First up, People Magazine’s “palace source” has some news about Prince George’s 2nd birthday. George turns 2 years old tomorrow, and the source says that the Cambridges will be celebrating at home at Anmer Hall. William and Kate “are spending the day privately in Norfolk” with Charlotte in tow as well. My guess? Carole Middleton will have organized a small party for George and mysteriously, Prince Charles’ invite will be nowhere to be seen.
Speaking of the Middletons and Kate and William’s yearning for a “middle class lifestyle with a taxpayer-funded palace” an Oxford professor has said some words about how Kate compares to royal brides of yore. Apparently, Kate is pretty old-school. And we’re not talking about 1950s – we’re talking 1500s.
With her middle-class background and penchant for thigh-skimming skirts, the Duchess of Cambridge has been credited with modernising the Royal Family. Not according to one Oxford academic, however, who has said Prince William’s Berkshire-born wife is a 16th-century throwback, but lacking the cultural influence of her predecessors.
‘It fascinates me that the Duchess of Cambridge is doing exactly the same kind of things that a queen consort would have done at any time from 1500 on,’ sniffs Professor Helen Watanabe-O’Kelly, Emeritus Fellow of Exeter College, suggesting that their foremost duty is to provide an heir and spare. ‘The role has not changed at all, even though the Duchess is middle-class and British.’
The professor of German literature, who is researching the cultural role of foreign consorts, also finds Kate Middleton culturally lacking.
‘When a king married, up to World War II, he took a foreign bride and she left home to join him, never to return,’ says Watanabe-O’Kelly. ‘But this is where these foreign princesses played an important role in their new kingdoms by introducing foreign cultural elements. They often brought with them personnel such as a chaplain or musicians, objects such as books, jewels, fashions and furniture, and often less tangible things such as theatrical genres, ideas or a different religion. In this way a foreign princess often played an active role in changing the culture of the territory she went to.’
‘Look at the contribution made in Britain by Anne of Denmark, Henrietta Maria of France and Catherine of Braganza. All three of them were major patrons of the arts,’ she points out. ‘The Queen’s House at Greenwich by Inigo Jones was begun for Anne in 1616 and completed by Henrietta Maria in 1635. Anne and Henrietta Maria promoted the masque — a form of court theatre combining music, dance and drama. Catherine brought Bombay and Tangiers to Britain in her dowry and patronised Italian painters and composers.’
By contrast, the only things Kate has introduced to society are her socially ambitious siblings James and Pippa.
I don’t think this professor is being snippy at all – Kate has been a member of the royal family for more than four years and she’s been a major influence on Prince William for fourteen years. She’s the mother of the latest heir and spare. It’s not too early to talk about her cultural/political/artistic influence or lack thereof. And I do think Kate has exerted some influence, but it’s in a different way than most would-be Queen Consorts. Where the Queen Consorts would have influenced the “lower classes” with their taste in arts, charity, politics and more, Kate is using her middle-class upbringing to influence the royal family. Right?
Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet.
All I can say is that I really wish my name was Professor Helen Wantanabe-O’Kelly.
+1 http://www.marryingcultures.eu/
That’s the best name ever.
indeed!!! 😉
Report back when someone finds The Lie in The article , yall….
We’ve said it for years, he married a Pliant Geisha and That is really it
But geishas were trained to be intelligent and interesting!
+100!
Bloop!
Yep, geishas undergo rigorous training to be cultures, sophisticated and good conversationalists and hosts. They are not empty vessels.
Jeah. They’re like triple-threats except nothing about them being ‘multi-talented’ was considered special at all, it’s simply expected (when you think about it, and compare geisha to modern-day Western-style artists, it’s like watching them bragging about being bilingual when in non-English speaking countries, people have to be bilingual by necessity—nothing special about it). And contrary to popular belief, while some aspects of what they do have similarities to/imply sex work, they’re not sex workers (not even escorts). And, yes, they’re actually trained to be good conversationalists (like women who were groomed at a Charm School). In fact, I often wonder if the clients’ wives at home are just well-bred bimbos and the pro’s are the brainy ones! LOL. I went through an entire geisha phase once (bought the books and all).
PS: I’m single and very foreign, gentlemen! Check out my astrology chart!
I read the article expecting a good giggle, but can’t find a hole in what the professor says.
I disagree with the professor, at least partially. In the 16th century, princesses were often given useful educations, they were encouraged to be charitable figureheads and to at least attempt to influence their husbands’ public image and decisions. That is how a queen like Elizabeth I was even possible.
Now, an 11th century princess on the other hand… Expecting to do nothing but stay put and give birth… Feathering her nest, wearing pretty frocks, possibly emerging once in a blue moon to cheer her husband on… Never protesting his absence, never speaking in public if avoidable. Familiar, no?
Ankhel: yep! 11th century is much more appropriate.
On aa different, musing note, haven’t women come far? It’s amazing really.
The comparison between Kate and the royal consorts of the 16th and 17th centuries are, in many respects, irrelevant and misleading. But such a comparison gets some publicity for the professor’s research.
First of all, the political structure was much different back then – royal power was real! Even though Britain had a Parliament back then, the king ruled the counttry and the monarchy was a very different beast than today’s constitutional and ceremonial monarchy.
The patronage of art also followed a different ecomonic structure since it was manily royals, aristocrats and the Church (at least the Catholic one) that were the major patrons of art – and yhus exerted a huge cultural influence).
If we have to compare Kate to any royal from the past, I’d have suggested Queen Alexandra (wife of Edward VII). However, then I read up on her and discovered that Kate has done even less than one of the more retiring royal consorts of the past.
Kate seems more a Stepford Wife than anything else.
Ankhel,
Quite a few of the consorts of the medieval age was sort of badass. These women often exerted political influence, etc. Think of Queen Matilda, Eleanor of Acquitaine, Isabella of France, Margrethe of Denmark…..
However, your description prefectly illustrates the ideology of the Victorian age where the wife was the angel in the house, which was her sphere whereas her husband acted in the public sphere.
Women’s history has been neglected if not almost erased for centuries but if you dig into it, then you find that the reality was often quite different from our conceptions of it. Ideologically, economically and politically, the 18th century has been the most restrictive for women, IMO.
A partial edit to the comment above:
Ankhel,
Quite a few of the consorts of the medieval age was sort of badass. These women often exerted political influence, etc. Think of Queen Matilda, Eleanor of Acquitaine, Isabella of France, Margrethe of Denmark….. In those times it was not unheard of for a royal consort to assume some of her husband’s responsibilities if he was away, fx Queen Phillipa of Denmark sat in judgement of petitions and conflicts among the subjetcs of the realm, plus she organzed the defense of Copenhagen against a Hanseatic fleet.
However, your description prefectly illustrates the ideology of the Victorian age where the wife was the angel in the house, which was her sphere whereas her husband acted in the public sphere. The wife of a wealthy man was expected to keep the home (with her servents) and direct the care of the children (to the nannies) and otherwise living a life of leisure.
Women’s history has been neglected if not almost erased for centuries but if you dig into it, then you find that the reality was often quite different from our conceptions of it. Ideologically, economically and politically, the 18th century has been the most restrictive for women, IMO.
ArtHistorian
It’s amazing to take glimpse back. At times there were many strong women guiding a man. As long as it was discreet it was acceptable. Not always though.
If anything the role of women in positions of power might have regressed a bit. Again. Not all in that position, but some have become very passive without ambition. And that seaks to us as a people. It’s more about ease than improvement.
True. He’s only stated the obvious.
Correction *She’s* only stated the obvious.
ETA: I don’t think anyone expected Kate would start a cultural or fashion revolution. But, I don’t think anyone could have anticipated how little she would contribute to the full-time royals’ official duties and her own charities.
What does she care about that really matters? I can’t think of any charity she supports and I read this blog daily. I know will cares about flying, ivory, and is on the board or something of that awards show, harry works with soldiers and animals in Africa, WHAT does she support and bring attention to?
@melodycalder, IMO Kate cares about little else but herself and her family. She’s done maybe a half dozen charity events this year and none of them were memorable. I recall watching her engagement video and hearing her say she was going to work hard. I thought, great, she’s really going to be someone to watch. But, now, it seems like the only statement she made during the interview that’s worth paying attention to is that she doesn’t care what people think about her.
I dont get the hate for this girl & her family. The British Royal Family lucked out big time with her, especially considering the many problems they had with her predecessors. They categorically didn’t want controversy & Kate ticks all the right boxes, even if she may seem boring. It is very obvious that the royal family didn’t want another Diana or Fergie. They certainly had many years to vet & train her to meet expectations & the way she is & behaves is clearly the end result of that long process. She seems to adore her husband & seems happy to live the role she has been chosen for.
In addition, the Middletons seem like a very close knit, loving family, in the Southern European tradition, who look out for one another. It must be particularly hard being one of KM’s siblings, as every single thing they do is subject to a great deal of scrutiny & malice. If they keep back they are spongers, if they try to work at something, they are grasping & ambitious. They are damned if they do & damned if they don’t. People complain about members of the extended royal family not working at a regular job, but as we have seen over & over it is impossible for these people to have a normal job. Good examples are Prince Edward & his wife, who were attacked for abuse of personal connections.
It is mind boggling that Carole Middleton gets slagged off for being a caring, loving mother who clearly adores her daughter & grandchildren. One may say that they made their bed & now have to lie in it, but the flak they get is very unfair
I agree.
I, for one admire, Carole. That woman is amazing. She runs a business, raised kids, had everything super organized. She made Kate into the royal material Some would say it might not be a worthy goal in itself ( and I would agree) but don’t underestimate the amount of work and skill that went into it.
And despite all the mud slinging she just carries on with what she needs to do. Windsors are lucky to have her.
I think those of us applying the stink-eye to this lot (not hate, that’s a bit too strong) are responding to the:
(A) reportedly allegedly skeevy funding behind the business they run
(B) the fact that all this effort went into a plan just so their daughter could have a bum-load of extra trinkets and a life-long mini-break, and the family could get a discount on a pile of made-up signet rings. Versus parents who want their children to be their educated, thoughtful best and contribute to the world. A woman in her position could do so much to raise awareness and support for the many causes out there. She could display interest in something, anything, and thus support it.
Look at Sophie, Countess of Wessex. Also a commoner, but had her own solid business before marrying and has worked very hard ever since as a royal. You don’t see her family scrambling about to be in photos and grab titles.
That’s why we take issue with what we now see, after hoping for the best for a few years. You say it took some skill to get her this far. I think that’s sort of a sad result, all this just to get some bland apparently lazy and historically work-shy girl a platinum card because that’s what her mother wants, UK people and charities be damned.
“royal material” would be a spouse who dresses appropriately, works hard, respects the institution into which they married, and dedicates themselves to charity work. Maxima. Letizia. Mathile. Daniel.
All the others raise their children, live quietly in the country, AND work hundreds of royal engagements. Kate Middleton is failing in this job, and it is a job.
Tristan, I am no great fan of either Kate or William but I don’t think anyone here hates her. Strong dislike which could be visceral, I admit, but not hate. For me, I think Kate is perhaps the right woman for the man (William) but not for the job (public aspect) & the latter is why I find her so disappointing. So far, to me, she has shown that she is intellectually incurious, lacking in people skills, lacks social awareness, and an all around low tolerance for what would be work for her. Kate isn’t by herself here because William, for me, lacks all of those attributes as well.
In keeping the focus on Kate, for a moment, it just really seems odd that in this day and age a 30+ year-old woman hasn’t engaged an any significant events (charitable or otherwise) outside of those sanctioned by her family. Everything we publicly know about her seems to hint that (a) she was groomed to fit in and not give offense in order to (b) fit properly into the ranks of the UK middle class and to (c) find a husband within that class or higher (which she has). That is the mark of new arrivals & people who are yet unsure of their place. While she can’t be blamed for that she is a reflection of it. I think it was Hilary Mantel who called it correctly that Kate is a window shop mannequin. Someone else, a journalist, once referred to Kate as Queen WAG. In those respects, Kate doesn’t disappoint. She was groomed to be what she is and it that has payed off for her and her family. Privately, that’s great. However, I don’t think those things will translate well to a public role. Her background, it seems, is lacking in that.
It’s embarrassing to watch this now 33 year old woman flounder in the public arena when she must interact with people who are not part of her insular little circle. If she had had some repeated experiences along the way (job related/volunteerism) that she could pull from, she wouldn’t be as awkward and as flummoxed as she comes across: pretty but empty. Pretty but ill-prepared. Pretty and overwhelmed. Pretty and obsessed with shopping. Pretty but won’t budge for charitable endeavors but throw in travel and/or celebrities & she’s there. Also, instead of seemly trying to learn what she doesn’t know (social skills & awareness) or polish up on weak or under-developed skills (people skills & 2 minutes speeches), she doubles down on what she does know or where she feels more comfortable: SAHM, William, and family as a balm and a shield. No, I’m not bashing SAHMs. I don’t have a dog in that fight. But she is not helping herself. What she does doesn’t look like a natural outgrowth of traditional marriage plans (i.e., family & kids). It looks like a dodge. Just like William with his numerous gap years, bespoke courses, and now his job as co-pilot.
I can only speak for me. I hope that was helpful.
Ok. Notasugar expressed what I was trying to say so much better & in fewer words.
EN- they both add value & I have some respect for Carole but can the same be said for Kate? And I’m willing to concede that Carole & Mike better reflect some of my values than do Kate.
> All the others raise their children, live quietly in the country, AND work hundreds of royal engagements. Kate Middleton is failing in this job, and it is a job.
Do you mean nannies raised their children quietly in the country while parents attended engagements in London?
And you think that is good? I can’t think of a single royal who I like, and I am not that hard to please. So, I think the royal family is doing something wrong and maybe they should try Middleton’s way instead, by providing emotional support and attention, a bit of human touch to their children instead of the old Prussian army way of upbringing.
When I look at the Queen Elizabeth, the first thing that springs to my mind is “Prussian corporal”, honestly.
I see no reason to be jealous of the Middleton wannabes.
Here we go tossing around the word “hate” to describe a differ of opinion. There’s no such thing in this article.
The professor is stating obvious observations and compare/contrast them with historical observations.
And name calling like Jealousy. An attempt to devalue the person making the argument because no sound line of reason or logic can do so.
W&K have two nannies and Middleton continues to spend loads of time away from the kids shopping, at the hairdressers, at Wimbleton, etc.
Why do you assume that spending a few hours a week away from the kids working is terrible? But spending loads of time away from the kids shopping is okay?
“The Windsors are very good at working three days a week, five months of the year and making it look as though they work hard.”
Mark Bolland, former Windsor press officer.
In a six hour period, she could have easily done 3 engagements. A few hours away from home, one day a week, for charity. This is seen as horrifying to you, but spending far more time away from the kids shopping and grooming herself gets your stamp of approval? Or are you one of those people who insist that working mothers are bad mothers?
Kate not working or counting something like christening her child as work IS the controversy. Spending millions on their lifestyle and attending mostly glamorous events is the controversy.
She’s not a simple, quiet housewife. That is the pr image and let us not be fooled by it. She is an extraordinarily privileged and cosseted person with a nanny and a night nurse and a housekeeper and dozens of staff, and she is enriched by the taxpayers whether directly in the form of police protection, Kensington Palace, or Crown estate money which belongs to the tax payers.
Simply put, she is not worth spending millions to be provided police protection if she doesn’t give back, which she has promised to do repeatedly and then has done little to nothing. If Charles is willing to pick up the tab for her police protection and not ask for a tax write-off, then maybe things would be different.
> Why do you assume that spending a few hours a week away from the kids working is terrible? But spending loads of time away from the kids shopping is okay?
I am a working mother. I love working. But if Kate wants to be SAHM, then she should be able to do so. I don’t like that people forcing her out of the house to do social engagements if she wants to stay home with kids. She should be able to do what she thinks is best for her kids. And if that means 2 nannies and herself, so be it. They can afford it.
If Brits have an issue with her not “working” then they can make being a princess a “job” because right now it isn’t.
The job description would be – must birth a heir and spare, be presentable at all times, must attend XXX social functions a year, gets so much vacation and sick leave and so on.
You can’t say somebody isn’t “working” as per expectations when there isn’t even a contract in place.
I personally always thought the “job” of a princess is to birth 2 + kids and everything else is just a cherry on top.
If Kate wants to say home and raise her children and be a quiet consort, then I’m OK with that. However, if that is the case, then I think her husband should be out there, He’s the one who will be king and, really, it’s his choice as to what Kate’s role will or won’t be. Except he’s not. He’s working less than just about anyone else when it comes to royal duties, yet he and his wife are getting all the perks of being 2nd in line.
I forget where I read it but someone was making the argument that WIliam does investitures (which he does), and is being groomed to take over the Duchy of Cornwall — with that counting as royal work. He may be being groomed to oversee the Duchy, but as that astute poster pointed out, that’s protecting his income stream when he becomes POW and has to live off it, as opposed to doing something for others.
So I think one of them should be stepping up. And if William isn’t, then Kate should. Even with a full time schedule – which I’m not suggesting as she does have an infant – she will have much more time available for her children than women working regular work weeks.
There is a centuries-long social contract in place, let’s not pretend otherwise. If she wants to be a SAHM and he wants to be a helo pilot, they have to give up all the perks they receive for being working royals. Those are things that they receive because of his position in line and the expectation that they will work for them. None of the others receive so many perks, because they are much further down the line.
Giving birth is not her job. There are hundreds of people in line, they didn’t have to reproduce no matter what the social expectations might be. There are plenty of other examples of 30-somethings who married into royal houses in the last decade who are 1) raising happy children and 2) performing their royal roles.
@EN, it has been decided that “princess” is a job. In fact, William dropped the mic on this debate.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2383616/Prince-George-William-Kate-formally-register-birth-Kensington-Palace-mother-puts-Princess-United-Kingdom-occupation.html
“And if that means 2 nannies and herself, so be it. They can afford it.”
They’re not paying for it. They are two adults in their thirties being subsidized by Charles.
It always comes back to W and K’s combination of entitlement and sloth.
William’s 94 year old grandfather did more engagements last year than those two combined. That’s shameful.
The royals wanted never again to repeat Diana. Kate is under the guidance of a very clever mother. Carole is smart enough to know that the royals can only raise Corgis properly so, like Jackie Kennedy, she is quietly orchestrating how things are done so the children have half a chance. There is absolutely nothing enviable about the dysfunctional royal but position and money. Imagine a grandfather who wanted to be a tampon. Kudos to Carole.
What happened to Diana had nothing to do with her workload, she loved work. What happened to Diana was a combination of her own nature, an unhappy marriage, and her playing of the press. Middleton’s nature is lazy, many have suspicions about the state of the marriage, and the Middletons seem to have suspicious ties to multiple press and paps. I don’t see how this is supposed to be better than Diana.
Thank you, notasugarhere, for your very lucid, reasoned posts. Your comment about Diana and the comparison to Kate is well-stated.
Blue wedges for everyone!!!!!
This made me laugh!
It’s weird that she “promotes” things that are readily available to everyone. It’s not as if her wedges and extensions are unique or enduring. The Queens Consort in the article made lasting effects that continue today.
This made me chuckle. I had a friend who loved wedges 5-10 years ago, I just couldn’t get into them. I do think she is promoting jeggings too.
Do hair extensions for added thickness count? Because it never occurred to me before.
She is whispering to Will in the last photo, “I have the most hair here.”
LoL!
Kate is influencing me to try to be thin.
“By contrast, the only things Kate has introduced to society are her socially ambitious siblings James and Pippa.”
BURN.
But he forgot wedge shoes and skinny jeans.
Ha! Oh the truth hurts. James and Pippa are crying.
Good burn, but I think it came from the journo, not the academic. It’s out of quotes.
I think its hilarious that people stalking a guy until he has no other options but to marry you makes you Royal material. Wills isn’t the price she made him out to be either but if you took out the royal part in the situation she would be pathetic in every angle. No dignity what so ever. He even dumped her a few times and girl just would not let go. Then he hit a point where he had to get married and was pressured to pick someone already. She held on to the bitter end and I don’t feel it was for love either mmmmkay.
Without Carole’s “wisdom”, the romance would most likely have fizzled out.
I read someone else describe it as one of the those contests where the person who keeps their hand on the car longest wins. Not the love story of the century here.
Putting it that way, wow that woman is embarrassing!
I am really getting sick of the ragging on Kate’s (upper) middle class background. I know many people in the UK who say they’ve moved beyond. But the (sort-of) mudslinging on her upper middle class background kind of irks me.
I mean, there are all of those party girls, Cara, Suki et al, who never finished high school, entered the party scene in their teens, but no one bats an eyelash at the upper class’ actions. In fact, I think the UK fawns on them.
ITA, in what world is her upbringing in any way middle class!? Nouveau riche is not middle class.
I said it was upper middle class…
The term probably means something different in Britain. A Brit could probably explain.
I’m not a Brit but lived in the UK for a short time and “middle class” does not mean there what it means here. Here it means the majority of Americans who are working but not poor, ie in the middle. There it means what we would think of as upper middle. Land Rovers, hunting parties, weekends in the Cotwolds, private schooling, etc are all considered middle class in the UK.
Nouveau riche is someone who is vulgar and flaunts their new wealth. Kate is not that.
Kate is very proper. I think she deserves at least some praise for trying to fit in and uphold the ( extremely outdated) image of British Royalty.
I don’t see why Kate is a problem.
She upheld her side of the bargain – to birth heirs, look pretty and not make waves.
What else do people expect from her?
Nouveau riche I took it having lived in the US most of my life until now (in canada now) that it is people with new money(current generation); maybe middle class, maybe upper middle class, maybe flat out rich. My dad calls them wannabes or yuppies because typically these types of people are all flash but don’t have much in liquid assets. My dad considers anyone truly rich who doesn’t have a mortgage or car payments and pays for such things flat out (also pays their credit card bills off completely on a monthly basis).
What Ms. Turtle said. “Middle class” in the UK means privileged and generally comfortably-off, but not aristocratic. It means, roughly, what “upper middle class” means in the US. Class in the UK isn’t just about money, you can be upper class (aristocratic) and poor, or working class and rich (like Wayne Rooney).
EN, a brand new family crest featuring their love of skiing? Yes, that’s nouveau riche.
@Andrea – I originally got the definition from French literature. Back then it meant truly wealthy people ( a.k.a. the new capitalists/ merchants) who didn’t have the upbringing to go along with their wealth like the aristocratic families.
It is possible It slightly different meanings now depending on an area/ country. It has a connotation of being vulgar/ flash, but Kate isn’t vulgar in my opinion. This is why I got confused by the original reference. If anything, Kate is trying too hard to fit in with the royals to the point of losing her own identity in the process.
In the Us, I always thought it was old money vs Nouveau Riche and yes, your definition holds true for a lot of the differences as well.
Her family is definitely middle class. Here in Britain class has zero to do with income. There are working class millionaires and members of the upper class living in dire poverty. There’s simply no correlation at all. The best book on the English class system is Kate Fox’s “Watching the English.”
They’re not required to symbolize the monarchy though.
There’s a difference between between being a royal and a celebrity.
I get the impression that people find it strange she’s lacking in some areas despite her having attended the best schools.
I don’t think I really dislike Kate though. Just think she’s a little on the boring side and wouldn’t go out of my way to buy a magazine just because she’s on the cover.
Are you sure they don’t make Faberge eggs anymore? I mean the ones from the original makers. Because Kate, the art history major, thinks they might still be alive and still making them.
Going to the best schools mean nothing if you can’t pick up anything and hold it in your brain past exam time, e.g. George W. Bush who went to both Yale and Harvard.
Anne, did she really say that? About Faberge eggs?
I think Art Historian said not too long ago that Faberge was going to make them again. Or at least one. I just went on their website and they have pendants but nothing like what I think a Faberge egg should be.
An art history major who marries into a family that oversees one of the largest Faberge collections in the world and she knows nothing of the history of Faberge or Faberge and royals? Those are the bits that astound many people, me included.
@ Timbuktu
From a Celebitchy article (March 02, 2012), titled:
The Queen is not amused by Duchess Kate’s ”laziness and vanity”
> ”She isn’t very bright.” During a viewing of her wedding dress at Buckingham Palace with the Queen, Kate raised royal eyebrows when she asked if priceless antique Faberge eggs were still being made. An uninformed statement for an art history major. Still, Kate will be the first queen to have graduated college!
[From In Touch Weekly, print edition]<
There’s a YouTube video of this titled:
The Queen and the Duchess of Cambridge at the Buckingham Palace Wedding Exhibition
where at 1:08 Kate asks this Faberge Egg question.
Timbuktu : yes she did. It’s on video. Quite astonishing.
Looks like it is time for me to weigh in.
The question of the Fabergé eggs can be a slightly thorny one because of a few reasons. 1) there are countless knock-offs made from less expensive materials, 2) the House of Fabergé makes little egg-shaped pendants.
Fabergé has produced the first new egg, the fabergé Pearl Egg, since the Russian Revolution and it was debuted this year in Qatar.
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/442237/lifestyle/artandculture/faberge-unveils-first-imperial-egg-in-99-years
I’d also like to point out that the British programs of art history, while intense also lack the breadth of some of the Continental degrees. I say this as someone who has both a British MA and a Danish Magisterial Degree in Art History. A generalized degree on art history in Britain generally exclude the decorative arts.
However, Kate’s ignorance is still embarrasing to her because a university education also teaches you how to learn new things. It would have been very easy for her to acquaint herself with the basic facts on the Fabergé Eggs. The Royal Collection is extensively documented and there are several good books on the subject. She could also just have asked Prince Michael of Kent, who’s something of an expert on Fabergé.
However, the royal collection is extensively documented and there are several books on the original Fabergé eggs so it wouldn’t be very difficult
No one bats an eye becausee none of them will be Queen Consort. Waity does not hasve to freedom to do whatever she wants to. She knew this 15 years ago when she began dating William.
What does Kate want to do that she has no freedom to do? She’s in charge of her own schedule if she wants to do charity work. But she’s always picking events like sports games, theaters, galas, parties, yachting events, etc.
She goes shopping quite a bit, she gets her hair done all the time, she has a personal trainer, she has at least two nannies to look after he kids when she’s out pleasing herself. She doesn’t have to worry about making dinner because her chef or her mom will cook. She doesn’t have to worry about cleaning the house, because she has staff.
So what is Kate being held back from doing?
anne_000, if anything she’s held back from being as lazy as she wants to be.
What is wrong with her doing sports? I don’t know how many sport activities she has done involving kids but there would be nothing wrong with that.
@ M.A.F.
I meant as a spectator. As in sitting down and watching.
Apparently it’s OK for Kate’s apologists if Kate spends hours away from her kids going to sports games and other fun stuff, but it’s terrible if she’s expected to spend 45-minutes visiting a charity because that would be bad for her mothering skills and her health, both physically and mentally or something, and her kids will forget who she is.
The use of the term “middle class” in this article means mainstream popular culture in the UK. It’s not referring to social or economic standing.
The article is saying that Kate has brought about nothing beyond what already exists in mainstream UK. No new ideas. No new interests. Nothing in her personality that affected anything. She’s used her powerful position and influence on nothing.
Whereas, Diana set about teaching the public that casual touching and interacting with people with AIDS is safe and not a fearful thing to do. She also brought to the media the issue of landmines being left to continue killing people in third world countries long after the wars were ended by first world countries and how the latter keeps making and selling them and how it continues to affect innocent people worldwide.
Someone recently posted how Kate is economically good for the UK because when the public found out that Kate uses a particular brand of insoles, they sold out. Well, the insoles were already selling before the news about Kate using them, so nothing new there. And Kate’s name sold what? A few dozen of hundred more? Someone else pointed out that there probably wasn’t 1000s or millions in stock anyways so selling out of them wouldn’t have meant much in terms of nationwide economics.
So this is the most we get from Kate’s use of her position and influence? That some people buy some of the things she wears? That’s it?
So the use of her influence is nothing more than what a store mannequin does? She brings nothing else to the table?
Well put. *applause*
Yes, I believe she is influencing the royal family. The problem is that some people see it as lowering the status of the Royal family because of her “middle class status”. People will always need something to complain about though. Even with Princess Diana, she wanted a more normal life for her boys. William has taken it even further.
I think that one thing that the Middletons have in their immediate family is that they just get along very well. There isn’t this competition to outshine each other. Unlike Charles vs. Andrew type of stuff.
So, to marry Kate Middleton was culturally incestuous and it would have been better to bring in a culturally- cross pollinating foreign bride.
Here’s the diff: in 2015, unlike 1515, we have mass communications and easy travel. We do not rely on aristocrats for, well, anything, really. They aren’t leaders anymore.
++ I can’t believe this whoozit from wherever U would draw a comparison between times so radically different..in the 1500s, a person’s village was their whole world.
You should visit the website: http://www.marryingcultures.eu/
Exactly my thoughts! Admittedly, you laid ’em bare better than I would have.
EXACTLY.
Truly, I thought that point was idiotic. There’s TV now. And books and radio and movies. But maybe Will should have married an American and she could have introduced you to ketchup.
Come on, JLaw + Harry! Even just for a year of cross cultural bliss.
@ Mrs. Wellen Melon
I don’t think the professor is advocating that future kings marry foreigners. I think what she’s saying is that at least the ancient foreign wives brought something new and of interest to what already existed in mainstream UK.
If Kate would share some wide-affecting interests with the public (like Diana with AIDS and landmines), then that would count towards affecting mainstream UK.
But Kate brings nothing. And that’s why I think the professor is saying she’s as non-effective as a 1500s consort.
Except that 1500s consorts were more politically and culturally effective than fx 1800s consorts. That Kate is even less effective than a retiring 1800s consort is somewhat embarrasing for her.
HA, I just wrote something similar down thread.
FALSE! Mini Winston Churchill.
If one wants to play the blame game, then look to Prince William for choosing her.
Kate knew that there existed Royal duties before she agreed to marry him.
IIRC, she and William even mentioned this in their engagement interview.
How does one sniff while speaking? I’ve seen sniffs used in that context before but never really understood its usage there.
One purses one’s mouth, wrinkles one’s nose as if there’s an unpleasant smell about, and utters the words in as disdainful and as dismissive a manner as possible.
Think Maggie Smith in Downton Abbey. She’s a first class ‘sniffer’. 🙂
Maggie Smith is the only reason for watching Downton Abbey,
I’ve always wondered myself. I don’t think it’s a literal sniff. I just picture a snooty person with their nose in the air looking like they smelled something bad.
I agree; Kate really is not bringing anything to the table. Setting the fashion trends, the “Kate effect”, does not count. Rearing the new heir and spare the way they do isn’t impressive if they are not putting out the work in terms of royal duties.
I am of two minds on this.
On one hand, Kate marrying into the royal family is also groundbreaking. She is the first princess commoner , and even though she didn’t bring any foreign influences with her maybe she brought in some middle class influences? It is not bad.
As for foreign cultures, would Brits actually accept a foreigner as a princess? I am not so sure. I think if she were influential she’d be resented.
In general cultured people do have appreciation for foreign cultures and arts. I think the real issue is that Charles, Will, Harry etc. are really not that sophisticated. Their education and intellect are lacking.
I don’t think Charles is unsophisticated or lacking in intellect. He writes about the environment and architecture.
I think Harry simply has other interests (more in the vein of what Diana was interested in), and I’m not really sure how William turned out the way he did. Does he have ANY interests? I don’t think even Kate is as dull personality-wise as William.
Charles has never really struck me as unintellectual, but I’m not sure how much of that has to do with being the product of a different time or wanting to be so different from his father Philip.
Charles has wanted to be a king all of his life. Everything that he relates to is focused on this one desire.
wolfie
That is also all he’s been raised for, told, and knew. When your told your end game and the heavy weight that relies on you fulfilling that you either accept or rebel.
I think Charles accepted. And his wanting is a very good thing. Or he could be his age and still acting like William rebeling and resisting. IMO anyways.
@Wolfie and Florc – I’m beginning to look forward to Charles reign (not that i’m wishing ill on TQ) it will be an interesting time for the BRF and he might actually surprise us and be a good and popular King.
Betti
I think he would be a good King. Remove the petty trash talking regarding phone taps, Diana, Camilla, etc… Sticking to the facts of how he has improved/expanded the Duchy oC, transportation, organic farming, and worked on things like the Prince’s Trust. He’s a hard worker and educated. Roll in his charisma and he will do well.
And if anyone has seen his weather broadcast they know he can be funny. Or how he answers questions with reporters and always leaves on a joke.
That said, I still feel the monarchy is outdated, abuses power, and not worth their cost.
Queen married a foreigner without much trouble, didn’t she?
Prince Phillip is foreign by blood but not by culture. He didn’t bring any foreign influences with him ( from what I can tell). And he lived in Britain since at least 18 y.o. and probably even before that.
The professor wants a foreigner so that they could influence the culture.
There was trouble. He had to change his last name, disassociate from his German relatives, his sisters couldn’t attend their wedding, etc.
@ EN
The professor is not advocating future monarchs to marry foreigners, imo.
She is saying that at least the foreign wives brought something new to mainstream UK.
But that the lack of Kate using her influence and sharing her interests is akin to the ineffectiveness of consorts from the 1500s.
Looking over the article I didn’t think the professor meant that the princess should be literally foreign. I interpreted her comment as a princess helping the kingdom to expand areas of knowledge and culture. I guess the American equivalent would be like when Jackie Kennedy renovated the White House to add some sense of knowledge and culture. Jackie Kennedy was American, but her knowledge was fairly wide-ranging (for whatever kind of role she was expected to perform) and you could see that in how she tried to shape the pet projects in the White House that she was involved in. That’s what I took away from the professor’s comments about Kate….
Because Kate is middle-class (in the UK sense of the word, not the American one), perhaps the implication is that there’s an element of difference she could could bring to the royal family, but she doesn’t do much with her role. (Although I’m wondering how much of that could be blamed on William — maybe he doesn’t want her to have interests).
@ Perplexed
I have the same interpretation as you of what the professor meant.
Erm, Sophie (Prince Edward’s wife) was a commoner, her father was a tyre salesman and mother was a secretary. Her family could be described as middle class -so Waity is not the first.
I agree with EN except : Charles tried hard to cultivate his intellectual and cultural side. He grew up with people who appreciated intellect and sophistication. Going to Cambridge probably spurred his desire to improve himself, hence the focus on philosophy, opera etc. I do admire the fact that he tries to excel at what he does: he did transform Highgrove into a garden of exceptional British beauty. So shallow he is not. William and Harry OTH are I suspect, ashamed of their lack of brains (probably Diana subtly planted in their heads that they are stupid like she thought of herself) and use humor to cover it up. They are the epitome of anti-intellectual shallowness. All about brawn, sports, hunting and probably never pick up a book. Pity that someone like William will be expected to be head of state and take part in diplomacy. His interviews belie the fact that he himself does not believe he has it in him. Hence the boy-man act. And the clinging to flying. Avoiding the ‘adult’ role of statesmanship for as long as he can.
Charles really should have taken more interest in molding William when he had a chance. He was too focussed on Camilla during very critical periods of his upbringing.
And that could be the problem that Kate is just too common & ordinary. When you add it all up, weighing in the advantages & the areas of under-achievement, she’s just boringly ordinary & perhaps a little less than average when compared to working woman her age. Honestly, I give Sophia (now of Sweden) & Katie Price more props than I do Kate. Whether thru circumstances or choice they got out into the world & did their thing. Kate is still hiding.
She’s not the first person from common stock to marry into the royal family.
That honour would be Elizabeth Woodville who married Edward 4.
Since then, there have been others even if only the main senior royals are counted.
When Sophie Married in, that was a big deal. And her Prince has no chance at all of taking the throne (though miracles can happen – see Victoria)
Further, unless you have a peerage, everybody is a commoner. That means Harry, Anne, Prince Michael of Kent are all commoners.
There is a difference between the terms common and commoner.
As for BRF welcoming foreigners, hello Prince Philip (Greek), Princess Michael (German?), The Duchess of Gloucester (Danish), Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent (Greek), Gary Lewis (New Zealand + Moari)
Prince Phillip is not Greek . He has some Greek blood in his veins and that is it, he has no connection to Greece.
He is actually another of Haptsburgs ( the German royal dynasty).
Yes, the professor is referring to people bringing elements of that culture into the family. I can’t see any elements of Greek culture that Philip brought in. Unless he and Liz like their arm-on-arm Greek dancing after dinner maybe?
EN: i’m perfectly aware that Philip has little Greek blood. That’s the reality of many of the European royal families. Few of them have the blood of the countries they ‘rule’ over. Many are direct descendants, inter-married, of Victoria of GB and Christian 9 of Denmark.
With regards to Philip’s identity, nevermind his actual bloodline, he had to renounce his Greek titles in order to be accepted as a British citizen argo he is Greek despite little actual Greek blood running through his veins hence the ‘Phil the greek’ jokes.
Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent, Philip’s cousin, was also a Princess of the Greek royal family though she never had to renounce her Greek titles when she married The Duke of Kent.
However, if you really want to be pedantic about dynasties, Philip belongs to the house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksberg and that’s his proper surname were one is required, not Battenberg (anglised to Mountbatten) of his mother’s relatives who took him in when his family fell apart. Mountbatten was a useful change in presenting him as the acceptable face of a ‘foreign’ prince ie it hid his foreign origins to the public.
Its way more fun when Professors are being snarky.
Finally an authority on the subject is supporting my theory about Kate being a 1500s throwback. I don’t know how many debates I’ve had about this on the net. At least I’ll be able to back up my claims with some links now.
Cheers.
But she is not even that. The article mentions the contributions of the 1500s Consorts in regards to art, trade, commerce, even politics. Kate has done anything like that. I’d say she is pre-1500s.
She’s not a 1500s throwback. She actually more of a throwback to ideology of the 1950s housewife as she has done nothing even remotely resembling what any (future) Queen Consort has done through the ages.
Why is their baby dressed like a porcelain doll from the fifties? Is he always dressed like that?
Because they have good taste in classic, timeless baby clothes, and dress him like the toddler he is.
I agree.
Amen, GoodNames.
That’s how you dress babies, not as miniature rock stars or tiny adults. They’ll look like that soon enough.
I totally would judge my middle class friends if they carried on with the same tired hair Kate has. LOL
Her contribution = “Let them have SAUSAGE CURLS.”
Too funny! Everytime I see those curls I think of my 65 year old mother who has done the same curl to her hair for 30+ years. So dated IMO.
imaginary Henry VIII: I say, wench, what have you brought with which to beguile me, apart from party plates and gaudy ribbons?
Imaginary ThrowbackKitty: Oi, oh my god, I have to show you the shoes I got in the market just in the village here as your carriages brought me in! I was all, STOP right here, I have to have that woman’s beige wedgies! And then while the guys were making her give them over, I saw these brilliant copper pots for cooking but I think I will use them as face paint pans, and this rabbit fur purse and look, this necklace, from the window of Sir Joseph’s!
iHVIII: Hm, indeed, but, what of the culture of your land?
iTK: What? I’m from up the road, ‘nt I? Well, I think me mum sent you a pig if that’s what you mean. Look! I saw a lady with a ribbon tied around her neck, so look what I did! I made her give it me! And look how headpieces are being worn now!
iHVIII: Yes, yes, fetching. Tell me then, fair commonplace lady, tell me how hath you been educated? Singing, dancing, verse, needlepoint – why, I once bedded a Flemish gal who made the most massive hanging illustrating my entire life thus far, out of fine silk threads she spun herself, with the help of holy dwarves, and then she sang a twelve-stanza song to me about it! Another, could hunt boar like my best men, and create the most delicious sweetmeats and design fine jewels and fur capes set for me! Tell me, what of your skills and triumphs! With what arts shall you delight me daily if you are my next bride, my lovely?
iTK: Huh? Like, arts? Well, yah. I studied some arts and I can probably cook you really good Eggs Fabergé for breakfast if I think about it and me mum comes to help. But I don’t know about this other stuff you’re going on about? Oi, I know, l can make great big curls just by playing with me hair and some bacon fat and using a hare’s leg bone! See how easy? Oi and look, I can also draw me eyes in so they look more noticeable with this kohl stick! That took forever to learn! Ain’t it fine?
KHVIII: Uh, not figure or landscape drawing, a little bit? Perhaps a tree? No? Not even composing a very little verse, like this one which has yet to be written but it came to me full-born in a dream: Yet, may I by no means, my weried mynde, Drawe from the Der; but as she fleeth afore, Faynting I folowe. I leve of therefore –
iTK: hahahahahaa, wot are you rabbiting on about? God you’re boring me, ain’t you? I say, I remembered another trick I know, I can hit a ball with a stick from here to there! Have you a stick and a ball? I’ll show you! And then you can buy me some fabric I saw on a cart as they brought me in! I love presents I just smile when I get ’em! Oh, I know, I can make faces to amuse you too! See! Look at THIS one! And whee, if I twirl, my skirts go right up! Oi! Look! tee hee! Forgot me clouts again!
iKHIII: Wench, you have just saved your head. ……Next.
This is over already? I was just getting into it..
Crying!
Liberty please tell me you have plans to publish a book? Your writing is phenomenal . I still remember your take on Madonna and Lorde having a conversation..*hysterical*
LOL! So glad I waited for my lunch break to read this. Big curls, bacon fat, and clouts–LMAO!
(curtsies) thank you! happyTuesday.
Liberty! You have truly topped yourself. I’m dying with laughter. I’d read one line and think ‘that’s funny as hell’ then you’d come with another. You need a satirical blog just about her. Thank you for making my day😊😄😊.
Faberge eggs for breakfast . . . Liberty, I die!!
I’m with Dena. You need a satirical blog and I’ll contribute the limericks!
Agreed! You need your own blog!!
Great satire, Liberty! “Are there special hens that lay Faberge eggs?”
Kate’s wedges wouldn’t really be out of place in the 1500s. People often wore wooden pattens that they tied to their shoes in order not to soil them when out walking in the ctiy because the streets were awash i n all kinds of filth,
LOL at the Daily Fail’s assertion that Kate has been credited with modernising the royal family through her “penchant for thigh-skimming skirts.” An insult masquerading as a compliment. The DM is bringing the snark and I love it. 😀
Kate’s been extremely helpful by (not) showing us the undergarments we need to procure for thigh skimming skirts. I suppose that going commando is the Kate effect.
I’m frustrated for her that she can’t just be a royal version of a stay-at-home-mom. Her focus is her family, and that shouldn’t ever be a problem. Maybe in the future, she’ll be more active in charities or service projects or whatever people expect her to do regarding official events, but for now, why can’t she just be at home, raising future kings properly?
I sort of see your point, though I don’t know how hands on she is vs any other royal spouse. I guess if she really was doing most of the raising of her kids, I would be on board with this. Can you imagine how much flak she would get if she did 8 engagements a week? “When does she EVER see her kids??” QE2 rarely spent any quality time with Charles as a kid and we see how that played out. The emotional intelligence of a gnat, that one.
If ever Kate did 8 engagements per week, then that would be about 8 times more than she usually does.
Would it be so terribly hard on her as a mother if she spent 45-minutes per week visiting at least one charity when it’s apparently not so hard on her motherhood status to spend hours away from her kids going to sporting events and parties?
And if she were out and about more people would say she is having too much fun and not spending enough time with the kids. Even though the official social outings are not actually fun for anyone, they are work.
I am not sure where people get the idea that attending various events and pretending to look interested is “fun”.
I can’t imagine myself sitting like a statue for 3 hours looking pretty with all cameras on me, watching some parade or what not.
Some women just can’t win. Kate is one of them. No matter what she does, she is criticized.
She spent six hours at Wimbledon, and it was for fun not as a royal engagement.
If she can spend that much time having fun, she can spend that much time away from her kids doing charity work.
Kate could have won if she’d taken the goodwill given at her marriage, and run with it for the Britons. Instead, she twists her curls…
Read some books on Diana: the world was expecting someone to engage, in somewhat the same way. Diana worked very hard on her shyness and public speaking. Diana worked for ordinary people, and was very gracious. We know she loved her boys, even if she wasn’t a stay-at-home mum; she behaved as though being a princess required something of her. And even though she was busy, I don’t know anyone who would accuse her of not being a good mother.
Wolfie
There are lots who would accuse Diana of not being a good mother. Not becauseshe was busy working though. Other factors. I’m not going to thread drift.
How about being a role model for her kids by visiting her charities even once a week? She spends hours having her hair done and shopping (without the kids) so why not a half hour a week for the people in exchange for all the wealth and luxury? Is that too much to ask?
> How about being a role model for her kids by visiting her charities even once a week?
Days of preparations by many people go into one 30-min charity visit, though. It is not just up to Kate.
Deedee, I’m not necessarily disputing your claim but how do we know she spends hours shopping and having her hair done? I’m genuinely curious. I’m sure she has her hair done for events but when I had hair as long as Kate’s, I washed it much less frequently and had it “done” less often too. The pics of her with George out and about (possibly staged, IDK) doesn’t make her look like she’s just had her hair done.
What is up to Kate is saying that she’ll do it, and she’s obviously saying she won’t.
Six hour salon visits have been well documented by people who saw her go in and come out. But the point is, if Will and Kate wanted to visit their charities, it would happen. They have the staff and the wherewithal to do it, but they don’t. Other royals, some much older and some much further down the royal line manage, and so could they.
>days of preparations by many people go into one 30-min charity visit, though.<
Funny, all the other royals including the Queen seem to manage it just fine, times hundreds.
@EN – the prep for visits is done by her staff not her. All she has to do is agree to go along and the itinerary. Not very taxing – as like everything else in her life its done for her.
And yes it is up to Kate – from the very beginning its been said that they control their own schedules.
@ EN
>Days of preparations by many people go into one 30-min charity visit, though. It is not just up to Kate.
Because she can’t use her staff to set up one charity visit per week? (Even though she uses her staff to set up going to evening galas, sporting events with meet-and-greets, and ‘charity’ yachting races…)
Because it would be too hard on her to ask other people to do the work? Because that would tax her brain and her vocal cords?
Even thinking to ask her staff to set up a visit would be a mental hardship on her and using her vocal muscles is so detrimental that it would affect the quality of how she raises her kids?
I don’t get the reasoning used by her apologists:
> Kate is so fragile in her mind and body and her motherhood status that she can’t do one charity visit a week, but she needs to use her strength to go to fun-stuff every few days without her kids <
How is spending hours going out and entertaining herself without the kids worse than going to one charity visit?
Actually EN, charities like any business factor in set days for events, whether that be an annual event or multiple events per year.
The charities that use royal patrons or patrons where they expect attendance factor in all the organisation and disruption such visits cause.
It’s on record that Kate has repeatedly turned down several invitations to events (or simple visits) to one of her patronages, and some of William’s invitations are being accepted by Anne.
Kate turning down invitations isn’t anything new. She did it as a GF whilst she blamed the palace every step of the way. Eventually The Palace made it very public that they are not standing in her way, just as they’ve publicly reiterated several times that as a royal they are not in her way, she is in charge of her own schedule and she is happy with the pace of it.
Cue quotes from EACH-related volunteer about KM.
‘We were the ones who called in + asked for her to stop by since she signed as a Patron. It wasn’t something she did “because she felt the dying need to” and she only made 2 visits out of the 10 scheduled.’
because she is not living on her husband salary. She lives off her parents and relatives and tax payeres.
Because she is doing it on the dime of the citizens. She can just pop them out like the duggards but neither her not her no husband WORK.
@ Darlene –
If spending a second without her kids is bad, then why does she spend many hours away from her kids when she’s going out to entertain herself? But spending 45-minutes to visit a charity is ruinous to motherhood?
anne_000 that is a great phrase. “Spending 45 minutes to visit a charity is ruinous to motherhood?”. I’m pocketing that phrase for later use.
That argument, that working is time spent away from her kids leaves me feeling unsettled. It’s such a regressive thought that a woman engaging in the world around her is equal to depriving her children. This argument just isn’t made for men.
Just as William plays on anti-royalist sentiment to shirk his royal duties, and the Middletons use class conflict to shield themselves from criticism, it feels like Kate is playing on anti-feminist sentiments to justify not doing her charity work, never mind that she has a vast amount of staff and is simply not a regular stay at home mother.
@ notasugarhere
🙂
Natalie, that is a great observation.
@ Natalie
I think you’re right in that it sounds anti-feminist for Kate’s apologists to say that she’s not capable of working because she’s a mother now and that her place should be at home or out enjoying herself but that work is too difficult for women at this time in their lives. It’s like they’re saying she should just stick to ‘women’s work’ aka stay out of the work force and instead stay at home making babies and taking care of them.
If she has an Art History degree, she should be riding that angle hard. I would. Oh, dress up and visit galleries and point at my favorites and host children’s museum events and hold galas for the arts every month? TWIST MY ARM.
This. Imagine the fun with George at “hands on” arts events for kids.
CP Frederik and Mary took their two eldest children to the opening of a Children’s Art Room at Statens Museum for Kunst (National Gallery) in Copenhagen. It was adorable to see those kids diving into paint and clay, showing off their creations to their parents.
Think of the funding she could raise to bring more arts education into schools…to send underprivileged children to arts camps during the summer…or to fund special performances of ballets, plays, operas, and concerts for people who otherwise would not have the means to go. Who knows how many future artists/performers could she directly and indirectly help? How many people, including Kate, would gain new opportunities to learn and grow?
What Kate does not seem to understand is that she could leverage her ability to garner attention for wearing a certain dress or pair of shoes into promoting worthy charities and important issues. Her mere attendance at an event would motivate some people to financially support an organization or cause; if she actually spoke out or actively sought donations, her influence could be monumental. Diana’s 1997 dress auction is a prime example. Diana took dresses that she no longer needed/wore and put them to good use, raising over $3.25 million for cancer and AIDS charities. Many of those dresses have been displayed or auctioned off since then, again raising even more money for charity. If she really wanted to, Kate could gently strongarm most of the companies she patronizes for donations to her charities and provide the businesses with positive free publicity as well. No matter how uncomfortable their shoes are, if LK Bennett donated a metric ton of nude heels to organizations helping battered and/or underprivileged women get back into the workforce, plenty of folks would (at least temporarily) get warm fuzzies for Kate and the company. Hell, I would forgive her for wearing her beloved nude platform heels all the time, and I do not easily overlook crimes against fashion!
What William and Kate do not seem to understand is that when they do events or speak out on things they profess to care about, people pay attention. The media pays attention, if only to document what they wore or said. If the Cambridges would spend just a few hours per week putting in some face time for groups or issues they care about, they would not only generate more goodwill from but they might TRULY HELP some people. For example, while reading the comments on this article, I had an image in my head of Kate struggling to read her taped statement on children’s mental health. If she put some effort into polishing her social skills and public speaking and started participating in more children’s mental health awareness events/fundraisers, this issue would be covered by the media more. And more media usually means more outreach. People who might be suffering in silence trying to care for mentally ill children might learn that there are charities and people that can help get them the proper care and support. A pre-taped, 2 minute video statement vaguely advocating for something is just not enough. Spending even a few hours per week out and about and talking to people enthusiastically about the great work Charity X does or why they are deeply concerned about issue Y are more useful expenditures of their time and energy…and more likely to lead to tangible results. And think of the positive press the Cambridges would get if a mother or father was quoted as saying something like, “A year ago I didn’t even know where I could get help dealing with my bipolar child and the effects his illness was having on my other kids and me. Then I heard about Charity X because Duchess Kate opened a new building/hosted a gala dinner/organized a charity tea for them, so I called and found out about all their great programs and resources. Today my child is stable on medications and doing well in school, and our family life is much happier.”
As long as Will and Kate are patrons of their charities in name only and not by doing actual good deeds for them, the less likely these organizations are to garner the attention and donations they desperately need. And snarky people like me will continue to call the Cambridges out for their apparent lack of interest in using their high profiles to benefit their subjects and the world at large and avoidance of duty.
BearcatLawyer, exactly. Bravo.
I concur also.
Kate always seems happiest at sporting events. And I’ve always thought she could do SO much for raising the profile of women’s sports, which have less money and attention in every area. If she were only to turn up to all the national team events, from football (soccer) and cricket to the less covered sports like netball and judo, it could do so much good. Half the women’s sports don’t get covered between Olympics, for crissakes!
Add in a load of grassroots visits getting girls involved in sport.
Wouldn’t it be great if, in twenty years time, everyone said, “Wow. That Kate. She did more to put women’s sports on the front page than anyone else. We got a generation of fitter girls out of it. Female obesity went down. And at the top, the gender pay disparity for top athletes also declined. Well done, Kate!”
Bearcatlawyer, I concur. Many of us have said the same thing you’ve said over & over again. It’s simply too bad that W/K’s people don’t read the blog.
My one exception to what you’ve written is this: I don’t think Kate thinks much about events external to her life. I don’t think she’s passionate about a cause. I just don’t think those things were cultivated or encouraged. However, what she could do (as most of us have repeatedly suggested) is to repackage her areas of interest (sports, shopping, personal appearance, family) and align them to charitable endeavors as you’ve succinctly outlined. How hard is that to do?
They both need to get off the poor Willy is repairing the sins of the past train and get him some psych services that includes grief counseling, and use their positions for the good of society as well as to selfishly cement a welcoming place in the future for themselves & their progeny.
I’m not sure why my comment was deleted? This article is literally a professor ragging on Kate because she’s British and not a ~sophisticated foreigner
I think she is right, and the funny thing is all the fuzz the Royal pr made at the beginning about how Kate was the first consort with a degree.
Ah, I remember it well….
Me too. Not to mention the often repeated emphasis on how much we would be dazzled by her brains once we had a good look at her.
That often repeated PR phrase ‘she will hit the ground running’ in reference to her royal duties.
It’s no wonder they had to make up a Malta Myth when she wed and made it clear she was going to do nought. Though I feel bad for the RAF wives being drawn into it.
Oh,she hit the ground running. Away.
I’m still waiting to be dazzled but maybe when she hit the round running she was so quick I missed it all!
Yes, the gal who was going to hit the ground running. What happened to her?
She ran away to Mustique, Switzerland, The Maldives, Berkshire, and Norfolk?
They made confusion with Pippa.
Because social climber as you want but Pippa really runs for charity.
She ran into a brick wall of her own making.
Maybe her cultural influence IS to change the royal family. That would be a historic, cultural coup.
Wow look at what the Prof and what the Daily Mail writer says inbetween. Everything snarky like the part with the siblings etc isn’t from the prof.
I don’t see how is she different from any other wife of today. William is wealthy from his mother’s wise investments so even if he didn’t live in the taxpayers funded house they’d be okay. So Kate is just a wife who wants to stay at home and take care of family. That is her ambition and that’s what makes her happy. Maybe if she were a queen, she would have to be more active but I don’t see what she is doing wrong now. And I’m not even a fan of stay at home mom type of lifestyle but if it’s her choice – what does this professor has anything to do with it?
Because this esteemed professor — along with every other citizen of the UK is subsidizing it. If she doesn’t want to be accountable to the people who financially support her and her family — easy, give up the taxpayer funded housing, staff, security, transportation, clothing, etc., etc. and live off your private money. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
> Because this esteemed professor — along with every other citizen of the UK is subsidizing it. If she doesn’t want to be accountable to the people who financially support her and her family
Isn’t it the same with other government workers, though. They are also paid by taxpayers but nobody takes an issue if their wives choose to stay at home.
EN, she is a government worker along with her husband. It is the same as a government worker taking a paycheck but never showing up to work.
So who is stopping them from subsidizing it? I don’t get this Brits, but I not one of them is SERIOUSLY questioning if they should continue paying for monarchs. Or ask them to do more. I’ve spoken to many people from UK and none of them ever had any strong views on this. All are pro monarchy. So there you go – if they want to continue paying, Kate will continue living off of it. Why should she refuse money being thrown at her? SHE is not the stupid one.
> EN, she is a government worker along with her husband
If she is a government worker then she get at least a year of maternity leave.
I just can’t get behind people saying a mother of 2 young children is not doing enough. Get the case up with WIll, he needs to do more.
EN > They are also paid by taxpayers but nobody takes an issue if their wives choose to stay at home.<
Probably those wives aren't wearing thousands of dollars of "funded" clothing or ordering up millions of pounds in public-paid silly renovations to their several mansions, eh?
This is not some average mother of two just wishing to be home and raise her children. I have friends who are just that, and they are not behaving like Kate.
EN, in order to qualify for maternity leave in the UK you have to work full-time for a year prior to the leave. And she’s never worked a 40 hour week much less full-time for a year.
All of the other royals raised their kids quietly in the country AND did royal engagements. Yes, when the kids were little. The only new thing here is W&K insisting that they cannot both raise their children AND work royal engagements. They take the money for all the staff that makes it possible for them to do royal engagements, but they refuse to do the royal engagements.
> EN, in order to qualify for maternity leave in the UK you have to work full-time for a year prior to the leave.
She has been full-time princess for years. In any case, I believe every woman deserves a maternity leave just for the fact that she gave birth and has a child. This is something I am passionate about. In the US there is no maternity leave at all, and it makes me livid.
@ EN
>She has been full-time princess for years. <
Uh. Just existing doesn't mean that one is working.
Working in terms of doing Royal duties means helping her charities and attending Royal and national events, like the recent 7/7 events she didn't bother to show up to.
Just sitting around or going shopping doesn't mean she's on princess duties.
Ell said EN. This is ridiculous, what does the queen do, wave her hand, attend functions, sorry but none of them are contributing to society. I do not need a queen to show me new art, music etc…. Diana helped the sick and we all see how well that turned out, killed. As for staff and she purity, it is not her choice. I for one cannot fathom why in today’s world we have royals who take themselves wayyy to seriously. Instead on picking on Kate, pick ongov policies and what is being done to help the people finding work, food, sstability. They would rather have that than a queen who brings new arts,lol. So dumb this article
Tessa, the majority of working royals are long past retirement. Several of them are in their late 70s and have had serious health problems. Two healthy 33-year-olds are hiding in the country, playing helo pilot and SAHM, instead of working for the Family Firm. It is the ongoing hard work of those other people, for decades, that results in the Family Firm still being in existence today.
If W&K do not want to work for the Family Firm, they need to give back all the benefits related to the Family Firm. Mansion in London, mansion in the country, security, better part of $4.6 million allowance a year, etc.
Yeah, I agree, they should leave the free money but no one is insisting on it.. Brits are all for their monarchy and nobody is taking any real action to abolish this silliness, okay? I wouldn’t refuse money given to me for doing whatever the hell I want to do. And so shouldn’t Kate because she is not the stupid one here.
So basically either stop b*tching or actually do something about it.
And that is what people are doing. The more they publicly-criticize these two, the more they support media that questions their attitude, the more people will question and work to do something about it.
Personally, I find it unethical to take money for a job and refuse to do the job in return.
@notasugarhere
Yeah, right, like it makes any difference, ha! The last I heard they are adding a tennis court to their property.
Don’t kid yourself. The royals don’t care what the media says because legally they can use the money. People in Britain want to have their monarchy more than anyone. They are such snobs they need royals to support their snobbery. Despite all the business success that the Middletons achieved, British people still felt the family was not good enough for the lazy and entitled monarchs. It’s a complete joke.
> People in Britain want to have their monarchy more than anyone. They are such snobs they need royals to support their snobbery.
Exactly! The British monarchy underpins their classism. The countries without monarchies tend to be more egalitarian. Just look at Germany, it is a completely different culture.
Expense wise , the British and other royals are just a part of cultural heritage. Just like taxes spent all across Europe to maintain various historical sites and palaces. It is really not a big deal. I think people make too much out of it, when the real issue is existence of the monarchy in itself.
The royals aren’t adding the tennis court, W&K are. They’re the ones getting flack for taking a farmer’s land because they don’t want their view spoiled by their $100,000 tennis court
“I think people make too much out of it, when the real issue is existence of the monarchy in itself.”
Making too much out of these two government representatives taking the piss as Sixer would write?
These two and their behavior are making more and more people openly question having a monarchy. It is interesting to track the discussions on royal discussion boards and see how they show up in either 1) articles published in newspapers or 2) in direct action by PR flacks. Yep, all the grumbling here does have an affect. The whole W&K 15 year show would make for a fascinating dissertation in media studies.
The monarchy does underpin classism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_ten_thousand
@wolfie
There’s a huge difference: here in the states you can become the 1% by working hard or marrying wise (not the easiest of jobs, ha!). We don’t have monarchy and royals, who are being catered to simply based on the fact of being born.
I agree with EN and Tessa. With the incentives that have been provided to Kate and William the rational thing for them to do would be to sit at home and keep taking the millions.
First of all, I see an inconsistency in the rationale of a “working royal”. IMO there is no such thing. The Queen, who btw has not been a*sed enough to sit down for an interview in her 89 years, works approximately 15 hours a week 5 months a year according to one of the BP press officers, Mark Bolland. Apparently one can fit in approximately 600 “engagements” in that time. And she is the hardest working royal.
Kate and William are doing what most would do in their position. They have been given a blank slate in terms of expectations: no one sets any parameters of what is expected of them. They don’t get ranked in their jobs, nor are there any repurcussions. Even if the media hates them the people don’t – any poll will tell you that. The royals are supremely popular and they are not even close to being voted out. Even if one day the public falls out of favor with them, it will take YEARS and YEARS of legislation and parliamentary procedure for the republicans to get their way. In the mean time they can emerge out of their happy cocoons, fling their hair a bit, show some baby pictures and climb back in popularity.
If someone gave you millions of dollars for free and said do what you want, don’t you think that many people would want to sit back and have the life they have? Of course, some of us would not – we would genuinely want to go out and make a difference. But many would not. Especially the shallow silly types – like them.
The English people love their monarchy – just read the papers, and see how the politicians act like little teddy bears in front of the queen. The English people also apparently love their Conservatives, a party stuffed to the gills with Eton and Howard boys who are completely committed to protecting their country piles and having the government pay for replacing their leaky roofs. They have no incentive whatsoever to overturn the monarchy and lose their class-based advantages in life. So nobody is getting rid of W&K any time soon. It is a waste of breath to keep bashing them because they are definitely not going to change in a meaningful way no matter what we say. Yes, Jason may show them some articles that will lead William to release a few more pictures of George and for Kate to come out and bat her eyelashes at some poor dying child, but they are not going to seize their platform and build another Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. They are not going to undergo the sort of transformation many crave to witness.
Maia, they aren’t doing what I would do. I think it is unethical to take the perks and not do the work. Many people would like to have the opportunity for change that these two throw away every day.
@Maia – bravo! Summed it up pretty nicely!
Weren’t there changes implemented after all the bad press of 1992 (divorces, Windsor Castle fire?) Civil List restricting the royals, and the queen now pays tax? So, steps like that could happen again.
Maia, you make a really good argument. I do take issue with it being rational to sit back and rake in the money. Maybe it is rational, given the fact they can do it, but is it ethical?
bluhare, of course it is not ethical. And I would be tempted to say: if I had a platform like that I would be working my tail off. But unless we have walked in their shoes I would hesitate to say that I would act one way or another. Who knows for sure how each of one would act ? There is such a thing as cognitive dissonance after all, and the royals suffer from it as much as we do.
Until we’re actually faced with it, we never do know what we will do, do we? That was the beauty of Kate having all that time to think about what she’d do when/if William and she got married. Instead of someone trying, we get form with no substance. I keep hoping that either of them will act like they do have an obligation and begin to honor it. I keep being disappointed but I haven’t given up hope just yet.
If she wanted to live quietly in the country with some rich dude, she should have done that.. Instead she takes on a job description, and uses it only to royally entitle herself. She doesn’t compare with ANY other princesses, anywhere! She should have stayed “middle-class”; that seems to be what William actually wants.
I guess this is partially where I was going with my comment below. It seems odd to me that people consider the millions that taxpayers give the royals to be compensation that is in any way proportionate to what they do. I’m not pro or anti-monarchy, but I would like to understand the “work” they do.
I have thought about this too, and after doing some digging around I have concluded that I would love to sign up for the “job” of being a royal.
So would I, Maia. And I guarantee you’d think I’m awesome. 🙂
No, her ambition was not to be a SAHM. Her ambition was to be the future queen. And as such, she needs to step up and shoulder the workload expected of a senior royal. Times have changed, expectations for the royals have changed; we expect them to be active and hard working for their charities and for the country as a whole. It is shameful that the Queen, PP, Anne and others work many many more engagements than these two combined. Perhaps Kate thought she could coast indefinitely on the Diana goodwill that William clearly benefitted from to the point he has become slack and entitled. William should be the one to pull her into line, but he is clearly bought into the ‘I am still a little lost sheep finding my way because my mum died’ stuff that may have been appropriate for a year or two, but has now become his modus operandi. He doesn’t get it because he was spoiled and cosseted, and thinks some fictionalized job he will be doing part time will absolve him because the public are stupid. I am pro-royal, but these two I find hard to defend because I abhor laziness. Entitlement gets a side-eye pass as long as the job is being done, but sloth and obvious manipulation don’t.
“Prince William’s Berkshire-born wife is a 16th-century throwback”
Hey, that’s an insult to Catherine of Aragorn or Anne Boleyn. They were 1500s Queens Consort, and boy oh boy they did a lot. Much more than Kate for sure.
Or Catharine de Medici, Marie de Medici and Anne of Austria – all Queen Consorts who became Queen regents of France and who held that country together through some serious internal conflicts during the 16th and 17th centuries.
Let’s be honest–she is no Diana and that is part of the problem. William’s mother was held on such a high platform that there was no way Kate could possibly be like her. It would be nice to see her do more charity work even if she prefers to be a stay at home mom, let’s be honest, she still has wait staff and nannies. She could visit her charities once a week.
I don’t understand why her people don’t just have her do this and avoid all the flack.
Most people don’t care whether she’s going to be another Diana or what – the people who are paying for her and his lifestyle want them to do more than they already are. You are correct she can do one visit a week – it wouldn’t kill her.
Look what happened to Diana. I think they want to avoid that at all cost.
yeah, but IMO they have taken it to the other extremes where she is a Kate-do-little. I would like to see her do more than the 60-90 year old crowd who make 100+ appearances per year still!
Andrea, exactly.
Plus, coupled with her moody lazy husband, it’s not a good look.
@ Firebomber
It’s going to take more than one 45-minute charity visit a week to turn Kate into someone like Diana.
It’s like saying ‘my dad died from overworking so I’m not going to work at all so I can live forever.’
Diana gave the people what they wanted and look what happened. She’s dead!
Diana isn’t dead because she did charity work. Diana is dead because she got into a car driven by a drunk and didn’t put on her seatbelt.
@ Firebomber
What in the world???
Firebomber. Are you saying Diana overshadowed the BRF by working and becoming the “peoples princess” so they had her eliminated? And Kate is staying below the working radar so they don’t take her out also?
She died because people couldn’t get enough of her. the press never left her alone because of that. the driver may have been drunk but the press were relentless for any kind news. That’s the bottom line. if you think otherwise you are mistaken.
FLORC, I never said any such thing. don’t be ridiculous.
I’m done for the day. I don’t feel like being under attack for a differing opinion. Have a nice day eveyone!
Firebomber
Diana invited the press into her life. This is documented. She gave them her locations and enticed them she was going to reveal things. To add her security was compromised from her own doing. She dismissed her RPO’s. No way they would have allowed any camera or pap, or reporter to get as near as they did under her private security. And that goes for the drunk driver also. To add seat belts save lives and they did of the only person wearing 1 in that car.
I’m only stating facts here. And your statement of what happened to Diana when discussing Kate’s lack of work. What other conclusion could be drawn?
And I hope you return to read this. It’s meant to educate. Not insult or isolate. You should return to discuss in a more friendly way. My tone was snarky I didn’t realise that would lead you to refuse further discussion.
Firebomber, getting defensive really weakens your argument. Lots of people *loved* Diana, but they weren’t in the tunnel with her the night she was killed. The paps weren’t operating her car under the influence and driving too fast. Your insistence that the media and the masses killed Diana sounds more hyperbolic than factual, and that’s why others are questioning your statements.
FLORC & Olenna,
I didnt bow out because I was defensive. I had to go to work. I have a job. You are completely missing my point. I know how she was killed. My point is that if the public werent fascinated with Diana papers would not sell and the press would not have been chasing that car in the first place. Diana would still be alive today. I don’t think the RF wanted that kind of public interest in William’s wife. She dresses conservatively, keeps a low profile and no drama. William has gone on record saying he had to get it right the first time when he married. That’s why they took their time. Diana was hounded by the press for a number of reasons. Some of her own doing. I dont need an education FLORC….I just don’t agree with the majority on here. Simple!
Firebomber
Welcome back.
I think the assumption of you leaving and being defensive came with your comment of not liking the way the conversation was against your point and you left because of that. Not work. That’s where my mind went anyway.
You are missing my point. Diana invited the press. She made a comment documented that she was going to reaveal something Big. Pretty close to her own words too. She entice the press. They followed her because she allowed it.
And Kate doesn’t dress in a conservative manner. At times she does, but we wouldn’t have seen her bottom and biscuits if she did.
And William ended it with Kate a few times. Famously jumping onto a pub table to announce he was free. His friends mocked her for being clingy.
Also, When William broke up with Kate he was attacked heavily for taking a young woman’s 20’s and no ring. On top of that William said he was always to marry at 30. It was what he set a goal for. Kate proved herself to stay by William no matter what.
And that engagement interview was found to be scripted.
Lastly and education might be needed. The points your citing aren’t in proper context. Much was rewritten though from engagement. Regarding the drama. Midds have pap on call and journs that are faithful to the spin. If there was to be no drama the pap that found William, Harry, and Jecca hunting would not have received his location.
I think if they (W/K/PR people) just came out and straight up said that Kate is going to take a few years off to primarily be a SAHM, with some charitable work thrown in here and there, it would honestly reflect what’s happening & it would stop everyone (a lot of us) from filling in the blanks in terms of expectations & comparisons to other royals (locally & foreign (Victoria, Letizia, Maxima, etc.).
Kate doesn’t work – other princesses do (including Diana). No one expected Kate to be like Diana. We wanted her to be herself – but she is unwilling to do anything, but be middle-class.
Wolfie the thing is Kate isn’t technically a princess. I’m not from the UK so I won’t get into the semantics of her title (FLORC is always good for that, lol but my understanding is she can use William’s title making her a prince). I actually think this is the main issue she doesn’t work very much. I’ve always thought this privately. I’m a frequent celebitchy-er but infrequent commenter and I have seen perhaps another person or two allude to this fact. I’m not defending her at all, I just think after all that time chasing the ring to become a duchess….I think she was and is disappointed and so is William, which is crazy because he had to have known Kate couldn’t be the POW while Camilla stays a duchess. Liz wasn’t going to ruffle any feathers this late in the game and really maybe it’s best no one has that title right now. Back to my point here: I think after all that time dating William, not going to official events, or having security literally (bodyguards) and figuratively (would she really get the ring? would he make good on his promise?) I don’t think she thinks she owes the royal family anything, especially not hard work. I think her and William have their own vision of what they want the monarchy to be like, or he does and she follows his lead. I think she doesn’t want to outshine anyone or step on any toes and since they are junior royals by title regardless of lines to the throne, I think that is why they think they don’t have to do anything. That and the fact they’ll be cutting ribbons until they’re 105 with their family longevity. And maybe Charles privately tells them to step back, who knows he’s an odd duck. Their behavior probably frustrates QE, putting it mildly. But I do think if she was the princess of Whales regardless of having small children or whatever, I think she would or will ramp up her charities and start hustling. I don’t think she’s inherently lazy because of her physical fitness routine and persistence to become William’s wife, I think she feels entitled and is a spoiled brat of course, but it’s not stupidity nor laziness drives her behavior – she would have never gotten this far. She only cares about pleasing William, who I assume feels like being a duke is a step down and that means he can pretend to drive heliambulences or whatever he does for a few more years. Carole for sure has a princess plan for Katherine, phase 2 or 3 or who can keep up at this point…but until she becomes POW forget about it, you’re going to have to force her to do anything. And William is the one who says it’s ok 100%. It’s funny to think they think they’ve gotten a raw deal on their titles but I guess the theory of relativity holds up even in absurd seemingly non-applicable circumstances. If this is the real reason they are as useful as tits on a bull, then wow are they immature and wow is there some underlying hostility between the senior royals and the Cambridges. I’ve always suspected as much, I mean they put on a decent front in public, but I kind of doubt William has a normal, emotionally close relationship with any of those stuffy toffs (yes, he is a stuffy toff too). he was raised by staff, emotionally unavailable father yada yada, everyone here knows the sitch. This is why he rebelled and got Middleton Mania, to have a normal loving family out of the spotlight, i.e skipping out on Christmas every other year at Sandringham (or is it Balmoral? I try to keep up on this stuff but I don’t pay that close of attention) which is a big deal and speaks volumes as to how he feels about his blood relatives. Bottom line: you will see more of the same until his wife gets his mother’s title, and that’s when she will go into Diana mode and do a 180, it will be startling mark my words.
fatamorgana
Haha what? I’m horrible with titles. Except mine being F.L.O.R.C. First Lady Of Royal Celebitches 😀
Though, Kate IS a princess. She’s Princess William. How William dictated/wrote it on a certificate was Princess Catherine which isn’t so. If she was a princess she wouldn’t have to curtsey to any younger blood princesses without William present. On her own her Duchess title is tops because it’s hers.
Nota, LAK, And LadySlippers are great resources with ArtHistorian too 🙂
@ fatamorgana
Everytime the birth certificate of her children are made, her occupation is listed as ‘Princess of the United Kingdom.’ And under her name, it’s written ‘Her Royal Highness.’
So I don’t know why she would be hung up on the title. I don’t think this is the reason why she feels she shouldn’t give back anything of her time and interest for all the perks and luxuries and monies she gets.
There would be no ‘drama’ in Kate stepping up to do charity work and shoulder some of the load that is unfairly still loaded on the geriatric royals. She would get respect, mild interest and probably kudos. No one sees her as the magnetic figure Diana was, but that sure doesn’t preclude her from doing the work attached to the job she waited many years to secure, that of future queen. One day she will have do do it regardless, and when that day comes she will be woefully unprepared unless she starts getting her hands dirty. Same goes for that enabling husband of hers, who seems to be allied with her in some ‘we are just normal, leave us alone’ farce that no one wants to call the BS card on.
ArtHistorian, if you drop by this thread. The photo of Prince Henrik and the adorable fluffy dog was in a Billed Bladet article called Prinsgemalen fik kærligt kys af grønlandsk hund
I’m guessing that translates roughly to he’s getting a kiss from a Greenlandic hound.
Thanks! Will borrow my grandmother’s copy. And your your translation is correct!
Thanks! It is in the online edition if you want to see it right away.
In this day and age, a royal spouse doesn’t have to be foreign to bring a fresh perspective. Case in point: Princess Diana, who possessed a “common touch” not seen in her in-laws, combined with a fierce service ethic once she fastened upon the causes she was passionate about. Kate doesn’t appear to bring anything of visible substance to the table other than doing her job by popping out heirs and smiling alongside her husband at various events. But I suspect that her real contribution is EXACTLY the middle class, unremarkable family and background she gets criticized for because they provide Wil with an escape hatch, sanctuary and buffer between himself and the tiresome royal duties he so clearly wishes to avoid.
She’s like a palate cleanser after a flavorful meal.
In essence, you liken Kate Middleton to dry toast?
He is welcome to avoid the royal duties if he avoids all the royal perks too. Two free mansions, security, and the $4.6 million annual allowance from Daddy. If they want to avoid royal duties, they should be required to “avoid” all the royal perks too.
Willy is going to try and have it all! Everything he wants – from being middle-class – to every royal entitlement. No one is stopping him.
Wonder if we’ll get a story soon about how ‘Willy the hero’ saving a poor kitten from the sea with his big chopper!!!!
Meanwhile – Kate is still trying to be Anne Boleyn 2.0.
Just wanted to have this clarified:
The last sentence in the article:
> By contrast, the only things Kate has introduced to society are her socially ambitious siblings James and Pippa. <
was written by Sebastian Shakespeare, not the professor.
………………
From the same article, S.S. wrote:
> Watanabe-O’Kelly’s disparaging remarks echo Wolf Hall author Hilary Mantel, who once called the Duchess a ‘shop window mannequin, with no personality of her own’, whose only purpose is ‘to give birth’.
Well, that’s all Kate ever wanted: to be a rich sheltered young matron with a title, deference, luxury, and an easy job. She expressed interest in absolutely nothing but hooking William throughout her twenties, when most other people her age and advantages were finding themselves and beginning to build careers.
I would guess that while the Buck House Brigade could wish she worked a bit harder, they are quite relieved at her studied vapidity and lack of interest in anything but breeding, figure maintenance, homemaking, and clothes. The last time they had someone with ambitions to “influence” and “meaning”, it didn’t work out so well.
The Windsor boys work out best with women of this type. Best let well enough alone.
Sadly this is very true.
@ seesittellsit
I don’t think the trouble was with Diana’s work ambitions that made things not ‘work out so well,’ but family politics and the media involvement in their personal lives.
I don’t think the BRF wanted Diana to stop working or wished she’d work less during the marriage.
Camilla is a work horse – she’s with Charles at most events and people may not like her, but she isn’t work-shy!
Can someone tell me more about the work the royal family does? I always figured it was “work,” like a rich NYC housewife. Certainly, it isn’t work that corresponds to the amount tax payers give them. Of course, the queen does things (she’s the queen and I know she doesn’t sit around), but what in the past have people a couple steps from the throne done?
They help with some charities–is that really enough to consider them “working”? I enjoy following the royals (particularly the British royal family), but to me, Kate’s not doing anything is sort of how I feel about all of them. It doesn’t bother me–going to a couple of charity events doesn’t justify the amount of money they’re given.
If people think there is no such thing as royal work, and if William himself claims not to know, then the Windsors can surrender all royal perks and properties immediately.
The amount that tax payers give them is not – for work in kind. Are they *paid* to be entitled? Ha!
Saying Kate is a throwback to 1500s consorts is an insult to those consorts and those times.
The idea that a medieval woman, whatever her station in life, was idle is a re-writing of history.
Royal consorts have never been expected to be SAHM. They had more privileges than a regular woman, but SAH wasn’t an option.
Kate is breaking new ground here.
As in ditch digging?😊
Seriously though, intentional or happenstance & in getting everyone used to lowered expectations, W/K could be moving the BRF more into a more European styled aristocracy. Can/will the British & people of the commonwealth accept that? Hmm/
For the life of me, I just don’t see W/K having the same type or a similar type of relating as CP Victoria et al to myriad interests (social awareness, businesses, the environment).
I think it will be happenstance.
….but give the *girl a shovel
*despite her age and two kids, she’s still a girl to me, not a woman.
Seriously? This Professor is going to compare a 21st Century woman to 16th Century women? No s**t they brought people from their home country with them, it wasn’t as if they could hop on a train or airplane to visit their family whenever they wanted to. They would have been lucky to cross the English Channel without their boat sinking. And lets not forget the fact that society would not have been exposed to any type of culture outside of their village let alone travel outside of their birth village, so of course the foreign Queens had influence.
I would have been on board if she would have made the connection of her not using her college degree to further the monarchy.
I think she’s referencing ‘foreign’ Queen Consorts because more often than not, they were the subject of royal marriages over the local gals.
Not just in England, all over Europe.
However, if you want to stick to a 1500ish locally born English consort, then I nominate Anne Boleyn.
She influenced court fashions and arts, but also openly supported the reformation and was very active in promote it to influence Henry and by extension the rest of the court and the country.
Katherine Parr was of also supportive of the reformation like Anne Boleyn and published several books. Henry aappointed Katherine appointed regent when Henry went away to battle with France (again). During her brief regency, she essentially ran the Kingdom as the de facto ruler of England.
I’m sure Katherine Parr’s brief time as a Regent was an excellent example to set to future female rulers like her own step daughter, Elizabeth and other women who rose to prominence in future reigns eg Bess of Hardwick.
Jane Seymour and Katherine Howard died too soon to influence anything so we shall never know. However, as little as we know about them, none of it paints a picture of compliant shadow women.
The professor is essentially promoting her own academic work on Queen Consorts through history. The comparison she makes is deeply flawed but she’s simply using Kate’s name as a way to promote her work to a wider audience than a strictly academic one.
I will have respect for Carol when she spends just as much, or more time with pippa and James when they have families. Otherwise, we will know that she is a status hunter of the highest degree and she is the stabilizing factor in Kate’s marriage. If she does it for one child, she should do it for all her children.
I second that!
The other children might not need it.
I agree and to add to what FLORC said – Kate’s siblings are much more independent than Kate ever was and is. She has always been needy and clingy. You can see it in the way that she is with Willy – she’s always trying to please him. He is the centre of her world.
Bingo.
I do not doubt your assessment. I’ve often felt her family were like a shield and the term “close knit ” was used to cover some sort of social or emotional impediment. She is extraordinarily bizarre and useless aside from her ovaries. The only acceptable explanation of what she represents is if she were created in a lab. One can only hope for the sake of sanity and the future of the monarchy, their lives behind closed doors are completely opposite from what they present and not at all robotic. I try to be an optimist!
I absolutely agree. Kate has moulded herself completely into a passive, compliant, ‘don’t rock the boat’ wife. That has been her gameplan from the start, and every calculated move she makes is designed to either draw on positive Diana memories (ring, dressing Big G in retro William clothes, the pram) or balance it off by reassuring the RF that she is not a threat (conservative clothes, not getting involved with anything borderline controversial charity wise). It will backfire because she won’t work, end of story. Same for William, who was the golden child everyone wanted to skip Charles for. Suddenly that doesn’t look like a good move, even if it had been credible.
Oh for chrissakes. “Cultural influences” no longer need to be imported on the backs of some royal’s wife. Welcome to a global society, misogynistic professor from Oxford. People travel nowadays, you idiot. We have the Internet, we have same time communication and information sharing. We’ve come a long was since books were hand copied by nuns in the 1500’s. We have no idea what Kate’s ‘contributions’ will or won’t be. She’s young, she seems pretty smart, and if she does nothing but raise two well adjusted kids and represent the British people well, so be it. Not everyone has to be Joan of freakin’ Arc. But to judge what she will or won’t do in her life, at this relatively young age, is so stupid. And so like a male Oxford professor.
The Oxford professor is female.
IMO, Kate Middleton isn’t representing the British people well, nor is her husband.
KM doesn’t seem pretty smart to me. Faberge egg comment, “Can you test the smell by smelling it?”, inability to figure out how to weight her hems, generally tone deaf, etc.
Have you done research into other royal houses? In the Netherlands, Maxima was a international banking executive who spoke 5 languages when she married her prince. Mathilde had her own speech therapy practice before she married Philippe of Belgium when she was 26. Letizia was named top newscaster under 30 in Spain, and reported from Iraq and Ground Zero. They accomplished these things before they married their princes when they were younger than Middleton is now.
How much longer are we supposed to wait for Kate Middleton to start doing anything other than going shopping or to the hairdresser?
Thank you ‘notasugarhere’ – you’ve summed up Kate’s shortcomings and lack of suitability for the position very well.
Tracy: I suppose you missed the cultural influence of Diana?
How about Jackie O?
‘cultural influences’ isn’t solely intellectual pursuits.
Tracy
The article States the professor’s name is Helen. And uses pronouns to describe her like “she”.
Even if the professor was male the points made shouldn’t be dismissed because of their gender.
She’s a female professor.
Oh for gosh sakes, leave the girl alone. So what if she is not a brainiac out to save the world? So what if she is middle class? WTF is wrong with that anyway?
Maybe Kate is miles behind all the other royals, but she is who she is and like most everyone else in this world, she is doing the very best she can with what she has.
As long as she loves her kids and nurtures them to her best, does it really matter if she is not saving the whales?
Marrying into the royal family doesn’t mean saving the whales. We’ll leave that to Greenpeace and other worthy organizations. What marrying into the royal family does mean is that you WORK for your country, your people AND the grandiose lifestyle you live thanks to your constituents. You don’t hive off from showing your dedication to your country and people as Kate AND William have done on numerous occasions. They both do the least amount of public service and charitable work of anyone else in the royal family. She’s not doing the very best she can, otherwise she’d match or exceed what the other royals seem capable of doing despite having children, and the rigors of old age and infirmity. However she chooses to go to sports or celebrity events and ignores almost everything else other than re-doing several FREE homes at the taxpayer’s expense, gladly takes Charles’s financial handouts and does absolutely the minimum amount of work for it.
I’ve lost track with all the royal threads. Thanks for all the royal posts, Kaiser! I know there were some book recommendations along the way but I missed a few. Two I remember were:
Battle of Britain Myth and Reality by Richard Overy
D. V. by Diana Vreeland
I’ve just started
Eighty Days: Nellie Bly and Elizabeth Bisland’s History-Making Race Around the World by Matthew Goodman
Any more reading suggestions?
Hmmm…so I just found out that I’m (very distantly) related to the queen on her mother’s side. I guess that makes Prince William my younger cousin, so I can totally boss him around without feeling guilty, yay! I’m booking my plane ticket over there now, to give him what-for. 🙂
(I always knew when my dad called me Daddy’s Little Princess that he was being truthful, lol!)
Lol!
And Awwww!
How come in the news we never hear any comparison of Kate to Elizabeth Woodville?
I think once they become the actually next in line to the crown, things will change. And the Middletons will get that title!
Kate willfully refuses to do any work. She has all the resources she can get her hands on, the media attention, the (still present) public goodwill…and she’s wasting it all because she’s vapid, empty, and obviously has no other interests besides living a life of laziness.
She cannot be compared to others, except to other lazy women. You can’t say she’s a throwback from the 1500s, because life back then was so much more difficult and even rich wives had a lot of responsibilities than just pampering themselves.
You also can’t say that she’s a Victorian housewife, because Victorian housewives ran their own houses, not left it to their meddlesome mothers. Rich Victorian wives had the responsibility of being a great hostess and entertainer, even if if was for their husbands’ sake. They had to be well-read, educated, eloquent, diplomatic, and charming. They also took up charitable efforts regularly.
None of this applies to Kate, except being rich.
Really, Kate is not a “woman of the era” kind. She’s the totally uninspired and equally uninspiring kind. And I think she knows it. And I think she doesn’t care. She’s quite frustrating that way, because she can do better but she just chooses not to do so. She’s perfectly happy being vacuous and inane with no clear sign of wanting to improve. So she’ll continue barely meeting the minimum, and the bar will be set even lower that in 5 years when she manages to not touch her hair 5x in one minute, her sycophants will foam at the mouth and say what a hardworking princess she is because touching your hair takes a lot of time and preparation.
The continuous infantilization of this woman baffles me. It’s like people are offended at the idea that she can actually do some work AND be a mother at the same time, or that she can never multitask. So she can shop or go on vacation, but she can’t work? It’s only one or the other? So she can go to fancy parties but a once-a-month visit to a charity takes days and dozens of people to pull off?!!!
Do her “fans” really think she’s so fragile and vulnerable that she must be protected and indulged at all costs? That is how she has been treated her whole life: her mother has coddled her to the point where she doesn’t care about anything else except for her vanity and superficial needs. She has no friends. No hobbies. No outside interests.
She has not traveled anywhere except vacation spots. She is not well-spoken. She is not well-read (hello, her various moments of inanity in the last 4 years can attest to this). She is not charismatic. She is not charming. She does not appear cultured or wanting to learn other cultures. She is an Art major who doesn’t even know Faberge eggs are no longer being produced.
She is not defined by her own merit and accomplishments but by other people/things. When she was William’s GF, she was defined by William, her laziness, her “waity” status. When she got engaged, she was defined by William, Diana’s ring, and her extreme thinness. When she got married, she was defined by William, Diana’s ring, her wedding dress, her thinness, her hair. When she was a new princess, she was defined by all the previous ones, and also by her thick eyeliner. Now she’s a mother, she’s defined by her children, William, Diana’s ring, her clothes, her thinness, her eyeliner, her hair.
Where is Kate in all of those? What has she accomplished on her own? She has no career. No skill or field she excelled in before getting married. Now she’s a mother, people actually defend her ability to give birth as if motherhood has crippled Kate, and that motherhood has now become a burden for her that her kids must always come first and she can’t do anything else.
Does anyone else see the disturbing narrative that some people are willing to adopt to justify Kate’s laziness?!!!! Now they’re using her kids as an excuse at to why Kate is lazy, never mind the fact that she was already lazy before getting pregnant. Now, according to the sycophants, her children are apparently the reason why Kate is being held back from being productive and developing a work ethic. What a crock of sh*t.
Bravo! I wish I could copy & paste this response every time someone defends Kate or praises her as if she’s done something special by marrying and having kids.
Ok, but what do you REALLY think about her? 😉
William picked her, though. That is what he wanted in a wife.
In terms of what kind of wife she is she is no different than most other rich socialite wives of today. Yes, vapid, but again, William knew it when he married her.
Being lazy is not a crime, there are plenty of lazy people.
Is the anger directed towards the fact that the public had no say in the choice of her, and she is a disappointment and can’t be removed? Well, that is what monarchy is about, isn’t it? It is not democratic and there is no accountability.
I just can’t wrap my mind around the fact that for the royal family being a wife is not just a family status but also a job. It is sort of like the First Lady in the US. And I never agreed with the First Lady phenomenon either.
People marry who they marry, who they want to live with, who they are comfortable at home. Their jobs should be a completely separate thing from personal life.
There is accountability for poor performance in a royal role. See Edward VIII.
I don’t think people are really angry at her. I think a lot of people just find her boring. That’s not a crime either, but she takes up space on magazine covers that could probably be given to someone else….like her son George!
EN: that speaaks to your poor understanding of what a royal wife is.
I suggest a study on the history of royal consorts throughout the centuries. Not just England, but worldwide.
Royal Consorts have always had a job. Bearing children was part of it, but that wasn’t their only function. They had to have the education and work ethic to be regents if it was necessary and some of them actually stepped up to that role magnificently eg Isabella of France (wife of Edward 2), Katherine of Aragon and Katherine Parr (wives of Henry 8), Catherine Medici (wife of Henri 2 of France), Catherine the Great of Russia. More recently The Queen Mother wife of George 6, Diana of Wales (wife of Prince Charles). To name a few. My favourite royal consort of all is Eleanor of Acquitaine (wife of Henry 2)
Royal wives have always had much, more freedom than the average woman because they are expected to be upto the task of taking on govt.
This insistence that they are only broodmares is a re-writing of recent history and is only true if you go back to the 11the century.
The irony of Kate’s wish to only be a brood mare is that she keeps invoking Diana in her PR shenanigans a woman who railed against being only a brood mare!!!
Isabella of France and Eleanor of Acquitaine were so awesome, I just can’t. Have always admired them grately!
> EN: that speaaks to your poor understanding of what a royal wife is.
I suggest a study on the history of royal consorts throughout the centuries. Not just England, but worldwide.
You wound me, I dare say I know European history quite well.
The difference is that the past royal wives where the wives or real rulers or rulers themselves. Of course they had to be able to rule and exert influence and negotiate etc.
Today’s monarchs are just figureheads. They have no power. If they disappeared tomorrow the world would go on just fine. And that is what needs to happen in reality, they need to disappear. The less they do the better.
If Kate were an MP or a Congresswoman then I would’ve had an issue with her. But she is just a ceremonial doll.
EN
The monarchy has power. It’s just not flaunted. That is how they can remain ceremonial figures and still receive all they wish.
If nothing else (IMO) they have a position of power unlike any other in the world. They need only to announce something and improvements could be made immediately. Apathy is their biggest crime. To be able to do something that would matter and would impact, but not to because you just can’t be bothered. And not because you have something better to do.
This is so gross and condescending. It’s not like she’s from an “exotic” county and has anything to “introduce to the court”. Like sure, maybe she could support an arts charity or something. But what is she actually supposed to be doing?
Diana was English but was quite influential in many ways.
She is supposed to visit charities and art projects and exhibitions and say a few nice things in recognition of the people working there often for low money or no money at all. She is supposed to highlight art things and help charities to do some good pr by simply appearing there.
She doesn’t do anything at all and she doesn’t even try and that is a problem because technically she doesn’t work for the money which is spent on her by the taxpayer via Prince Charles duchy finances.
emma
To support the charities she patrons. To bring awareness and fundraising to them. Why patron a charity is they only see you once a year for minutes and most of that is for PR pictures?
And to do this all she would need to do is give up a few hours every month while her team takes care of all the details. She just has to show up. And by hours a month I’m talking like 3.
Why aren’t other royals nitpicked like this. Like, you write about Charlotte. What does she do? What does she contribute? What do the Swedish princesses contribute? WTF WHO CARES IF SHE’S BORING???!!
Crown Princess Victoria and her husband Prince Daniel do quite a lot. Princess Madeleine does royal engagements in addition to working for her mother’s anti-sex trafficking charity, The World Childhood Foundation.
Seeing as you are shouting, I suppose you do?
Sure seems that way.
I still stand by the notion that there is a plan in place–a lifetime plan–and that this portion of their life as early years of marriage and having babies is following this plan.
And I think she’ll surprise you in the long run.
That would make me happy. I haven’t lost all hope yet!
Yeah, it’s too hard on the little brains of women aka the more fragile sex to expect them to make one 45-minute charity visit per week when they should be spending their time at home making babies and taking care of them. If women do go out, then it should be to hair salons, clothes-shopping, going to fun stuff, because these things won’t tax a woman’s brain and body too much.
Other european princesses and queens manage a fair amount of work despite having between 1 to 4 children.
Queen Maxima has 3 daughters and has used her previous education and work experience in her role – she has worked with the UN on finances in developing countries for quite some time and she has one been a queen for about a year.
CP Mary has several patronages, her own foundation that works with issues of bullying and domestic violence – and she has been very involved with the foundation from the start. She also works with the UN on women’s health and domestic violence in developing countries. She has 4 children (and the twins are still quite young). These women didn’t take years off just because their children were infants and toddlers.
I really really hate the argument that women shouldn’t work when the children are young. Firstly, because it implies that a woman’s primary function is to be a mother. Secondly, because most women have to work due to financial reasons. Thirdly, this argument implies that children will somehow be “damaged” if their mothers aren’t home with them. Well, in my country it is extremely rare for women to stay out of the workplace to raise their children at home and being in daycare doesn’t hurt the children at all – in fact, it teaches them to behave among other people. Children are damaged from traumatic events and dysfunctional families, not from being in day-care because mummy has a job!
Maybe William doesn’t want Kate to be running around doing much. Maybe he connects all of that to his family falling apart and his mother’s premature death. i don’t know, just a thought. But it would be nice if she used her influence on something meaningful. Maybe that is yet to happen.
In 21th Centuary being just a breeding machine, with not much interest in other things, is really sad, specially when Kate has position and means to actually DO something.
A woman so coddled is never going to have a ‘come to jesus’ moment unless she’s threatened.
The only time she was threatened was when William dumped her in 2007. She worked very hard to get him back.
Apart from being a brood mare, that 2007 media tour is the only work she’s ever done.
“To whom much is given, much will be required.” When you are blessed with a life of ease, is it not satisfying to try to help others attain some sort of comfort? How do you start teaching your child to be king, if not to bring him to places where the need is great and help develop programs for kids that don’t have the silver spoon? If anything, you have a wonderful platform to make great change for millions of people. What a shame to waste it on hair appointments and shopping, and be known for your clothes and hair instead of your good works.
Kate has zero interest in art or art projects. She only took Art History because she or ma chavelli found out it was Willies major at St. Andrews.