out for youselves) – I’m just pointing out that the money the UK spends on the RF wouldn’t be entirely saved if there was no monarchy; it would be replaced by spending on the new, non-regal, head of state.

        We can’t really discount spending on FLOTUS in a discussion on William and Kate, can we? That would be um… ridiculous. Both are expenses of the overall offices of heads of state.

        Mena – I have replied to you but it’s stuck in m-land. Hopefully, it will appear at some point.

      • Suze says:


        Hmmm. Well, my point was that the office of the US president is very expensive, but that office also covers a tremendous range of duties. And it certainly matters to citizens how he spends his time – although I do understand why you wouldn’t care.

        I don’t think it’s at all comparable to the covering the cost of the royal family as far as taxpayers are concerned.

        It might be better to compare a system that’s closer to what the UK has – not sure what that would be though. The Netherlands? I wonder if their citizens think they are getting bang for their buck? I know very little about how various nations with monarchies divide responsibility and pay for it!

        And I’m puzzled as to how the legislative and executive branches are combined as far as US taxpayers are concerned, but you’re right, probably not a topic for this post!

      • Sixer says:

        I mean combined in that to compare the expenses, you’d need to combine the costs of the RF AND the Prime Minister (in the UK) which would be equivalent to the costs of the President (in the US). No more than that!

        You could take another European monarchy, but you could just as easily take a republic. As I said above, the French presidency is about half the cost of the RF. Our republican campaigners in the UK like to compare with Ireland because they can say the Irish president is 100x cheaper, but I think better to compare size of economy and relative wealth. So I think France is a good choice – particularly since the tourism draw is roughly the same. We pay double!

      • Sixer says:

        Gah. M-land again. You’ll see what I said later, Suze.

      • hmmm says:

        Regarding the breakdown of cost by country- America is how many times larger than the UK in population?

      • LadySlippers says:


        The Netherlands are deeply respectful of their monarchy and the Royals have a much greater role as well. Also, I think how the press treats its Royals is directly proportionate to how the country feels about their Royal Family. For example, the Dutch and Danish press are very respectful to their respective Royal Families and so, the populations are (for the most part) very supportive of their Royal Family. The British and Spanish press are downright nasty in the treatment of their respective Royal Families (especially the Spanish press) and their citizens are much less supportive.

        So it’s not a fair comparison as the press really impacts our perceptions.

      • LadySlippers says:


        I’m not trying to shade *anyone*. I’ve also stated that the BRF could benefit immensely from opening up their books and allowing their finances to be transparent.

        My issue is the assumption that the British Royal Family is borne completely by the tax payer. I think it’s a false assumption as nothing is ever so black and white. But like you, with the BRF keeping mum on their finances means neither argument can be 100% supported.

      • mena says:

        @Sixer, finally got your reply!

        I don’t think docking the royals pocket money is the way to go, but isn’t there an issue about how much taxes the royals pay?

        It seems like whenever there’s talk of the Duchy of Cornwall, taxes always come up. Charles is developing the property like a madman, but not paying nearly as much taxes as other like-minded developers. If true, that’s seems like a gross inequity that needs to be fixed.

        LOL! I got as far as – Do you mismanage your own income? If so, we have a *fantastic* position for you! – thinking it was a legit question and I immediately answered YES! Yes I do mismanage my own income! Can I be Royal too!

        *clears throat* think it’s time for more coffee! LOL!

      • LadySlippers says:

        That was my shade to government employees!!!!

        I’ve seen how the US government fleeces tax payers. About once a year, the departments would have a freebie table littered with things the ship didn’t need so sailors could take it home. That way, if it WAS needed again, they’d have to re-buy it and not loose valuable budget money. True story too.

      • bluhare says:

        Good conversation everyone. LadySlippers, there was a typo in your link (I actually clicked it!). It’s

      • LadySlippers says:

        Oh Baroness,

        I made up the link. I didn’t think it might be a real site, although I did think about changing the @ dot portion to make sure. So sorry!

        Was the link you provided good?!???

      • bluhare says:

        That link works. I did not read it. I don’t think it a good idea to post made up links. Yours was just a couple of letters off from a site, but what if a fake link took people to places they shouldn’t go?

        Although it is nice to get some validation for my “too lazy to click links” stance.

      • Suze says:

        Reading this very enlightening conversation, I have to say that I need to copy and save it for when we have someone come on here and say – “I don’t understand why Kate has to work. She’s rich, right?”

        It might also behoove a certain Ms. Cressida Bonas to read this and understand that she may very well be taking on a job that is much more demanding and complicated that it appears on the surface.

      • My2Pence says:

        @ Suze. IF Harry and Cressida marry, and IF she understands that she is taking on a JOB, she’ll be at least 100 steps beyond Kate Middleton’s comprehension of the royal role at that point.

  10. bettyrose says:

    Wait, William’s getting “time outs” from the foreign nanny?? Tell us more.

  11. Murphy says:

    I think you meant ‘will george get a time out.”

    But I think William deserves one more.

  12. Bridget says:

    Get a job, dude. You’re 31. Its not cute.

  13. Tx says:

    @sixer you’re 100% right. Of course everyone pays their government employees (and of course, we could go on for DAYS about every country’s abuse and waste of money). But my point here is, I’m confused as to what the royals DO to deserve taxpayer funding? Do they create or in force laws? Do they proved anything besides being figureheads? Our President is a figurehead, yes. But he is also our President, not soley a figurehead. It seems to me like the only function the royals serve is being socialites. Which, to me, should not be funded by your tax dollars.

    • LadySlippers says:


      Those are great questions. You must be new so I extend you a hearty welcome! (My apology and answer to your above comment in moderating ATPM).

      Royals have different jobs and roles depending on the Monarchy and country. Most Royals are used as roving Ambassadors which is why many of them do intern in an Embassy office.

      A great example of that for a non-royal is the current trip Mrs Obama is on. China is *rapidly* building up their military and are starting to test waters diplomatically (arguing over islands for example). It is essential that we stay on good terms with China and as such, diplomatic tours like the one she is doing, is invaluable. Royals do this as a matter of course. The Norwegian Crown Princely couple is in SE Asia doing exactly the same thing. Denmark’s Queen and Prince Consort will also be visiting China soon. All have the same goals in mind — strengthening diplomatic ties between countries.

      Royals are also tasked with becoming patrons (or patronesses) to various charities. In this, they are asked to use their high profiles to make the world a better place. And often do just that.

      Royals may or may not have a governmental role within their country as well. British Royals are supposed to be neutral but still have legal roles to perform. The Dutch Royals are an invaluable part of their constitutional process but that is more rare nowadays. The Swedish Royals, on the other hand (and more typically), have no power whatsoever beyond ceremonial.

      Just a quick interesting note. Serbia has rather in officially allowed their Royals to come home and work again for the country. Again, this is an exception to the rule but the Serbian Royals are doing wonderful things for Serbia.

      So yes, most Royals do an invaluable service to their country and do so with very little worldwide fanfare. William and Kate are exceptions to this rule.

      Hope that helps.

      Again, welcome.

      • Mandalynca says:

        @Ladyslippers It is worth mentioing that the goverment dictate the overseas tours and then it is decided who goes. The government will use the royals to circumvent the diplomatic process, this is especially true when dealing with some of the Arab states. As Harold Wlison said to Kennedy when dealing with Kruchev “I’ll use my Queen”

      • LadySlippers says:

        Dictated to is a bit too strong of a word. I think governments ask and the Royals go.

        Regardless of semantics, most governments happily employ their Royals for diplomacy and charity missions. It garners significantly more news coverage than if a boring politician is doing it (with the exception of the US).

        I think the key for any constitutional monarchy to work is whether or not the Royals of that country work in accordance with the elected politicians. Most do.

        Obviously monarchies that still have a great deal of power aren’t factored in because they still have that historic power.

    • Sixer says:

      Tx – I would simply say that MOST countries do not combine the head of state with the head of government, so you need to try to see things from outside the US perspective, which is blurred by your combining of offices. In most countries, the head of state embodies and upholds the constitution, whether written or unwritten, has diplomatic functions in embodying a nation to other nations, and some – often symbolic but to varying degrees across nations – executive powers – to dissolve and create governments, for example.

      You probably wouldn’t ask what the Irish president actually DOES for the money, would you? You know?

  14. Christina says:

    I’m with My2Pence. They live off the nation and that is that. Their “private” funds still link directly back to the taxpayer unless we are talking about private investments or certain inheritances. They make every effort not to spend their own cash and try to pretend there is some sort of parity in “private” and “taxpayer” money. There isn’t. And they make damned sure their records on that subject are private as they can make it, as for the rest, the public be damned. Remember how William made up the term “semi-state” wedding so he could have a grand affair and saddle the taxpayers with the largest cost of it? But of course they feed people the line about how “taxpayers don’t pay for things like interior decorating” which is one of those official royal party lines. They do and there have been occasions when the Queen requested to have more tax funds diverted for those purposes. What you read on their official website is a lie.

    • LadySlippers says:

      The issue is that the British Royals need to be significantly more transparent with the source of their income. I honestly don’t believe it comes at 100% of the tax payer expense. However, by not being transparent, it leaves them open for criticism with people assuming that they are.

      • Christina says:

        Ladyslippers- I think the main reason we are not agreeing is that you do not view the “private” income from sources such as the Duchies to be taxpayer money. Which strictly speaking, no, it isn’t. But that income comes from tenants who are the British public and that land was appropriated from the British people in the first place. It all traces back to the people and if you stripped the royals of the wealth that they gain from the commoners and left them with their private investments (although again, with what money were those investments made?) they simply would not have this lifestyle.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Absolutely Christina. Absolutely.

        But I also see no difference in any of the historic, income generating duchies (or any title that used to come with income generating land) — Royal or otherwise. Why pick on the two Royal duchies when the entire British aristocracy is built on profits made at the expense of others? Why should they get criticised when others don’t?

        Also, not every penny or pence is strictly tax money. Charles was able to turn the Cornwall Duchy profitable whereas before, it was a money suck (true for a lot of estates in the UK). He completely overalled the duchy to do it and showed these lands and farms could be profitable again.

        And in reality, every form of government, including representative democracies of today, exploits its people so the rich can get richer. There are built in mechanisms in every society that does exactly what the titled, landed aristocracy did in the UK. So what are the two duchies singled out then?

      • Christina says:

        There is really, not much difference between the economic exploitation of regular people, in any nation, except that in this case a lot of it remains frighteningly antiquated and classist in a way that pure plutocracy can’t buy. And even if it is not uncommon, does that make it right, particularly in this case? Mismanagement and inequality is one thing; but here we have a system built on the premise that an accident of birth entitles you to privileges that are almost unimaginable. Elected officials can often be corrupt but there’s really nothing you can say about a head of state that no one elected at all! These people believe in their right to garnish money from their subjects, not for possibly misguided public endeavors but for their own luxurious lives. Does this happen with the financial elite in other places? Yes. It’s never right. I’ve spent most my life in academic studies of the history of the royal family, no one can say I don’t know its legacy or cultural value – but this aspect has always been reprehensible.

      • LadySlippers says:


        Here in the US, supposedly a classless society, we actually have *less* social mobility than our former governing country does. Sixer has several times posted a study that supports those statements (I have also seen similar studies that said essentially the same thing). Here in the US it’s a myth that one can pull themselves by the bootstraps and make something of themselves. We use outliers to support that myth but outliers are outliers for a reason.

        Even here in the good ole USA, where and whom you are born to makes all the difference in the world. We too have numerous built in mechanisms to keep the wealthy, wealthy.

        And it’s dangerous to brush every Royal with the same strokes. Not all are lazy and wasteful. In fact, most are not. And, most understand that they are in place at the will of the people. Republics all were once a monarchy as well (although they really are no better). A couple of votes and they get stripped of their role — no different than a politician.

        Do I think it’s right? No, however, any and all attempts to reform government (i.e. communism) end up exactly where they began. The few with many and the majority with not enough.

      • Christina says:

        I am an American who studied, lived and paid tax in the UK. I am back in America now waitressing trying to get my chosen career of museum work started in the meantime. Rest assured that at this point I am well acquainted with the inequalities in the United States. But the rampant aristocratic classism just isn’t here that is there. Money talks more than your pedigree – even for a family like the Kennedys. If you have the right attitude for a certain circle – they’ll accept you. Whereas in Britain, your birthright tops all; notice how Kate was barely accepted by William’s friends even as she went to the same schools and had similar hobbies. There were few qualitative differences between her and other aristo women for a long time, yet the aristos and courtiers still aren’t hugely accepting of her. The royals take advantage of that to maintain their lives, so people will intuit that they, as commoners, are “below” them. It’s quite simple for them. They really do feel entitled to it. As they don’t have the equivalent of a Congressman’s office for people to call in and complain, there’s not much that can be done. Anyway, I fail to see how pointing out other cases of inequality makes THIS case right. You may not like an elected official, but at least they’re gone after a certain amount of time. And the statement that the monarchy is there at the will of the people – allow them to be transparent in their finances and then allow a referendum and we will see what that will is. A forced choice through status quo and fudged data isn’t a choice. I don’t think the royals are bad people per se (people like to point out Princess Anne who is hardworking and – while her RPOs are there to take her bullets – gutsy). But it takes some serious shielding and self-delusion on their part to think they give more than they take. The system is an anachronism and does more harm than good.

      • bluhare says:

        Christina, you know your stuff. What museum career are you working on?

      • LAK says:

        of course Charles was able to turn the duchy profitable. Frankly, considering it’s size and the fact that he paid no tax on it and was the recipient of EU subsidies not to mention favoured status at market for the produce coming from his duchy, he had every advantage to make a profit. Many landed estates haven’t been so lucky.

        The most crippling cost of all, which Charles and the rest of the royals were exempt from, was tax which other landed Estates found they couldn’t pay or even keep up with let alone make a profit.

        The system that made aristocrats wealthy was overhauled early last century and many found that they couldn’t afford their lifestyles and sold up or handed their estates to the national trust or were forced to open up their homes to the paying public to meet costs.

        The royal family escaped the overhaul whilst also not paying tax of any kind, which remains a voluntary exercise for them, until 1992 when they was forced to do so. They’ve been allowed to maintain any and all advantage which the other landed estates don’t have anymore, and some would argue never had in the first place. Plus they have more money thrown at them directly or indirectly which means they are able to maintain their wealth whilst their own class, let alone others, are unable to.

        And frankly, the royals became rich via advantage in ye old times because like fat canaries they let everybody else feed them the fat of the land with no effort on their part. No hardworking royals amongst the lot of them who was clever or even business minded to mind their fortune and build on it.

        Whilst the image of aristocrats becoming rich via ‘land-grabbing-squeeze-the-peasants’ getting rich methods is irresistible, there are many who built up their wealth in ways that are recognisably modern eg the Devonshires whose family fortune was built up by Bess of Hardwicke, their most famous member, via marriage and commerce in the middle ages.

      • bluhare says:

        I was too late to add an edit to my comment to Christina, but I agree with you.

        I think revenue from the crown estate is taxpayer money. It isn’t as a result of taxes, but the revenue goes to the government, who then pays the queen 15% of revenue with a two year lag. So 2014 money would be from 2012 revenue.

      • Christina says:

        Thank you Bluhare! (You all are always a joy even if I disagree!) My specialty in grad school was gender issues in the Tudor/Stuart era and British eighteenth century country homes. I couldn’t stay in Britain due to immigration laws so I am back here where there is sadly a nonexistent market for either area! I’m trying to build up curatorial and administrative experience instead by interning :-D Wills should take a tip from me…

      • Sixer says:

        Christina – I sometimes think that if we give it another couple of centuries, the US elites will also have created dynasties you can’t buy into. I hope, for your country’s sake, that American Dream national myth does a better job of protecting you from that than our national myths did. But I would say to all Americans: pay attention to the truth of social mobility in your society and guard against the future. You know?

        I’m not sure electing one’s head of state via representative democracy does a great deal to avoid any of this either. (Although I’m entirely persuaded it’s the lesser evil compared to a hereditary monarchy). Corruption abounds. Established interests abound. Money buys influence.

      • LAK says:

        Christina ; i love a gender-issues-through-history discussion. what books would you recommend on the subject? i assume you read widely for it, but are there 3-5books that you could recommend or is that too simplistic a request?

        did you have to write a dessitation in the end? and any chance you will publish it? even if to a blog? i’d love to read it.

      • Christina says:

        Sizer- I hope that will not happen. It’s not the right type of environment to do so as we aren’t still surrounded by countries with active aristocracies necessarily – but I still have hope things will turn around socioeconomically.

        LAK – I’m ashamed to say I forgot a lot of them and had to dig out my dissertation! Don’t think I would publish it but I like to read it in private :D

        Some good books are:
        David Bergeron’s King James and Letters of Homoerotic Desire

        Alexander and MacLeod’s Politics, Transgression and Representation at the Court of Charles II

        Susan Amussen’s An Ordered Society: Gender and Class in Early Modern England

        Alan Bray’s Homosexuality in Renaissance England

        Alexandra Shepard’s Meanings of Manhood in Early Modern England

        Hope you may be able to find some of these!

      • ArtHistorian says:

        Your specialty sounds very interesting! My specialty is 19th century European history painting but I did my Ma dissertation on issues of gender, power and sovereignty in relation to the portraiture of Elizabeth I.

      • Christina says:

        That lure of the Tudors just yanks you in, doesn’t it? :-D

    • hmmm says:

      Absolutely agree with you! It’s all smoke and mirrors. Until recently, the queen didn’t even want to pay taxes. And she must have a ton of income from investments, etc. No, the BRF are doing everything within their power to offset their lifestyle with public monies, and ensure that with a deliberate lack of transparency, which I find appalling. In effect they are barely accountable to anyone, certainly not to the serfs. After all, in their eyes, they’re entitled and I’m sure it irks them to have any restrictions at all.

      • bluhare says:

        That was also a nice try by someone a bit ago to make her look poverty stricken being “down to her last million” and all. Of money to keep up houses that the government owns. She herself has said that, btw. She doesn’t use her personal wealth for that. That goes to the horsies!!!

  15. Izzy says:

    I just had a question and was wondering if you guys could help me! If William were to abdicate the throne would Harry or George become King in his place?

    • Christina says:

      George is the next in line.

    • bluhare says:

      Actually it would depend who dies first. Charles will be King next whether William resigns or not. If Charles is King and William resigns, unless he can keep George in there (can he?), Harry would be next.

      I’ll take Door Number 2!

    • My2Pence says:

      I think if William actually wanted out, they’d find a way. (I think he wants the prestige and lifestyle, none of the work, but he will not want the prestige and attention to go to his younger brother). Whatever has happened before, historically, I think *could* be overridden if William wanted out for himself and his family. Didn’t David abdicate for himself and his heirs? So if they wanted to find a way, I think they’d bend or break whatever laws they wanted to get it done.

      • bluhare says:

        I hope so too, Tuppence. Otherwise it’s involuntary servitude, isn’t it.

      • LadySlippers says:

        They would have to create a law that allows someone to step out of the line of succession.

        What David did was rare and no one wants a repeat of that. (Apparently it’s so distasteful to Elizabeth II that it’s not even mentioned in casual conversation)

        However, I think they should create a bill because no one should have to be ‘forced’ to do a job they don’t want to do. And with all of the passive-aggressive behaviour from William, I do think he doesn’t want ‘the top spot’. He shouldn’t be forced as we’re all seeing his commitment or lack thereof to his role. Let the guy go because the line of succession was created for a reason — use it. Out of 500+ people, there’s gotta be someone willing to step up to the plate. Someone who won’t shirk his duty…

      • bluhare says:

        Elizabeth has personal reasons, LadySlippers, and I’m sure listened to several earfuls from her mother. While personal reasons are valid, don’t get me wrong, it’s a bit different than reasons of state (or whatever you’d call them). And it was all because of an affair. A bit different than someone who just doesn’t want the job. But I definitely agree there should be a way out for someone who doesn’t want it.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Naw, the affair was an excuse.

        David was being questioned for the suitability for his role long before Wallis (politicians and other family members thought he might be a bit ‘touched’ in the head). Wallis, however, was a convenient scapegoat.

      • CynicalCeleste says:

        I think My2P has it right in that Wm may drag his heels at the duty and obligations of it all, but there’s no way his ego would allow him to step aside and let someone else have the glory. He has been raised to be king and his attitude of extreme entitlement stems from that identity. As for kate, she was in it to win it and could’ve easily chosen a private life of great wealth and unexamined indolence. Bottom line – Ambivalent and lazy about it as they may be, W&K will never give up the throne.

      • bluhare says:

        I agree, Celeste. And it’s a shame if it all comes down to someone’s overinflated sense of himself.

      • LadySlippers says:

        I know I’m in the minority but I don’t think what’s keeping William in the line of succession is his ego. I think it’s guilt. He doesn’t want to face the sh*t storm of voicing the ugly opinion that he doesn’t want to be king. So he goes about his jobs ‘voicing’ his opinions passive-aggressive style (and gets away with it because he can).

        As others have pointed out, William IS capable of doing a job well. It’s just when he feels cornered or forced that he gets pissy, pouty, and careless (and now that covers about 90% of what he does). I think he’d gladly let his brother be king so he could do whatever his little heart pleased. Whatever that might be….

      • LAK says:

        We don’t know that William’s attitude is due to being cornered or forced. He has stated several times that he dreads the job and tries to stay as far away from it as possible.

      • LadySlippers says:

        I see your point LAK. However, passive-aggressive actions typically point to someone feeling as if they have no choice in the matter and cannot freely express their opinion or feel as if another option is available to them.

      • My2Pence says:

        The other 30-something and 40-something heirs to European houses haven’t pitched such fits and refused to accept their roles. What exactly is it about William that makes him incapable of stepping up and what makes people defend him (and his lazy wife) for this behavior?

  16. Suze says:

    Maybe this one will take! Maybe Wills will find a deep passion for statesmanship! In fact, I’m sure he will! I cannot wait for the updates!

    As for brunette duchess….

    If I were the palace press office, I would try to clamp down on any and all decorating stories from here on out. Yes, she decorates. One MUST when one is in the possession of so many residences. But it’s only a small part of her life. Instead, the duchess finds deep satisfaction in focusing on her son and….and….and….

    Well, that’s the kicker, isn’t it?

    Wasn’t Kate going to focus on children’s charities? She did a good job when she visited the children’s hospice – maybe they should set up a few more like appointments (not all hospices, I understand that would be emotionally wearing) and really tout her work on those.

    Oh, who am I kidding? Decorating it is.

    • bluhare says:

      LOL, Suze. Although I’m going to argue with you about that charity visit. The only reason she was a success is that little girl wasn’t have it!!

    • Dame Snarkweek says:

      Can’t understand who is falling asleep at the wheel within the press office. If I didn’t know better I would think Charles secretly turned the KP press office over to the staff writers at Monty Python. Is he only capable of/interested in his and Cam’s image?is he still tone deaf?

      • LadySlippers says:


        When *isn’t* Charles tone deaf? Or primarily concerned with his image at the expense of other people???? (Sorry perhaps I’m grumpier than I thought)

        Honestly, I didn’t assume as so many others that combining of the press offices meant anything significant. I think William still tells his press people the same crap, the only difference is the location the crap is coming from. Charles’ office vs William’s. That’s it.

        (Because, if you look at it, there hasn’t been a change in tone from anyone involved in this ‘press merger’)

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        You might be right because everything actually got worse. I’m side-eyeing Chuck right now, right or wrong.

    • herladyship says:

      Yes, the duchess decorates and decorates and.. not much else.

      I cannot imagine Will with the foreign office. He reminds me of my friends college age daughter who flits around to a different internship every month. She says that she only observes at each one., and its part of her deciding what to be when she grows up..But, she’s 19…

      Sorry if I’m rambling. I had foot surgery 2 days ago and just took my meds

    • Hazel says:

      This decorating stuff reminds me of all the stories about First Ladies. Jaqueline Kennedy was noted for her renovation/re-decoration of the White House & if memory serves (although it frequently does not), with each new family we learn about the newest set of china & furnishings. Not until Hillary Clinton, I think, did we start to get a different picture of the life of the First Lady, and in particular, the coverage of the life of the First Lady. Eleanor Roosevelt is a standout exception to this kind of ‘woman’s sphere of influence is the home’ business. Which is all a roundabout way of saying that I think the Duchess is the recipient of this kind of coverage. Granted, she’s not really doing anything to alter that impression….

  17. Jaded says:

    “And he thinks being at the Foreign Office would give him a grounding in diplomacy.”

    Diplomacy and William are two words that do NOT go together.

  18. Hazel says:

    What nonsense. William doesn’t want to be an ambassador because it would take him away from his wife & child? Phooey. Families always come with the ambassador. That no doubt came straight from the writer’s not-too-creative brain. The Foreign Office wouldn’t have William as ambassador. He couldn’t stick out his term. You don’t want a quitter in that position.

  19. hmmm says:

    So it’s a second “gap” year for Wills? And he’s 32? What will this ‘stint’ entail? It sure is vague.

    • LAK says:

      Technically, it’s his 3rd year. Here is why:

      2012: an announcement is made about the SAR sale or was it privatisation meaning that all the RAF SARs were given a year to mull over where or what would be next.

      Cut to: an almost year long public discussion about what William was going to do next. The general consensus was that he would remain in the military as he still had half his contract to go, but might transfer to back to Blues and Royals or Household guards. Sidenote: Bluhare and I had a bet about whether he would wash up in Scotland based regiment. William himself stayed mum though lots of semi official leaks that seemed to indicate that he was planning on staying in the military.

      2013: Finally, it’s announced that he is leaving the military altogether and he is going to help serve in HM’s office, complete with a new desk job title (title of it escapes me) that essentially translates as he will be her PA – a job his father also holds. Lots of noise about how it’ll help him be a hands on father when PGtips makes his debut.

      BUT! Later that year, he declares his intention of having a ‘gap yah!’ which as you recall went down like a lead balloon.

      2014: now we are talking *another* year for him to fuff about!!!

      If he goes through with it, he’ll have been fuffing for 3yrs now.

  20. Sumodo1 says:

    Countdown to Kate “knock-up” in 3, 2, 1!

  21. anne_000 says:

    What’s the incentive for Kate to get the decorating right & on time? Basically they’ve told her that since she didn’t get it right the first time around and/or she didn’t get it ready on time, then she can stave off work so she can focus on these projects. I would think that’ll make her paint all the walls at both KP & the country home different shades of purple every time. She can try to stretch out these projects for years then.

  22. The Original Mia says:

    They expend more energy coming up with excuses for their laziness than they spend actually working. Pathetic.

  23. Reece says:

    More stuff he should have been doing right out of college. *eyeroll*

  24. racer says:

    Let her do what she is good at because it’s certainly not charity

  25. Thaisajs says:

    That’s a terribly low salary for the nanny, but, can you imagine what she’ll be able to pull when she leaves their employ? You know some rich Saudi is going to want the Nanny Who Took Care of a Future King to change diapers for his little darling.

  26. Meganbc says:

    I don’t believe for a minute that William and Kate control their work schedule. Charles has made it clear that he does not want to be upstaged by the young royals and he has deliberately put Wiliam and Kate on the sidelines. I think William is sticking g it to him with endless vacations.

    • bluhare says:

      I do believe that William and Kate control their own schedules. I cannot for one second believe that the Queen, who has said “I must be seen to be believed” would tell William and Kate to tone it down ESPECIALLY when they’re getting so much heat.

    • Christina says:

      Royal reporter Richard Palmer who has been privy to many scoops has confirmed on twitter that the Palace is adamant Kate is setting her own schedule and is fine with this pace. Charles would probably like nothing better than to get William and Kate to help out the Queen and let her take a few duties off.

    • Suze says:

      When did Charles make this clear?

    • wolfpup says:

      It has always seemed to me that Charles just wants us to know that they are entitled royals. This is his whole point, seemingly his raison ‘d etre for living, showing us all about that, and how special he is. This could be why Will/Kate could be encouraged to do the same entitlement thing, while smiling and waving graciously, to all who missed them while they were on vacation.

      Presidents don’t do so much entitlement. They want our vote! Actually, entitlement spending is what is done for our poor.

  27. cyndi says:

    Does anyone think William is doing all this on purpose! Maybe he’s hoping the monarchy will end before he is to take the throne?
    That *would* throw Ma and Pa Middies for a loop wouldn’t it!!?? :p

  28. valiantgirl says:

    38k pounds a year to care for the royal baby?! What a joke. On top of being lazy they are cheap to boot.

  29. Francis says:

    A psychic predicted that William will do something that shocks the establishment and the world around 40yrs old. I hope it comes true, because I think personally he is just stretching this out until he gets the nerve. PW May one day go ahead and admit he’d like to step down or step out of line. I don’t believe he wants the role he is destined for.
    One thing about Charles look back at him even as a young man and he was already working and interested in his role as future king, regardless of his personal relationship issues.

    • herladyship says:

      This.. ive heard several times (wedding, Georges birth), psychics say that Will will not be king, although his child will.

    • Mandalynca says:

      If William felt that way he would not do anything about it until both the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh have popped their clogs. It would raise so many issues; would he want his son to stay in the line of succession or see his brother thrown into the role? I also think something as dramatic as that would make a referendum on the monarchy a certainty. We could be in for some interesting times if that were his choice.