Duchess Kate had the fewest public events of the ‘working royals’ in 2015


As predicted, the Duchess of Cambridge had the fewest number of royal events for 2015. The 2015 tally came out a few days ago, and of course Kate was the least-working member of the limited “working royals,” which consist of Charles, Camilla, the Queen, Philip, Anne, Kate, William and Harry. Out of that group, guess who had the most events in 2015? No, not the Queen, although Ol’ Liz did work one’s royal bum off, so much so that her tally is more than Will, Kate and Harry’s tallies combined. No, the most-active royals were Anne, the Princess Royal, and the Prince of Wales, in that order. Anne did 456 engagements in 2015!! My God. The Princess Royal is such a workhorse.

She is almost three times their age, but the Queen put the younger generation of the Royal family to shame last year by carrying out more engagements than the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry combined. The Queen, who will be 90 in April, carried out 306 engagements in the UK and 35 abroad in 2015. In contrast, the Duke and Duchess and Prince Harry managed only 198 engagements between them in the UK and 94 abroad. The Duke of Edinburgh, who will be 95 this year, managed 217 engagements at home and 33 abroad.

The Duchess of Cambridge spent much of the year on maternity leave after the birth of Princess Charlotte in May, and did not travel overseas. Prince William, meanwhile, started a new job as an air ambulance pilot and Prince Harry was a full-time Army officer until June, when he ended his active military career and took a sabbatical in Africa, where he spent the summer working alongside conservation experts.

The Prince of Wales also outdid his children, undertaking 380 engagements at home and 147 abroad. But even his busy schedule could not match that of his sister, the Princess Royal, who carried out 456 engagements in the UK and 88 overseas, living up to her reputation as the hardest-working member of the Royal family.

Of the younger generation, Prince William, 33, was the busiest, carrying out 87 engagements in the UK and 35 abroad, with Prince Harry, 31, notching up 49 at home and 59 abroad and the Duchess of Cambridge, 33, appearing 62 times, all in the UK.

[From The Telegraph]

I know what the Kate-apologists will say: she was gestating a baby and she earned the right to take some time off for a maternity leave. Sure. Fair enough. But a few minor points… Kate’s second pregnancy was a lot easier than her first, and she proved that she was perfectly capable of working far into her pregnancy. As for her maternity leave… it was only invoked when she didn’t want to do work for charities, not when she wanted to get her hair done, or go to Wimbledon, or flirt with Ben Ainslie. I’d also like to point out that if Kate gets to use her pregnancy as an excuse for the paltry 62 events, why can’t we say that Philip is 94 years old, in ill health, in and out of doctor’s offices and hospitalizations and yet he was able to do 250 events?

I will give Kate some minor credit for one thing though – I thought for sure that she and William would manage to take some kind of emergency vacation in the fall, but they didn’t. That’s how low the bar has been set: we’re praising them for not going on vacation. Speaking of, Pippa and James Middleton are on holiday in Antigua right now (photos below). What do you want to bet that Will and Kate manage a short emergency holiday this month?



Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet and Pacific Coast News.

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

273 Responses to “Duchess Kate had the fewest public events of the ‘working royals’ in 2015”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Jaana says:

    Kate is extremely dull and history won’t remember her.

    • Priya says:

      I don’t think that’s entirely true. She’s reserved (and she has to be because William and the other Royals would just criticize her to pieces otherwise), and all she needs to do is help raise her children, continue to do her charity work (I like her causes, frankly), and remain a lovely person.

      I’m okay with that. It will be a long time before she’s allowed to be herself.

      • LAK says:

        All she has to be is good mannered and not embarrass the family.

        Being good mannered/not embarrassing the family is not the same thing as hiding your (missing) personality.

        Raising the kids isn’t as any more challenging for her than the rest of the population.

        At any rate, nannies are doing most of that work, and soon the children will be shipped off to boarding school, just like the parents.

        As for charity work, what charity work? Seriously?

        Jaana is right. Unless something changes, Kate will be as forgotten as many, equally dull consorts. She’ll simply show up on a list of consorts, nothing more.

      • anne_000 says:

        What was her excuse pre-marriage?

        Considering she’s been like this all her adult life, I’d say this was pretty much herself.

      • Larissa says:

        She has only done things she wants to do. So in that respect she has been herself her entire adult life, now it’s time for her to mature up and become a full time working royal.

        She only has atteneded one christmas eve with the royals, because she rather spends it with her family, whom she seems very often anyways. Diana understood this, Sarah understands this. Even Sarah still isn’t able to spend christmas with her children.

      • Larissa says:

        Excactly Anne!

        Kate didn’t do any charity work or voluntary work before her marriage. She partied, went shopping and to the gym. She had to be available for Wiliam 24/7.

        She has been pampered by her family her entire life. She has only done what she wants to do and still she gets away with it.

        That woman is idle and she has no sense of duty whatsoever.

      • seesittellsit says:

        @Anne_000 – totally agree. This IS who Kate is.

      • wow says:

        If you’re not living in their household then you can’t know for certain the amount of time the nanny or Kate spends with her children. It’s strange how people can state stuff like that as if they are there with Kate, the nanny and those kids.

      • notasugarhere says:

        People can see for themselves the evidence on social media of her out shopping frequently, and she’s without the kids. Her working out with her personal trainer. The nanny out solo with the kids. It isn’t made up, it is based on evidence.

    • OhDear says:

      I don’t think she cares if she’s remembered or not. I think she just wants to live an easy life.

      • C says:

        You’re 100% right

      • maggie says:

        Don’t we all?

      • FLORC says:

        No. Some of us thrive in surroundings that challenge us. We do not like to settle and look to achieve better for ourselves.

        Now speaking specifically to Kate she married into a job that she is paid well for and then some. She needs to do her job. If she wants an easy and quiet life she can start refusing the perks that come with her job and not part of her marriage to William. She could still live comfortably.

      • maggie says:

        She’s got two small children at home Florc and just maybe she wants to be more hands on.

      • FLORC says:

        We know she leaves them with the nanny for shopping trips, workouts, sports, vacations, and general fun stuff. It’s only brought up to avoid work. So, “hands on” only applies when she doesn’t want to work. She appears perfectly at ease with not working and being at home. So, stop receiving benefits that come with your job and all is well. How is that wrong? They could still all be comfortable.

      • maggie says:

        So you’re saying she looks after her kids to avoid work? Being a mother is work. In fact it’s the most important job there is. Why would she not be at ease with looking after her own kids? Why would she want to be away from them? Why would anyone want someone else raising their children if they can raise them themselves? She gave up her privacy to marry her prince and if it comes with a few perks or benefits it seems like a fair trade to me.

      • FLORC says:

        You’re twisting words to avoid a direct debate
        Yes, being a mother is hard work. And Yes this point of raising her kids is only brought up when it comes to her charity work and royal duties. And Yes Kate leaves easily for fun things but almost never for her job as a senior royal.
        It’s William that does the privacy shut down. Never has it been Kate. She’s invited the press in and so has her family. She’s comfortable with it. William is another story.

        Facts are she avoids her royal duties and makes loads of time to play. Even if that means leaving her children for lengths. However an hour charity function is almost impossible because sshe has kids. And mothers cannot multitask or work without risking their children unable to bond with them.

        She takes the perks of marriage and the perks of senior royal full time. Without clocking in the work. Simple.
        To defend her she must be reduced to a child unable to have more than 1 thing on her plate.

    • CeeBee says:

      Isn’t the entire Royal Family an antiquated, DULL footnote?

  2. Amelia says:

    In other breaking news, water is wet and the Pope is Catholic.
    I don’t suppose this is a huge surprise to anybody, but for an octogenarian to do more work than 3 strapping thirty-somethings combined – that’s pretty atrocious.

    • LAK says:

      I wish the media didn’t lump Harry with the two lazy twits. Most of his work is categorised as private, charity or volunteering. Unless the twits need to UP their numbers in which case they gatecrash Harry’s events and add that to their tally whilst Harry doesn’t receive the same boost.

      The twits were credited for Charlotte’s birth FGS!!!!!!

      And if you look at the royal foundation website that carries their private, charity, volunteering efforts, Harry carries that too.

      End of year reports should really be credited to Harry, but they are credited to all 3.

      No wonder twit no 2 said she ‘worked’ in her one and only long form speech despite no evidence of any work.

      • HH says:

        @LAK – Yes. Lumping Harry in with the 2 is just nonsense. Especially when they are attempting to make comparisons to Harry’s full time job and Williams air ambulance job, which we have little evidence of. Additionally, Harry’s work in Africa was private work as you said. I’m sure he was having a good time, but it wasn’t all play and no work.

      • Liberty says:

        Not even subtracting for Billy’s toast breaks with the Middletons (which probably count as listening to the common masses) or vacays in the sun…..I still think it’s evident that Harry is doing more for BF goodwill and people/causes in general……

        Meanwhile, GO ANNE. Good for her. Getting it done.

      • Liberty says:

        LAK, I agree — they had to wedge the two Royal Ragdolls in with Harry to get the count anywhere near a non-shaming number. Then, to wag a finger at Harry anyway along with Billy and Kitty — just sheer nonsense. But i imagine a few of the little royal grey men are still busy telling media to be careful about talking about Billy. A friend I see in Chelsea told me a an amazing tale over the holidays.

      • antipodean says:

        Oh Liberty, don’t leave us all on tenterhooks! What does your “friend in Chelsea” have to say? Spill, spill!

      • LAK says:

        Absolutely Liberty.

        That’s why the last few months’s worth of praising Kate articles have been amazing. Under the guise of talking about Kate, they’ve been saying many negative things about William.

        Not simply ‘William did this’, but using negative adjectives repeatedly in the same sentence whilst talking about him.

      • Azurea says:

        Yes, Liberty, free us from our propagandized view!

      • suze says:

        Liberty, get back here and tell us! I command it!!! LOL

  3. suze says:

    My bar set so low that I am impressed that there was no Mustique break for the Cambridges this year. They worked right through it! Or maybe it was Michael Middleton’s proposed absence that cause the cancellation?

    On another note, what on earth is James Middleton wearing? A Nehru jacket? And who is watching BOOMF?

    Inquiring minds need answers.

    • COSquared says:

      I wonder who were they waving at? Also it’s amazing how the these poor signet ring-wearing darlings get papped to ONLY the Fail…*whistles*

    • MinnFinn says:

      And who is the woman with the orange tote standing next to James?

      I think the amount of time James and Pippa spend together is odd in that they are flatmates + they do sports competitions together + they vacay together.

      • suze says:

        I find the Middleton family to be strangely close. Oddly together.

        There are people who consider it terrific – a shining example of a warm, strong, middle-class bond. I know of very few brothers and sisters who live together and vacation together in their thirties.

      • Jib says:

        Really, I’m a middle class person and I know of only one family who is like this, and they had an abusive, alcoholic father and depended on each other for survival. It’s unhealthy.

      • antipodean says:

        @MinnFinn, I think that woman is his latest squeeze Donna Air, a love for the centuries, NOT. That stuff on his face gives me the skeeves!

      • Betti says:

        Also they could be close as their parents i.e. their mother, gave too much attention to one sibling. Have seen this happen so many times. Its usually the eldest sibling that get all the parental attention and the others all left to fend for themselves and as a results become close.

        Re: the woman with the orange bag, its James GF, Donna Air aka Carole Mark 2. She’s another from humble working class beginnings who worked her way up the social ladder throu a long term relationship with Damian Aspinal.

      • Olenna says:

        Here’s a pic of Donna Air. I think the woman in the photo with the Birkin bag is traveling alone or with another party. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/fabulous/5053283/donna-air-james-middleton-puppy.html

      • Hazel says:

        The woman with the orange bag is not Donna Air, DA is super skinny & this woman is more of a normal weight.

    • Jib says:

      Don’t forget her numbers include leaving the hospital and the Christening? And how do we know they didn’t get away? And where did Kate get certified for SCUBA? She had time for that, but not much else.

    • anne_000 says:

      Wasn’t it only within a couple of weeks ago that James did a DM interview proclaiming how he’s not the business failure the public think he is and how he works hard, all day and into the night and that he’s the one to make sure the marshmallows get shipped?

      So now he’s getting DM coverage for going on his umpteenth vacation of the year. If he was smart, he would have waited at least a couple of months just to let the ‘serious and dedicated businessman’ percolate a bit more.

    • Tania says:

      James looks like a Walmart greeter in that blue vest. Lol

    • aurelia says:

      And where does James even get the money to afford his island holiday? I’m sure he is dead broke again. Must be bludging off his parents again. Or pippa.

    • notasugarhere says:

      suze, there may have been a secret Mustique trip about 2 months post the second birth. We never found out when she did those diving certifications.

  4. NewWester says:

    Where do Prince Andrew and Prince Edward rank in terms of being a “working Royal” ? I have noticed Edward out and about more than Andrew for sure

    • suze says:

      Here are the 2015 totals for each of the fifteen working royals. Notice how many engagements are covered by people you wouldn’t know if they bit you, and how few engagements are covered by the glamorous and high profile trio. I do not know if Harry’s Sentebale and Warrior Games are included in these totals.

      Her Majesty The Queen 393
      HRH The Duke of Edinburgh 273
      HRH The Prince of Wales 533
      HRH The Duchess of Cornwall 224
      HRH The Duke of Cambridge 143
      HRH The Duchess of Cambridge 91
      HRH Prince Henry of Wales 94
      HRH The Duke of York 367
      HRH The Earl of Wessex 426
      HRH The Countess of Wessex 307
      HRH The Princess Royal 528
      HRH The Duke of Gloucester 280
      HRH The Duchess of Gloucester 132
      HRH The Duke of Kent 206
      HRH Princess Alexandra 83


      • Larissa says:

        Sentebale, Waling with the warrriors and Invictus games are not counted in the court circular, these are considered to be private engagments.

        If those were counted in Harry’s numbers, he would have the hightest numbers of everyone. Harry the spare is not allowed to triumph over William the heir, therefore everything Harry does is reduced and William’s numbers are increased in one way or other.

      • Boston Green Eyes says:

        I’m surprised that the Princess Royal was so far down the list. It used to be that she would carry the a Royal Family with all of her work.

        ETA. Oops! She DOES carry the RF! I thought the list was highest to lowest. Ugh. Time to wake up!

      • suze says:

        Boston Green – she has the second highest total with 528 events. The number of events is listed after the name.

        The list isn’t in any particular order.

      • Prairiegirl says:

        @ suze: the list is in order of precedence within the Royal Family.

      • suze says:

        @prairiegirl – Who outranks who in that bunch is a bit murky to me. I’m pretty sure in pure “precedence” it goes Queen, Prince Charles and Normal Bill as one, two, three. I think the list adds the married-ins with their partners so the precedence stuff is out of order.

      • anne_000 says:

        Notice that the senior citizens who will never be near the throne in terms of succession (Gloucester, Kent, P. Alexandra) either do more or at least keep working more consistently than W&K every year.

      • Larissa says:

        I agree Anne!

        But the excuse Kate’s fans always give is that she is married only to the heir of heir. But they never explain why senior citizens very down the succession line work so hard. They aren’t even awarded financially. The Duke of Kent has had to sell most of his inherited jewels. For example this year.

        The Cambridges use and get the most money, but work the least.

      • COSquared says:

        ^Anne: Yet the apologists cry that Billy isn’t 1st. If you follow this logic, the Kents,Gloucesters and Wessexes should be spending 99% of the year moving from island to ski chalet. I really don’t understand apologist logic.

      • Daisy says:

        Camilla has been suffering with sciatica (I think?) and back problems for a while, and still racked up 224 engagements. Methinks Kate needs to step up.

        Suze, you’re right: when married-ins appear with their partners, they take precedence with their partner. When they’re alone, they take their own precedence. I guess this applies to print as well as in person.

      • Liberty says:

        Larissa, yes x1000: “If those were counted in Harry’s numbers, he would have the hightest numbers of everyone. Harry the spare is not allowed to triumph over William the heir…”

        It’s rather obvious, the things that count for Billy and Kitty, and the things not counted for Harry.

        Frankly, the fact that H goes on resolutely and cheerfully working hard and being warm and not visibly giving a fig about the palace gnomes’ random attempts to reduce his independent efforts makes Harry look even more like King/leader material if the BRF is to continue. I’m almost paying more attention now due to this.

      • crtb says:

        who cares? Let them live their lives as they wish.

      • notasugarhere says:

        If they paid for their own lives, they could do that. Instead, they are supported by the taxpayers and the Duchy (also the taxpayers) in order to perform their royal roles. If they do not want to do that, they are welcome to give it all back and live on William’s $10 million inheritance.

      • Sam says:

        Wow the Wessexes! Over 730+ engagements between the two of them, nearly equaling Charles and Camilla in workload. And with two young children at home and a fraction of the support staff. Thanks for posting these year-end tallies, they paint a truthful picture.

    • LAK says:

      Andrew’s engagements are of the business and commerce variety. Lots of young entrepreneurs, especially to do with the internet.

      He does traditional public engagements, but those tend to be military type ones.

      He uses his social media really well to promote his endevours. KP could learn a thing or two.

      Unfortunately, due to his questionable private life, his public life is often overlooked.

      • Liberty says:

        I thought some of his public stuff is overlooked because of his tendency to spend a fortune helicoptering in to his events?

      • Azurea says:

        Why unfortunate? The dude hangs with child molesters, and participates in the activities. Why is this information not reported by the press? (That’s a rhetorical question.)

      • LAK says:

        Azurea: Unfortunate because it *does* overshadow the good that he does.

        I’m not saying he is being wrongly blamed or that he is a saint, just pointing out that the reporting on his private life has overshadowed the reporting on his public life. Some of his initiatives are very good, but they can’t be received positively due to the questionable private life.

        His current private/public life predicament is like Camilla’s private/public life predicament circa ten years ago.

        Charles mounted a long term strategy to change public perception of her despite the facts of their relationship. If she was still viewed in the same way as she was viewed ten years ago, her initiatives eg the rape kits, would not be looked upon favourably by the public.

        That is what I’m saying with Andrew.

        Your response to my comment is precisely what I am talking about vis a vis Andrew.

        Did you know that he runs an initiative that brings together young entrepreneurs in the technology industry with business and business leaders? He is very dedicated with it and is very proactive. He promotes it on his social media and occasionally media reports on it without talking about his private life.

        Ditto any royal duties he undertakes to extent that people never realise that he has engagements until these end of year numbers come out.

        Imagine how much more effective his platform would be if his private life wasn’t so questionable.

  5. Sixer says:

    Katie Bucket’s feeble engagement count is as nothing compared to the sheer glory of royal knocking to be found at #cleanforthequeen. I am participating with glee and wild abandon.

    • ncboudicca says:

      Oh my God, this is a real thing? I mean, it’s a good idea to eliminate litter, but it comes across so patronizing.

      “Be a good little peasant now…” Yikes.

      • Sixer says:

        It’s the government thinking invoking Her Maj will hide local authority austerity cuts. Instead it released a wave of republicanism via swearing!!

    • lilacflowers says:

      Thanks for brightening my morning. Those tweets are hilarious.

  6. MinnFinn says:

    I bet K&W did take a Fall vacay but managed it under the radar. Litigating and threatening media and the public for 4+ years now is working. Even a few years ago their Maldives babymoon was almost under the radar. IIRC no photos ever surfaced, just a few Twitter sightings.

    • Liberty says:

      I think you would find you are correct.

    • Natalie says:

      I agree. I think they regularly take off and we just don’t hear about it William has definitely been back to Africa at some point in the last 5 years but we don’t know when.

  7. COSquared says:

    Very Much A Kid on Tumblr had a good archive on the tallies of WKH. Mr. Co-Pilot worked 62 days of 365, Ginger Beard on 85 days with the Normal Mother working 42 days. On that same final tally, notice how Bill had 8 unofficial and H with 36 unofficial.

  8. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    I’m not surprised, but I’ll never understand it. I would revel in the opportunities she has to help other people and educate herself about anything she wants. She has the world at her fingertips, and she’s just not interested.

    • Melly says:

      That’s the most frustrating thing. So much opportunity to do good, but instead she does nothing of substance. I hate lazy, no matter your socioeconomic class.

    • perplexed says:

      I don’t get it either.

    • rosiek says:

      She simply has no sense of duty.

    • HH says:

      “She has the world at her fingertips, and she’s just not interested.” >>>>> NAILED IT. Nothing sums up my annoyance with her more. The clothes, the hair, the fly-ups, etc. just add to the issue. She’s just so privileged and squander all opportunI ties except shopping.

    • Beatrice says:

      I get it–she’s lazy, indifferent, and entitled. A bad combination for a future Queen. Duchess Dolittle and Normal Bill want all the perks and none of the responsibilities. I think these two will spell the end of the monarchy which may be their long game. Then they can swan around on permanent vacay like the Duke and Duchess of Windsor with lots of cash and no responsibility. For all her faults and personal demons, Diana used her position to help people and causes.

      • laura says:

        I did wonder this myself re the state of the monarchy as and when William comes to the throne, whenever that may be. As a British person I’m kinda indifferent to the monarchy but I appreciate that a lot of the royals work hard. But these two? I’d be pissed if they were still giving royal duties a half-arsed try by the time he becomes king

      • Liberty says:

        Sometimes it feels like W is trying to end the monarchy in a petulant long game of “you were mean to my mom and I hate everyone” whilst not being bright enough to foresee this would cause the loss of his own fortune and houses (though maybe he’ll award himself a pile before shutting the corp down, or assumes he’ll just move in with the Middletons)….while Harry’s natural tendency to work hard and give is accidentally thwarting W at every turn.

        It’s like a strange fairy tale, or a Disney Tale of Two Princes sort of tween film. I wish J K Rowling were writing it at this point. The Hemsworths can star in it.

      • M.A.F. says:

        If they, to quote you @Beatrice “spell the end of the monarchy which may be their long game. Then they can swan around on permanent vacay like the Duke and Duchess of Windsor with lots of cash and no responsibility,” then there will be no cash flow. They would have to get jobs. No monarchy= no money. But if for some reason the monarchy does end (which I don’t see happening, remember they tried that once before) & they are still given money, how would that even work?

    • FLORC says:

      There’s no justification for apathy. This is her worst quality. It should not be valued. And yet people will trip over themselves to excuse her indifference.
      I just can’t make sense of it. Hair, makeup, weight, clothes, staff, private life can all be ignored. That she refuses to lift a finger to have a massive impact on helping others is shocking. It’s disgusting.

      Harry’s count is ofcourse low. Listing many of his work visits as having happened on his private time, but that is the way of the spare. Everyone else was fine.

      William… He rarely showed up to work, made a few gala visits, and… where was he the rest of the time? He’s laregly unaccounted for.

      • Original Kay says:

        You nailed it. There can be no justification for her apathy. She could do so much and does nothing.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        I think of people I know who work so hard for their causes – in their spare time from their jobs – and how much they would give to be able to gain the publicity in one year that she could bring in one day. It’s such a waste.

      • Jib says:

        When she married NormalBill, I had high hopes for them. They have been abysmal. Horrible. To have so much privilege given to them for no reason, without working for any of it, and to just do nothing or really very little to help the people of their country, is really immoral, in my view. Not silly, not annoying, but downright immoral.

      • hmmm says:

        Yes, Jib, it’s obscene.

  9. COSquared says:

    Every time she was papped in London, not AH, not working, apologists claimed she was merely letting her hair down. For people said to be holed up in the country, there was, just like the Anglesey days, a lot of in-London-but-not-working time.

  10. Larissa says:

    The sad part is that Harry probably works the most, but his engagements are counted as private and therefore not counted in the court circular.

    Last year when he helped to organize the invictus games, he only got 3 engagments in the court circular. It was widely accounted that he spent from early morning to late evening at the events during the invictus games and also was actively helping in the organizing. Last year William got 2 engamgent in the court circular for invictus games. He came to watch the games nothing else.

    Everything William and Kate do are counted as engagements. Charlotte’s birth was even counted as one engagment. The other royals do a lot, lot more than what is even counted in the court circular.

    I’ve read somewhere that Kate usually spends 45 minutes in an engagement, compared to Anne or Sophie, who usually spend 1,5 to 2 hours. The only time Kate exceded her stay was when she visited the Downton Abbey set.

    • aquarius64 says:

      How does giving birth to a successor to the throne count as an engagement?! That’s ridiculous.

      • Janis says:

        And how does the baby’s Christening count? It’s a private family occasion, not a public event! If I were Harry, I’d be livid but then he’s probably used to taking a backseat to his loser brother and his partner-in-sloth.

    • Tina says:

      I love Harry to death, but there’s no way he works more than Anne or Charles (or even Sophie). He definitely works the most of KWH though, the numbers are ridiculously manipulated.

  11. Kaiser says:

    Just a reminder: please don’t threadjack.

  12. Larissa says:

    Look how ill fitting her teal suit is. The waist is pracically in her armpits and it’s too big.
    Fashion icon my ass!

    • Melly says:

      Whoever calls that woman a fashion icon must be deaf, blind, and dumb. She is basic at best.

      • Priya says:

        I think she’s lovely. I love her clothes. I love her hats and coats. I’m not dumb nor am I blind. And I don’t get why you think a phrase the deaf can’t be good judges of style. Always good to be careful about antiquated, dismissive, and pretty rude phraseology when attempting to articulate even the harshest and most unkind thoughts, IMHO.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Priya

        She’s not saying the deaf can’t be good judges of style.

        She’s saying that whomever is saying Kate is a fashion icon isn’t listening to people who actually know what fashion icons are, isn’t watching or seeing properly, and isn’t qualified enough to those who know what fashion icons are about.

      • Original Kay says:

        Agree with Priya. That phrase is antiquated at best. Horrendously offensive at worst.

      • FLORC says:

        Original Kay
        Maybe it’s a bit of both.

  13. Aeryn39 says:

    I read that there are other official working Royals, including: Prince Andrew, Prince Edward, Sophie Countess of Wessex, Duke of Kent, Duke of Gloucester, Duchess of Gloucester, and Princess Alexandra. Their numbers respectively are (per the Mall and Express): 275, 354, 218, 202, 122, 145, 88. The Duke of Kent is 79 and had a stroke a couple years back, but keeps on working. His sister, Princess Alexandra is 79 and has had serious health issues as well, yet both are doing better than the youngsters. He is not an official working Royals, but I wouldn’t doubt Prince Michael of Kent would be higher than the youngsters either. I am a total Sophie and Princess Alexandra fan. Love their style and always re post their engagement pics on FB.

    • Aeryn39 says:

      Sorry, meant per the Daily Mail and Express (including domestic and overseas engagements).

    • anne_000 says:

      I read the elderly Duchess of Gloucester also had health issues, but she keeps on working too.

      • Caroline says:

        What Duchess of Gloucester do you mean? The current one must still only be in her sixties which I don’t think is particularly elderly and I have never heard of her having health issues. The previous Duchess of Gloucester, Princess Alice, must be dead for years. She was about the same age as the Queen Mother and lived to around the same age.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Birgitte, the Duchess of Gloucester is 69. Retirement age in the UK is 65. She is married to the 24th in line to the throne and she did 145 engagements last year. She and her husband have worked hard for Queen and country for decades. They should be allowed to slow down in retirement, but they cannot because the Jr Vice President keeps using all the company assets and refusing to work for the Family Firm.

        Princess Alexandra, age 79, has serious health issues. She is 49th in line to the throne and did 88 engagements in 2015.

        William is second in line to the throne. They are healthy 33-year-olds. There is absolutely no excuse for the two of them to work less than all the other royals who are further down the line of succession.

        All the other royal women raised kids AND worked more than KM while raising those kids. No, William is not supposed to have an outside part-time job. No, she isn’t allowed to be a full-time SAHM unless they give back every royal perk they’ve taken in the last five years.

  14. aquarius64 says:

    This is disgraceful especially since Kate is a future queen. She needs to get off her butt and get to work. Sorry, clothes that she wears that sell out do not count as royal work. I’m beginning to see why Kate does not have the family order from the queen; she hasn’t done anything to earn it. Giving birth to a future king and a heiress presumptive didn’t help. After the queen, I’m starting to like Sophie the Countess of Wessex more and more. She’s earned her order, her aquamarine tiara, and most importantly – the queen’s respect.

    • LAK says:

      Small correction: only the first born can be ‘heir/heiress presumptive’ irrespective of gender, all others are spares. At best, Charlotte is a Princess Royal presumptive.

      • spidey says:

        There is no such thing as Princess Royal Presumptive.

      • LAK says:

        Spidey: I know. I was making a point about which senior most title Charlotte is in line for. She’s definitely not in line for heir presumptive as previous commentor posted unless George is removed (by whatever means) from the line of succession or he never has children.

        Assuming William becomes monarch and Anne (current holder) is no longer with us, and Charlotte is still with us, then as the oldest daughter of the monarch, she will be Princess Royal. There are no other potential holders of the title.

    • anne_000 says:

      And when she does show up to work, it’s in clothes, accessories, shoes, etc. that cost from hundreds to thousands of dollars in total. It’s like they have to bribe her with expensive shopping trips just to get her to be seen publicly. And on top of that, she buys clothes that aren’t separate pieces that can be mix-and-matched to make new ensembles.

      • Jib says:

        AND, many of her clothes are bespoke, which means multiple fittings for each bespoke piece. In addition to her shopping, hair appointments, etc. she has fittings.

    • Caroline says:

      LAK – Princess Royal is not an automatic title although the monarch normally awards it to his/her eldest daughter if the title is vacant. It is then held to death. Anne did not become Princess Royal until 1987 when she was 37, even although the previous holder died in 1965. Nor is the Prince of Wales an automatic title. The Queen had been monarch for 6 years and Charles was nearly 10 when he was given the title in 1958. It was 11 years later in 1969 when he was 21 that the title was officially conferred upon him in Wales.

  15. perplexed says:

    Her hair looks odd in that top photo.

    • John P says:

      It’s because her natural hair is often supplemented with a wiglet apparently.
      And her eyeliner is tattooed on, which is why it always looks the same.

      • FLORC says:

        There’s no evidence it’s tattood on. And loads of evidence it’s not a tattoo. Let;s not ignore facts here please. Liquid eyeliner often looks similar because of ow thick it gets applied. You cannot remove a tattoo day to day. Nor changing from inside and outside the waterline.
        The Wiglet here is visible. It came at a time where her hair inflated greatly overnight.

  16. antipodean says:

    I always like how here at CB things can quite often go off at a tangent, and some really interesting and informative views are aired. I have to show my ignorance, I am afraid, and please put it down to being a technological nincompoop, but is that what is called threadjacking?
    I would really like to know.
    Katie Bucket and Bill Normal are really beyond saving now I think. Their lazy, privileged life style is obvious for all to see, and I don’t think, unless they make a mighty turn around, that the British public will put up with it quietly for much longer. I see pitchforks on the horizon.

    • anne_000 says:

      Threadjacking means to go off topic.

      • bluhare says:

        And to go off topic in sort of a non sequitur way. For example, me bringing up that my pets are adorable and do you want to know their latest antics — that’s threadjacking. Talking about jewels, tiaras and history isn’t as 9 times out of ten they talk about history and/or how something pertains to something else.

        But my pets are adorable. And they have adorable antics. 😀

      • FLORC says:

        At risk of Threadjacking I would love to know what you have for pets and their antics 😀

      • antipodean says:

        I thank for your kind attention, and may I be boiled in oil if I ever have the temerity to threadjack. Now I know the rules! And bluhare I am sure your pets and their attendant adorable antics could hold me in thrall for hours!

      • Citresse says:

        Aren’t most guilty of such at some point or another? (threadjacking)

      • Sixer says:

        I think it was me, chaps, above. Sorry, Kaiser – you posted just at the very moment I was having an anti-royal whale of a time elsewhere and couldn’t help myself. I shall add a second New Year resolution to my list: more vegan meals; no threadjacking on Celebitchy!

      • bluhare says:

        I have an old dog and an old cat, but they’re still adorable, and since their other roommate (another dog) died, they have been trying to be friends, but one’s a dog and one’s a cat and they don’t speak each other’s languages. It’s pretty cute to watch.

        Guilty as charged, Citresse!

      • Citresse says:

        Me too bluhare – my daughter has two jack russells. One (the female) is bossy and growly and the other (the male) is quiet and tilts his head adoringly when you speak to him. A perfect match!

  17. Priya says:

    Have any of the other working royals had a baby in the past year? No?

    I’d be worse than Kate, frankly. And I wasn’t forced to undergo plastic surgery so my face looks like it’s always smiling. I don’t even have to be married to Prince William, who seems like he criticizes her under his breath (at least according to lip readers who interpret his remarks to her that the press can’t hear).

    She could be struggling with far more than what any of us know. I think she made a huge trade off when she was very young. We can gripe about thinking she’s got it easier, but she can never get away from the Royals and she’ll just have to make it work. And she was so young when she got involved with him.

    Kate seems like a very kind and caring person, and a good mother. She’s so young (I’m her age, not married, free to do my own thing) and I’m not thick skinned enough for her life. She’s lovely, but I’m not sure it’s as wonderful to be in her shoes as it seems to everyone. But she’ll make the best of it, like every women throughout history, no matter which class, has had to with the cards they’re dealt and the ones they’ve wittingly or unwittingly chosen. Sigh.

    • suze says:

      Kate as martyr is not something I can get onboard with. She married into a job and a life, and she was around long enough before that to understand it, in fact, I would go so far as to say she should understand it better than any person who has married into the family before. If she didn’t want the job, she had plenty of opportunities to step away.

      She may well be kind and caring, but she also has obligations. She signed up, now step up.

    • rosiek says:

      I don’t see any reason why she couldn’t do 2 couple of engagements/day 2-3 days per week. They plan these engagements months in advance, she has staff to assist her. This would give her time with her kids and her numbers wouldn’t be so dismal. She certainly gives the impression that she doesn’t feel any type of duty. I don’t feel there’s any excuse for her poor showing.

      They will always try to make Harry look less than William.

    • Tina says:

      Kate was 29 when she got married. No one held a gun to her head (well, OK, I don’t know, maybe Carole did) and forced her into this way of life. We live in a free country and she didn’t have to marry him.

      Sophie had Louise, prematurely (and dangerously) in November 2003. In 2003 she did 175 engagements and 185 in 2004. She had James in December 2007 and did 158 in 2007. She did 66 in 2008 but by 2009 was back up to 165. Now she does 200-300 per year. If Kate had those kind of numbers, no one would criticise her.

      • Aeryn39 says:

        Thank you for the stats on Sophie. Have always liked her. Didn’t know about the Duchess of Gloucester being poorly till reading up thread. I don’t have children, but I have friends who worked almost until their due dates, one was a partner at a commercial lit firm and another an associate g.c. at a very large corp. Very little time off and neither had a load of full time staff. So I just find it too hard too give Waity a pass the second time around.

      • Tina says:

        Someone has tried very hard to scrub Sophie’s numbers from the Internet, interestingly.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Thank you for those numbers on Sophie. theamazingroyals on tumblr does a good job of keeping track of her and also hrhcountessofwessex on blogspot.

        Sophie is married to the 9th in line the throne, KM to the 2nd in line. How much longer are excuses going to be made for W&K?

      • Tina says:

        @nota I meant Sophie’s past engagements. hrhcountessofwessex used to have a handy page with each of Sophie’s engagements by year, but it’s no longer possible to google it or to search for it on the internal blogspot search engine.

    • bluhare says:

      Kate had a baby; she was not ill. She had bad morning sickness in her first trimester. That would have affected last year’s numbers, not this year’s. She recovered well, and looked very healthy during her entire pregnancy.

      If you take Kate’s engagements in 2015 (91) and assume that each one is an hour and a half long, then assume she has two hours of personal prep work for each engagement — and I think these numbers are all generous — then she worked 409.5 hours in 2015. Taking that number and converting it to a work week, she worked a bit more than 10 full weeks in a 52 week year. And I’m even prepared to be even more generous and count maternity leave as part of her work load, so let’s give her another 12 weeks for that. So I’ll round that up to 23 weeks of work or work approved absence in a 52 week year. She’s still not up to half time.

      PS Are you saying Kate was forced into having plastic surgery? By whom? Looking at the rest of the royal women, I don’t think forced — or unforced — plastic surgery is high on the agenda. No disrespect to other women intended.

      • COSquared says:

        I think 91 is bogus. More than ever, people have kept track of their engagements. No one, even die hard fans, have moved past even 80. Even if you count unofficial stuff like the Paris attacks book signing, she doesn’t move past the 60s. Where did 91 come from?

      • bluhare says:

        I took it from Suze’s list above which was compiled at the link she posted. And I said I thought all my numbers were generous.

        ETA: I think I made a mistake in calculating my numbers too, and they are a bit high. 🙂

      • anne_000 says:

        @ bluhare

        If only the rest of society was paid for personal prep time. 😀

        I’d love to see Kate do an actual 1.5 hours at a charity visit.

      • bluhare says:

        anne, I plugged in the prep time because I’m always being told how much work she does behind the scenes (notwithstanding the 30 odd staff they have to do it for her) so I wanted to make sure I included that in the numbers before I’m told that that isn’t fair and she does much more than that.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ bluhare

        Oh. I misunderstood. I thought by ‘personal prep time’ you meant primping and putting on her clothes and shoes. LOL!

      • bluhare says:

        Generous though I am, anne, I could not put showering, having hair styled and putting her makeup on down as “work”. I meant all that behind the scenes preparation I’m told she does. Herself. 😉

      • notasugarhere says:

        Remember, bluhare, that some of those were more than one engagement per day, sometimes at the same location. it could be two engagements in two hours, only working one day a week. It may be X number of engagements and a fewer number of days worked.

    • anne_000 says:

      Where is the information that she was ‘forced to undergo plastic surgery so my face looks like it’s always smiling?’

      I’ve seen William criticizing her when she ignores protocol and walks ahead of the senior royals like Prince Charles and Camilla or at events when there’s butt-flashing and hair flying all over.

      Like Tina said above, Kate got married at 29 years old. So she wasn’t that young. She had the choice to not wait for him to propose all throughout her adult life. She could have used her time to build up her own life instead like other wives of present-day modern princes, crown princes, and kings.

      She wasn’t dealt with cards that made her be his girlfriend for over a decade. She wasn’t born with a fate to be William’s wife. It wasn’t an arranged marriage. She chose all of it herself.

      During the time she was an on-again/off-again girlfriend, she was in the press for years and even used them to her advantage, so it’s not like she was thrown into the media all of a sudden without preparation of what her life would be like to be publicized and her photos in the press.

      She and her family have lived in the UK all their lives, so they all knew that the BRF are expected to work in repayment for all the luxuries and perks they get. She and her mother seem to keep proving that they’re big Diana fans so they knew of Diana’s work ethics. Even during the engagement interview, the question of her working as a BRF came up. So again, no big surprise for her here that she was expected to work.

      • aquarius64 says:

        I didn’t know Kate botched protocol. She’s dated William for 10 years and has been married to him for 4, so she should be familiar with protocol in the BRF.

  18. net22 says:

    Well I believe I would take the ‘job’ of being chauffeured to a destination, getting all dressed up possibly wearing a tiara and cutting a ribbon here and there…. Where can I sign to get the job ?

  19. Bettyrose says:

    Eh, mixed feelings. Her purpose is to breed healthy heirs,and she’s doing a bang up job at that. Could nearly any working mother on earth outdo Kate’s ambition before breakfast? Sure. Should Kate eagerly embrace her position as an opportunity to do good in this world? Most would. But technically she’s fulfilled the absurd, outdated, pointless expectations of a royal breeder.

    • Peanutbuttr says:

      The notion that queens of past were nothing more than incubators is not entirely true. The Queens were still expected to engage the public such as giving alms to the poor. As well, they frequently acted as regents when the king was a minor or at war (as Catherine of Aragon did for Henry VIII).

      • bettyrose says:

        She won’t ever be queen because she’s not a blood royal. Queen consort at most, but probably just princess.

    • notasugarhere says:

      If you check the role of the Royal Family on their official website, no where does it say “breed”.

      • bluhare says:

        It doesn’t, but come on nas. Of course they were expected to produce an heir and spare. If they hadn’t by now, we’d all be reading articles about their supposed fertility problems.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Yes, I know it is the societal norm. It is not their official job, nor is it an excuse for not doing the REAL job for which they are paid.

    • anne_000 says:

      If her actual job was to breed, then she’d get credit for each time she had sex with Bill.

      • bettyrose says:

        Hey, I’m not defending the absurdity of her position, but even if she were making a few more glamorous appearances a year, it wouldn’t be “work” in the sense that most of us know. Her place in history is secured by her ability to conceive, birth, and demure to her husband. We could argue all day that she should do more, but really her position shouldn’t exist at all in the 21st century.

      • Natalie says:

        Well, there’s some dispute over her engagement count. Maybe that’s what got the number up to 94.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Natalie 😀

  20. lisa says:

    im not defending kate but i think there is more blame for will. he wouldnt marry anyone who made him look bad. if kate suddenly wanted to do a lot more engagements (and i dont think she would want that), i doubt that he would allow it. he wouldnt let her show him up like that.

    • bluhare says:

      I do agree with you that the men need to step up too.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      i have always wondered how much of it is William, too. I think if he was serious about his role and worked harder, she would, too. She seems to want to please him. But I don’t really know, of course.

    • anne_000 says:

      I know that in his immediate family, William wears the pants and that all the Middletons make sure they uphold his belief that he controls everybody around him or should. But I just don’t agree that he’s stymied Kate from an active adult life including professional interests of her own or any interests in other people’s welfare.

      This is why I feel for Princess Masako of Japan. She went to several well-known universities, achieved quite a bit academically, and was working in the diplomatic field. But then after-marriage, she was practically squished into the ground and her every second of life is dictated to her by very narrow and restrictive rules, whether of protocol or perception of how life should be for the JRF.

      But Kate isn’t in that same or similar situation. Her interests pre-marriage have continued on after marriage – shopping, self-indulgence, vacationing, general loafing around, love of attention by the press and public, etc. She’s shown no predilection for anything else.

      • COSquared says:

        Also Letizia and the court of Juan Carlos. Glad the old Spanish court has gone. The press though… Another example(although old) is Queen Victoria Eugenia of Spain(nee a Battenberg princess).

    • John P says:

      Yup. Kate gets flak for not doing enough but I reckon it’s William telling her not to – to take his lead and only do what he consents to her doing. She’s damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t, and will never win with all these nasties.

      • FLORC says:

        damned if does/doesn’t defense only works if we all omit facts. It’s a lazy argument.

      • anne_000 says:

        Even when she shows up, she half-asses it.

        Even though Harry has as low a tally as hers, people aren’t criticizing his dedication and commitment to his charities. Why? Because he doesn’t show up to work making it all about him and how he looks and how expensive his clothes are and how his haircut looks. People know the real thing when they see it.

  21. anne_000 says:

    It’s Kate’s b-day this month (on the 9th). Maybe she’ll go have a b-day vacay with Bill and join up with her siblings.

    Who called the paps for Pippa and James at the airport in the UK and Antigua to St. Barts?

    Maybe the BRF can hire Sir Ben to be Kate’s escort to charity visits that involve meeting the recipients at events that aren’t holding parties and galas? Of course the expense of her outings will increase from over $1k per event (clothes, accessories, shoes, jewelry, etc.), but maybe that would up her year-end tallies?

  22. COSquared says:

    Honest Question: Do you guys think they really believe having a COA, wearing a SR, commisioning potraits by a painter who’s done some royals in the past and moving into a manor house all within the space of 3 years makes them UC? No snark(for once!).

    • anne_000 says:

      Yes, they probably do.

      Pippa has some nerve wearing a signet ring when she’s done practically nothing in her life and when she’s not attributed anything to her family’s legacy.

      I think it’s very telling that their COA includes a reference to their love of skiing, because that just brings to mind how they’re about self-indulgence rather than any actual accomplisments.

      • John P says:

        I know people who don’t have a CoA and wear a SR – why do you think Pippa has a nerve wearing one “when she’s practically done nothing in her life”? What does that have to do with the price of butter?

      • anne_000 says:

        @ John P

        Why is she wearing a SR?

    • Tina says:

      Oh, I think they know very well they’re non-U. Mike pretty clearly doesn’t care, and I think Carole doesn’t care what the real aristos think, as long as she can fool the press (most of whom are not really fooled but play along) into behaving as though they are. After a couple of generations, only a tiny number of people (the real toffs like Grosvenors etc) will care and it will be just as though they’ve always been there.

    • FLORC says:

      There’s so much for so long that suggested the Midds felt they were of higher standing. And for years they lived well above their finances to appear so.
      I don’t see this family as comfortable with themselves. They crave approval if only to claim they do no such thing. They are not common and they go to great lengths so show that.

      At a poor attempt to tie this back into the topic…. There was a strong work ethic when it came to climbing and appearing higher than they were, by even Kate. But once you’re at the top some fail to understand because there’s nowhere higher to climb doesn’t mean you have to still work to stay at the top.

    • spidey says:

      A lot of people where signet rings, not just royalty or posh people.

  23. Ollie says:

    It’s not fair to blame her. It seems the charities don’t want her help or attention. They are at fault! It could be so easy but they refuse to move headquarters to Mustique so it’s totally their fault the Cambridges aren’t interested in visiting them!

    Seriously guys even without the new kid her numbers would be the same. She always is the one with the lowest numbers. There is no difference pregnant, newborn at home or not.
    1 or 2 years ago i’ve even seen a list with all european working royals included and even there Kate was the last in the list. That’s quite an archievement

  24. how dare she says:

    A woman who gave birth to a human being this year worked less than the rest of her family? BURN HER!

  25. Llamas says:

    The “she has little children so she needn’t work” excuses need to stop. I read that she only had 62 engagements this year. If she spends an hour (at most) at each that’s a mere 62 hours. If a work week is 40 hours then she worked a week and a half. That’s pathetic. Even if she did 200, hour long engagements she would’ve worked just above a month.
    She has ample time with her children and still would even if she worked more. My mother had 2 kids under 3 and she had 3 weeks maternity leave before she went back to her 60 hour work week.
    The children are NOT an acceptable excuse for Waity’s behavior.

    • FLORC says:

      I’m certain it’s not the intention, but for those who wish to praise/defend her work ethic they belittle wth Woman/Mother/Wife/Adult to being a little girl not capable of doing more than a single act while using her staff to assist. Or that because she doesn’t have to for survival sake she shouldn’t at all.
      She cannot work for many reasons given that fail to hold her back ffrom her workouts, shopping, and visiting a charity,celebrity,island oasis are unaffected.

      I can only throw my hands up at this. Who buys this PR nonsense can buy that bridge i’m selling. I have hundreds!

  26. Badoosh2678 says:

    I love how strangers feel like the can tell people how easy their pregnancies are. The nerve of you people

    • FLORC says:

      We can all see that claiming an uneasy pregnancy that pulls you away from work should bring rest. Not a shopping trip. That’s not because of sickness. The nerve of our rational observations supported by dates, facts, and pictures!

      Also, i’m quite familiar with pregnant ladies. I’m not restating my qualifications.
      Without having to examine her let’s cover facts. Kate’s dates of morning sickness covered late 1st trimester to early 2nd trimester. Not uncommon. And she not only gained weight, but lost absolutely no muscle mass that would be absolutely apparent if she was as sick as the media made it seem.

      In my professional opinion only looking at her physically her pregnancy was not only healthy, but incredibly unremarkable. I know, I know. The nerve, right?

  27. Citresse says:

    Isn’t January typically known as the quietest month, even for Princess Anne?
    In that case, yes, as a guess, Wills and Kate will take five, perhaps seven days away in the Caribbean.

    • COSquared says:

      I think by end of Jan there’ll a pack of engagements within a short space of time. The week(s) following the final numbers are quite “industrious” for a Cambridge. Then by Feb it’s Mustique.

      • Citresse says:

        I was thinking they’ll (the Cambridges) arrive Caribbean end of January and extend into month of FEB. But time will tell for sure.

      • COSquared says:

        With their numbers? I’d like to think they’ll try to deflect criticism that every Jan. Remember last year she started early in Jan, soon after the tally? The press made a big deal about it. Come Feb they were holed up in Mustique.

  28. Susan says:

    I find it ironic that when Diana was “selected” for Charles she was a shy, retreating, uneducated seemingly passive girl that developed into a fiery, opinionated, attention-seeking independent woman. Kate, when we first met her, dressed with more personal style, had seemingly more personality and fire (remember the roller boogie outfit and the association with the “killing kittens” sex parties?) and now has lost her flair (and confidence IMO) and turned into what Diana started off as.

    • anne_000 says:

      Iirc, wasn’t the roller boogie outfit during the time William dumped her? I’ve read posts here that said that she was trying to get his attention back.

    • Christin says:

      That is an interesting observation. Diana really did blossom, whereas Kate has wilted.

    • FLORC says:

      Diana was not passive. And she found a purpose in her work. A distraction and a passion in her post. Diana was opinionated and fiery for better or worse her whole life.

      • Citresse says:

        I wish we knew how fiery (Diana) or not so much. There is so much conflicting information. For example, Lady Colin Campbell wrote Diana stated to Camilla (the infamous confrontation) she could have him (Charles) while other sources say Diana fought to keep Charles until the bitter end.

      • Susan says:

        If you read my post closely you will see that I didn’t say Diana was passive but in the beginning she appeared that way. (Thus the word seemingly). And only in the beginning.

      • FLORC says:

        Conflicting tales from different perspectives I guess. Did she really want him or just not want cam to have him.
        Or did Diana want to make it work with Charles at 1 point and not at another? I think it’s from both.

      • Tourmaline says:

        Diana was literally a teenager (19) and an earl’s daughter when she got engaged to Charles…and up to that point I think she had already showed more independence and grit than Kate ever has. She “didn’t have to work” but in the short time she was single and living in London, she was working as a nanny, cleaning flats, teaching little kids dance, working at a kindergarten…

        Compare to Kate age 28 at her engagement, uni degree but only a few months of part time accessories buying for her parents’ friend’s business under her belt. Plus all Kate’s hard graft at Party Pieces, of course! (“Working very hard….long days” per the engagement interview, ha ha)

  29. COSquared says:

    ^Commisioning a SR engraved with a brand-spanking new COA is what’s different. This happened post-wedding. Smacks of pretensions of grandeur because all that I’ve mentioned is stuff they’ve done AFTER a member of the family became a HRH.

  30. Alexa de Vere says:

    Sorry but it really grates when people feel they can, however ‘professionally’ judge other women’s pregnancies judging from a few photos, anecdotal evidence from low rent tabloid magazines and the worldwide gossip mangle that is Twitter. How does anyone know how she felt, was treated by those around her, perceived herself emotionally or reacted to being pregnant for the second time in 2 years? Judge her all you like on her work ethic and fashion choices, but no-one will know how straightforward and uncomplicated her pregnancy was.

    • suze says:

      Really, judging her pregnancy wasn’t the point of the post. It was one sentence in a list of data points in the discussion of her work schedule.

      But nice deflection.

    • bluhare says:

      Sorry, but I think the photos speak for themselves. If Kate were not healthy or was not having a smooth pregnancy, I don’t think we would have seen her, and she wouldn’t have worked as late into it as she did.

      Perhaps you should look at her numbers before she got pregnant the first time. They aren’t much different.

      And suze is right. The pregnancy isn’t the point — but it is the reason given for why she didn’t work more than she did and the resulting responses were because that poster made it sound like Kate was dreadfully ill. She wasn’t. If she was, she wouldn’t have been out at all.

    • notasugarhere says:

      You can look at the facts. She had no problem shopping. She had no problem getting on airplanes and flying off on vacations. She just had trouble showing up for an hour of work.

      (FLORC another new poster name. hmmm.)

  31. Eleonor says:

    The only thing I can say about her is: if she did more events than her husband that would be a pr disaster.

    • Citresse says:

      How about doing 400 engagements Together, for year 2016?

    • anne_000 says:

      She doesn’t even have to do more events. Just be more professional and serious about the ones she does do.

      See how people are responding positively to Harry’s work ethics and dedication even though officially he has about as low a tally as Kate does? What’s the difference? It’s because people know Harry does his best and is committed, devoted, earnest, enthusiastic, and steadfast in his work. People aren’t stupid. They know something is real when they see it.

      What Kate needs to do is: Come to work prepared. Actually study up on the charities. Practice ahead of time the few speeches she give. Give more speeches at the few events she attends. Stop making it look like the most important things she cares about the outing is her appearance. Instead of coming to work with her hair all over the place, do it up or tie it back so that when talking to people or giving speeches, she’s not jerking her head around like a horse’s tail swatting away flies. Wear work appropriate clothes, not peek-a-boo slits and low cuts. Wear separates so she can mix-and-match to make new ensembles instead of buying one-piece outfits so that it doesn’t cost over a thousand dollars just to show up to a non-gala event. Wear less expensive accessories (not belts, shoes, bags, etc. that can cost over a thousand dollars each). When at the charities, she needs to stop rolling her eyes when it gets boring for her to hear people talk about the charities. If she’s bored, then she needs to fake it. Stop acting so uncomfortable when the great unwashed masses touch her or when she touches them. Stop the over-the-top facial gestures. I saw a video of her talking to one of the charity kids. When he reminded her that he was sitting at her table after she seemed not to recognize him at all, she just ignored his remark and said something small-talk talking points. This is just an example of how she can’t connect or engage at even the most basic level with plebs. Stop showing up to work an hour late. Stay more than the 45-minutes or less. Etc.

      Overall, if she’s going to keep doing the least amount of work, she needs to make the most of them at least. She needs to come to work not acting as if the only way they got her to show up is by bribing her with a spending spree and hours at a salon.

    • Tina says:

      The solution to that is obvious (he should do more events).

    • notasugarhere says:

      It wouldn’t be a PR disaster. They want to keep up the fiction that he’s working 2/3 time as a helicopter co-pilot, fine. She should be doing even more events to make up for that. As a couple they need to do more, so have her do more.

  32. Alexa de Vere says:

    all I’m saying is- we have no idea what she felt like simply from looking at evidence and data as outsiders. I’m totally reserving judgement until Charlotte is one because that is when a lot of mums (who can afford to) take maternity leave until. If she’s a lazy, work-shy, grabby flibbertygibblet thereafter then fine, I will be as cross as anyone on here but until then I will absolutely sit on the fence. Personally, I think it’s a tragedy that she hasn’t made more of being a young mum- the influence she could have had on raising awareness about child poverty in the UK, lack of midwifery personnel in the developing world and neonatal medicine (to name but a few causes) could have been extraordinary, but that ship has sailed and if I were her I would/should be gutted.

    • FLORC says:

      Mothers can afford to take maternity leave? News to me. I was under the impression they couldn’t take much time off. And if available to receive it had to work far more hours than Kate did to be eligible.

      As best I can put it (because my english has been horrible lately) Kate forever has an excuse to not work. Honeymoon, adjustment period, 2nd adjustment period, pregnancy, raising baby, renovations, 2nd renovations, 2nd pregnancy, etc.. In the 10 years of dating and the 4 years of marriage she only has worked for 2 reasons. HM’s Diamond Jub, and final tally of events like the weeks leading to this count.

      To state for you. I’ve only taken issue with a few things regarding Kate specifically. Her apathy for her podium to do good, her PR team that writes checks her actions never cash, and that her actions are praised because if others could refuse work.
      I think we’re on the same page, but I am labled as a sour or h8r here.

    • Tina says:

      She’ll be pregnant again by then. Lather, rinse, repeat.

    • bluhare says:

      FLORC, you are the Presidentress of the Jealous Or Sour Haters! (JOSH for short)

      • FLORC says:

        Lol Bluhare! But i’ve already been bestowed the title of FLORC
        First Lady Of Royal Celebitches. I will be an ambassador for JOSH, but must decline the post of Presidentress as I will be unable to truly do the post justice.

    • notasugarhere says:

      In the UK, you have to work full-time for a year to qualify for maternity leave. She has never worked full-time.

      As was explained by someone else months ago (Sixer), it is not full-time pay for a year. It is full-time pay for the first couple of months. After that, each month the payment decreases. Most mothers in the UK – who have worked to earn their maternity leave unlike KM – cannot afford to take a full year.

    • Caroline says:

      Hey, not just child poverty in the UK – child poverty in all developed countries. Look at UNESCO figures. And we should all be doing something about that, not just Kate.

      Regarding maternity leave, in UK most females I know are off for a year or so after birth of a child. Some more than that. When I had a child in early nineties I was allowed off for 6 months after baby born but was only paid for some of that time.

      • notasugarhere says:

        And presumably they worked to earn their maternity leave. As Middleton has never worked full-time, much less for a year, the paid maternity leave argument for her is moot. If they were paying their own way it would be different. As it stands, they are required to work and they don’t.

  33. Cricket says:

    Where is Michael Middleton? He’s been papped less than the Bucket work numbers this year. #freeMichaelMiddleton!

    • Deedee says:

      Didn’t we hear that he was helping out with the chores at AH after the Cambridge’s staff picked up and left? Is he still out there trimming hedges and trapping moles?

    • Ollie says:

      I fear he and Carole are over after all these years. There were rumors for a long time now and usually Mike and Carole attend parties or events together or at least play happy family for the cameras from time to time. Now he stays away from everything and Pippa escorts her mother

      • Jib says:

        He was at Wimbledon where Carole was aggressively emptying her wine glass and looking sloshed. I get the feeling that Mike M is actually the only decent one in that family and he is embarrassed at how desperate for recognition his wife and adult children are.

      • Paddy371 says:

        I think you’ll find that was Twickenham, different sport.

  34. vava says:

    I think Kate will be flying to Mustique next week to meet up with her siblings, and mother. Who knows if Michael is even in the picture anymore.

  35. Llamas says:

    I think this is hard wired into Kate’s personality. She had never had a drive to do anything (unless it’s vacation/shopping) and I don’t think anything is going change with her. Her family and billy boy don’t help. I’m sure she and bill feed each other’s laziness.

  36. Marie says:

    Please just STOP with the pregnancy excuses. Pre-marriage this woman Hasn’t done anything for almost 10 years! JOBLESS for years despite her parents money to pay her a good decent education. And now do you expect her to trade her laziness for something else?

  37. wow says:

    I’m over criticizing her tally. Shes not Queen Consort yet. It use to bother me but now I see a broader picture. I think the way they are pacing her will do her well in the future when much more will be expected of her as William becomes King. For right now though, she is doing fine. Sure she could do more but her lifestyle affords her the option to do select royal engagements and spend time raising her very young children. I think the Queen has no problem with it because she is thinking long term. If she had a major issue with it, it would have changed from the get go.

    Kate seems to get dragged even when she does work so I am glad they are sticking to what works for them and their family as oppose to trying to please everyone from the outside.

    • Natalie says:

      Do we now have to wait until Kate is Queen Consort, not even Princess of Wales?

      Her lifestyle does not afford her the option to shop, vacation, do minimum royal engagements and spend time with the nannies raising her very young children. If it did, her PR wouldn’t keep striving to describe Kate as hardworking. They flat out do not want the public to think of her as disengaged from royal work. A royal lifestyle means doing royal engagements which is why they fake her numbers to include childbirth and Charlotte’s christening.

    • LAK says:

      If this were true, the lower status royals would be slacking NOT picking up and increasing their numbers. Afterall, they also have to do this for the rest of their lives, and they are picking up the slack because the majority of them are too old and have severe health issues which are forcing them to stop working or to slow down which means their work is being picked up by everybody else.

      Only Kate and William aren’t picking up the slack. Going by the numbers, they are doing less each year. That doesn’t bode well for the future. It ties in nicely with William’s recent interview where he said the oldies SHOULD do the royal duties, not him because he didn’t know what they did!!!! a bald statement of his work ethic from the horse’s mouth.

    • Tina says:

      She is not doing fine. Her public speaking is atrocious, even the “improved” version we saw late in 2015. When she is Princess of Wales, she will need to be able to handle 2 hour+ events on her own, with speeches, meeting people from all walks of life and appearing interested. If she can’t do that for 45 minutes, how on earth is she going to be able to handle it regularly and with increased intensity?

      And I really disagree with this theory that the Queen must have approved their low rate of work because if she didn’t, it would change. The Queen is the head of state and the head of the “firm,” but it is not like a job where your boss can direct you to do something. She can attempt to influence, but she cannot force them to do anything.

      • Caroline says:

        Tina, the Princess of Wales title is not automatic. Kate will only become Princess of Wales if Charles becomes monarch and if Charles appoints William, Prince of Wales, and he accepts the title. Even then she and William might decide she will not be Princess of Wales out of deference to her late mother-in-law. Camilla does not use that title. I would think though that Kate probably would.

        The point I am actually trying to make though is that even as Princess of Wales, she does not HAVE to do anything. She and William have already proved that.

      • Tina says:

        Caroline, the Princess of Wales title is automatic if one is married to the Prince of Wales. Camilla is technically the Princess of Wales, but she chooses not to use the title. What is not automatic is the Prince of Wales title. Charles was the heir presumptive from the time George VI died, but he was not created Prince of Wales until his early 20s. It would be an unbelievable snub if Charles did not create William as Prince of Wales though, it is expected for a male heir of his age.

        And no, she does not have to do anything. Neither does William. And the British public, of which I am a member, is free to call them lazy and to consider getting rid of them.

      • Caroline says:

        Tina, not talking about Kate, but you do realize that now boys don’t take precedence over girls in the succession that we could have a Princess of Wales in the future who holds the title in her own right? This title would not be automatic but would be conferred upon her so I am also right in saying the Princess of Wales title is now not necessarily automatic.

        My insistence that William might not be named Prince of Wales is NOT silly. Okay, he probably will be (although this is William we are talking about so maybe not such a given) but the point I am making is that nowadays neither title is always automatic.

      • Tina says:

        You are talking at cross-purposes. We do not know if the title of Princess of Wales in its own right would be conferred on an eldest born daughter. It could be that it is conferred as Prince of Wales, as is done with the Duke of Rothsay title, which is held by the Queen (she is Duke, not Duchess of Rothsay). But the Princess of Wales consort title which will be given to Kate when William becomes Prince of Wales is automatic as it is a spouse consort title. She will not be a Princess in her own right.

        And for William not to be created Prince of Wales, it would be a crisis of the monarchy of similar proportions to the abdication. He will be created Prince of Wales unless he abdicates or Charles predeceases the Queen. If you know anything about the monarchy, you will know this to be true.

    • FLORC says:

      OK. So if she shouldn’t work until she’s Consort is it fair to take the pay.
      Diana spoke of how drastic POW to King would be for Charles. Your duties increase greatly. Best course of action would be to prep yourself for smoothest transition possible. So it isn’t trial by fire. William and Kate will both be expected to greatly increase their duties when they get the POW titles. Just as they were expected to increase duties once married and settled into marriage.
      Point being they fail to prepare themselves and the defense of their lack of action is true procrastination. There’s always tomorrow to start working for them. And tomorrow is never today.

      They are still perfectly free to decline the perks of senior royals if they refuse the work. And they can still be comfortable with that lifestyle. Their lives are not burdens. If they feel it is they should leave for private life rather than risk their children to what they cannot handle and vew so poorly.

      • Caroline says:

        Tina, Princess of Wales title is NOT automatic. It is only automatic if William becomes Prince of Wales.

      • Tina says:

        Caroline, we’re not disagreeing. But you’re incorrect to focus on the Princess of Wales title, about which there is no discretion. If you are married to the Prince of Wales, you are the Princess of Wales (whether you choose to use the title or not). Your insistence that William might not be named the Prince of Wales is silly. The only situation in which that might not happen is if Charles predeceases the Queen.

  38. Lotta says:

    So what? She had a baby and then she had maternity leave. Here in Sweden we get about one year of maternity leave, and if think it’s very good for the child and both the parents.

    • FLORC says:

      Not sweden and not about maternity leave. If the numbers were up and only decreased because of children no one would say a thing imo.

  39. Lotta says:

    Well, I looked it up on a UK goverment sight and it says 52 weeks statutory maternity leave.

    I don’t think that anyone believes that it’s actually good for a small baby to be left with nannies.

    • Natalie says:

      Why not? I had a nanny and my mother worked. I had a happy childhood and I’m a productive adult.

      Kate and Will left 6 month old George to fly off to the Maldives. I don’t they’d have any problem leaving a small baby with a nanny.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Again, in the UK it is only if you work full-time for a year prior. She has never worked full-time in her life. And it isn’t full-time pay for a year, the pay tapers off month-after-month.

  40. Lotta says:

    Well, for one… Was your nanny a wetnurse? What about breastfeeding? Small babies needs to be given time to attach to their parents.

    • Natalie says:

      Like literally attach? Why would having a nanny impede breastfeeding?

      Neither Kate nor William have ever worked a 40 hour work week. They could easily up their engagement total and still bond with their kids.

      My parents did work full time and I certainly didn’t feel like I missed out.

    • FLORC says:

      To all your comments. No one is saying Kate shouldn’t be with her child. No one. Or arguing against mat leave.
      There is a section I believe that was brought up. A minimum amount of hours with decreasing pay as more time is taken off is required for the leave and scaled benefits. Kate didn’t meet the hours traditionally.

      And she does leave her children alone with the nanny staff. Maldives, tennis matches, various shopping trips and other vacations. All well documented. Also, would it destroy an infant to be left with the nanny for an hour or so while a parent worked, but not when that parent is gone all day or several days and nights without the child, but for fun events? Because that is what we have here.
      The mat leave, and children are only brought up to excuse lack of action. And to look at the numbers mat leave and babies has so little to do with this. This has always been her pace without children. They have changed nothing. So focusing on mat leave seems like a very blunt deflection since the numbers display apathy regardless of family.

      Argue the numbers, facts, not circumstances that have had no impact.

    • notasugarhere says:

      When the second baby was a few months old, KM spent the full day at Wimbledon. At no time did she leave for an extended period, which means she wasn’t pumping. If she had no need to pump over 8 hours, it stands to reason that she wasn’t exclusively breastfeeding by that point.

      • Charlotte15 says:

        Honestly though, it isn’t like there was a camera trained on her every moment she was at Wimbledon. She is shown frequently, but no one here has any way of knowing if, just as an example, she left her seat to use the ladies’ room.

        I am not saying that I think she’s breastfeeding because I have absolutely no idea if she is or isn’t (and if she was, my personal opinion is that she isn’t anymore), but that Wimbledon argument that is so often cited here is weak and unverifiable.

      • notasugarhere says:

        She was constantly being watched and caught on video. She wasn’t carrying anything large enough to hold pumping equipment. She was wearing a dress that fastened down the back. If she had left her seat for an extended period, along with someone to help her out of the dress, the press would have made a big deal of it. They would have pointed out, boldly, that it must be for pumping.

  41. daisy1 says:

    No surprise there she is called doolittle as she has been molly coddled and never has grown up into a adult
    she thinks being in the brf is all about showing up to a tiny amount of appearances in a designer outfit shake a few hands leave in half hour and go shopping again
    then hair done makeup and get servants to run around after her
    a really uninspiring person and lazy for her platform that she has chased after for years ….very dim and boring individual..

  42. Lotta says:

    Well, if you ever had fulltime breastfeed you will know that babies eat every three hours, sometimes more. It can also make you tired because feeding at night and so on.

    Every child needs time for attachment with their parent during the first months. They shouldn’t go from one stranger to another.

    I personally don’t care so much about Will and Kate because I’m not british and I find him dull, but I still think it’s wrong to go after her the year she had a baby. After all, she fullfilled her biggest obligation: a heir and a spare.

    • Tourmaline says:

      Plenty of women even those who “fulltime breastfeed” still work for part of the day–they pump, etc.
      I don’t think having a nanny (or a grandma or other carer) constitutes going “from one stranger to another.”
      To insinuate that by not being with one’s parent (but you really mean “mother”, don’t you?) continually is going to prevent “attachment” is ridiculous.

    • FLORC says:

      OK Lotta
      So, cast aside babies. The times when Kate had no children. What reasons were there to not work? Because she’s almost maintained her numbers with and without children.

      And you can pump milk. Although with Charlotte I have a theory. Kate stopped bfing early on because Charlotte was allergic. It’s more common than you’d think and explains how Kate could sit at that Wimbledon match all day and not leave to pump. Charlotte was very young a that point.

    • notasugarhere says:

      By all means, keep sideways bashing all the working parents who pay taxes TO SUPPORT THESE TWO LAZIES. Those parents might like to take more than a few months off but they cannot afford to.

      W&K live off the taxpayers. They owe the taxpayers work in exchange for that living. If they do not want to do the work, they are welcome to support themselves and all their staff and massive homes on William’s $10 million inheritance. That will last them about three years.

    • Natalie says:

      Kate had a nanny and nightnurse for both children right from the start. George is clearly bonded with Maria as he was calling for her during the christening. That’s the thing, these caregivers are not strangers. I’m still in touch with my childhood nanny, and William and Harry were very close to their nannies as well.

  43. Lotta says:

    Yes, but Kate lives in a country which offers maternity leave, so why shouldn’t she had the right to use it like everyone else in the country.

    I’m from Sweden (actually half american but it’s not important here) and we all get one year paid maternity leave. You can also save days so you get to stay home longer, I have been home one year for every child and he six months.

    Our swedish royals Princess Victoria stayed home for 6 months and her husband Daniel took care of Estelle the other six months. During the the time Princess Victoria was away her brother and her sister were covering up for her.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Again, we are talking about maternity leave policies in the UK as they relate to a citizen of the UK (Kate Middleton). In the UK, you have to work full-time for a year to qualify for maternity leave. She has never worked full-time.

      The maternity leave in the UK isn’t full-time pay for a full year. The amount you are paid each month decreases through the year. Many parents in the UK cannot afford to take the leave for the legally-allowed time.

      KM hasn’t worked full-time for a year, she doesn’t qualify for full-time leave for a year in the UK.

    • Natalie says:

      That’s interesting. Is it the same system as in the UK where you have to put in a certain number of hours to qualify and compensation is reduced after a certain period?

      I’m in favor of better maternity leave and enforced paternity leave, but when specifically discussing William and Kate, they are entirely able to bond with their children and support their charities. They have never been in any danger of not getting sufficient time with their children.

  44. Lotta says:

    I don’t know how they count their workhours, but Ok.

    I just googled maternity leave UK and found a goverment sight that said one year.

    Still, I personally believe every mother should be able to be with her newborn, and they have the means.

    • Natalie says:

      They have the means because of the taxpayers. Instead of Wimbledon and polo and shopping and vacations, they should spend more time giving back.

      Anyway, 2016 is a new year. Let’s see how they do.

  45. Alexa de Vere says:

    Whether they have ‘worked’ the requisite number of hours to qualify for statutory maternity leave or not is a bit of a bull point because they probably won’t claim it (I would hope anyway). However, it’s a socio cultural norm here that mums and dads can take a year off to look after a child in their first year. So it’s not a massive scandal that Kate is still on maternity leave. And the thing is, you’re all thinking of her job as the literal man hours she puts in for her charities in terms of preparation and appearances which are, admittedly, few. However, I think we’re all perhaps being a bit myopic about what being her actually involves on a daily basis. Yes there will be time for shopping and gadding about, but the massive down side is that she is married into potentially the most intimidating family in the world. Her whole day will be full of grey men telling her what to do and how to act. She has been under tremendous pressure to procreate children, she cannot move about freely because of press invasion and kidnap threats, she has to steel herself against bad press and very personal jibes about her weight and her family and her conduct and to top it, she has to be married to William whom I imagine is not the easiest of people although she must love him. That to me sounds like a job, except usually with jobs, you can leave and go home to your normal life at the end of the day or get a new one if it really sucks. Kate’s in it for the long haul and she’ll never be able for retire because the queen and queen mother have proved you can do it into your tenth decade. I think if that was to be my job I would run for the hills! So, although she hasn’t worked in the traditional sense, I think she probs has to suffer more slog (albeit of a different kind) than we give her credit for.

    • Tina says:

      The BRF has nothing on the Japanese Imperial family when it comes to intimidation (it’s Princess Masako I feel sorry for, not Kate). There may have been courtiers at the beginning, but she and William have made it very clear that they will do things their way. Yes, she has had to have children, but she knew that before getting into it. She also knew that she was supposed to do royal duties, I.e. work, as she acknowledged it at her engagement interview. Her press coverage has been, for the most part, fawning, and the negative aspects of the coverage have generally focused on her laziness. And no, she doesn’t have to do it forever. She can split up with William and take the post-Royal road that Diana and Sarah did and have done. If she has ill health, like Camilla or the Duchess of Kent, she can reduce her duties. She’s just bloody lazy.

  46. Lotta says:


    We get 480 days plus ten days for the father to stay home just efter the birth. You can share most of the months amongst you but two of the months are reserved for the dad and two months for the mom (unless you area single parent ofcourse, then you get all the days).

    There is minimum pay that you get wether you have worked or not, after that you get 80% of your salery (but a lot of companies and goverment work sponsors you so you get 90%. The payment stays the same except for two months where you get minimum pay. I used to take out one minimum payday a week to make my leave last longer.

    • Tina says:

      You have lovely benefits in Sweden. Let’s see how long they last.

    • notasugarhere says:

      That is a great maternity leave policy in Sweden. It has nothing to do with the UK maternity leave policies and how KM hasn’t earned maternity leave.

  47. Lotta says:

    Sorry, my last answer was meant for Nathalie.

  48. Starlight says:

    I am with Suze s post on this one, I wonder, do the Middleton children actually have any friends because most unmarried 30 somethings normally take holidays with their boyfriend/girlfriend or friend/s. The Middleton unmarried siblings seem to take all their holidays either together or with their parents and most siblings who take hols with their parents usually don’t have any money to pay for a holiday. I mean does Harry take vacations with Wills and Kate or Charles and Camilla?

    • Caroline says:

      I think the Middletons have a weird set-up where they trust nobody, hence all the time spent together. They do seem to be a close family though. Before all the publicity got so negative I remember reading that Pippa and James, as well as Kate, loved going back to the parental home at every opportunity. Could be they were brought up with no independence, no freedom to have their own views and to think that the only way was the Middleton way.

  49. India Andrews says:

    Kate isn’t a normal mother living an ordinary life. She is from a wealthy family and married into an even wealthier one where she never will have to touch a dish or a diaper unless she wants to do it. Her work day consists of having professionals do her hair and makeup before hoping in a chopper to commute to an appearance that lasts an hour and may involve watching sports or attending a movie premiere. To compare her having maternity leave to working mothers is disengenuous. Not only has she never led their lives but she hasn’t worked enough hours to earn it because she works only an hour a week on average. If that. If she wants to stay home, shop, lunch with Pippa and Carole and exercise, that is fine. Marry a banker, not a royal that comes with a job because right now, two pensioners in their nineties and family who never will be near the throne are working rings around Kate. With Anne and Sophie it doesn’t seem that their kids have suffered because they had working royal mothers.

    • Caroline says:

      To go back to the original post here, most of the royals mentioned on the Royal Engagement List will only perform the engagements on this list and do the appropriate homework. For the Queen and Charles at least, this is not the case. They, especially the Queen, look at official papers, Charles also has the Prince’s Trust, Duchy of Cornwall to make decisions on and is involved in other projects of benefit to mankind such as his interest in global warming. To therefore say that Anne is the hardest working royal is unfair. She is only the hardest working royal so far as official engagements are concerned.

      Dare I say it, too, that William, rightly or wrongly, is meant to have a part-time private job. So the official engagements are only part of his working story.

      To explore another point, is Kate not justifying her existence at the moment doing the small number of engagements she is and I don’t just mean from a “breeding” point of view.

      The royal family in Britain do need publicity to survive. Anne does all these engagements, is President of Save the Children etc, etc, yet is hardly ever mentioned in the British press because the great general British public are just not interested in her. All they are interested in is someone young and pretty and fashionable (and Kate is considered all of these things by most of the British people I know) that they can look at and comment on. Hence we have Kate who is almost the face of the British royal family at the moment. It is countless photos of her which the Daily Mail and I should imagine the other tabloids publish from any Royal Family event.

      So although she might in our view be doing very little, it seems to me she is doing exactly what is required of her.

      • Tina says:

        Caroline, it’s not an either/or. She should both be generating publicity (good publicity, which is not what she’s doing at the moment) and doing enough engagements to help out her husband’s elderly relatives. No one is asking her to do as much as Diana did (nor to gain as much publicity as Diana did) but she should at least be matching Sophie’s totals when she had young children (150+ engagements each year). And as for William’s part time job, there’s not been much evidence he’s been doing it lately. It’s a convenient excuse, that’s all. If you want to know what the British public thinks of these two, read the comments on any Daily Mail article about them (hint: they’re not positive).

      • notasugarhere says:

        There are thousands in line to the throne. These two were not required to have children, and having and raising children is NOT part of their job description.

        No, William is not “meant” to have a part-time job. He is supposed to be working full-time as a senior royal. His wife is supposed to be working as a full-time senior royal. No, what she is doing is nowhere near enough to justify the type of senior level royal lifestyle they have.

        Pensioners are working rings around them. All the other mothers in the BRF manage to work and raise kids – with much less help than KM has. They all managed to work more engagements when their kids were little. The constant excuse that KM has to be home with the kids, when she dumps them all the time to go shopping, is just that – yet another excuse for her lazy behavior. Being a parent is part of her life but it is NOT her job.

        If W&K do not want to do royal work, they should not receive the perks. Give back the $7 million wasted on the KP apartment. Give back Anmer Hall. Pay back the $1+ million taxpayer money spent on security at her parents house. Go buy a house with William’s $10 million inheritance and live on that.

      • Caroline says:

        Kate should definitely be doing a lot more engagements/charity work. However although she might generate a load of bad publicity on here and in the Daily Mail sites I hardly ever hear people in Real Life talking about her, My mother though who is actually anti-royalist thinks her primary role just now should be as a mother and that she and William do tons of work. True! My niece loves her and her fashion, George etc, etc.
        Most of Kate’s publicity is generated purely because she is young and good looking. Look at the services a year or two ago I think it was to commemorate war anniversaries. The Queen lived through the second world war and there were princes out on engagements in relation to this who were in direct succession, yet the Daily Mail chose a photo of Kate at one of the services as their main picture. Why?
        Looking back though, the Queen was young and good looking when she came to the throne, she did tons of work and yet she was slated when younger for her fashion sense and not smiling enough. Makes no sense unless it is a case of no matter what you do you cannot please everyone, so just please yourself which is what Kate is doing.

      • Caroline says:

        notasugarhere – Until I came onto this site what you have just said is exactly what I thought! I came on here originally because I did not like the Middletons. Once here, I was shocked by the personal remarks about Kate’s appearance and found I was defending them. I think it is maybe time I got off this site – get myself some other interests!

      • notasugarhere says:

        She is the one who chooses to work so little, prepare not at all, and make it about her appearance. If she stopped shopping and showing up in new clothes for most engagements, it would be about the work not her appearance.

        You must only be reading the positive sites. There are plenty of Brits who are absolutely sick of entitled and lazy William and Kate.

      • Caroline says:

        notasugarhere – only read this site and the Daily Mail comments (and I am ashamed I do either). The positive remarks I hear are actually made by people I know.

      • notasugarhere says:

        As many other Brits on here have written time and again, the people they know are frequently either indifferent to monarchy or think Bill and Kate are incredibly lazy.

  50. carolind says:

    Tina, back to Princess of Wales title, a female royal baby who was heir to the throne would be given this title just in the way a female monarch is called queen, the same title as the wife of a king holds.

    What a lot of people don’t know is that there was discussion regarding Princess Elizabeth being given the title of Princess of Wales in the 1940s. She was only Heir Presumptive but the discussions began when it looked as if the then Queen would have no more children. The title was not given mainly because of a lack of interest by the Princess herself. Google it. Of course the title could be given to any female Heiress Apparent and of course the title is not automatic on any person becoming heir/heiress to the throne. It has to be conferred.

    To be honest the more I look at it the more I think William will not accept the title of Prince of Wales on becoming heir as so closely associated with his father.

  51. carolind says:

    Tina, back to Princess of Wales title, a female royal baby who was heir to the throne would be given this title just in the way a female monarch is called queen, the same title as the wife of a king holds.

    What a lot of people don’t know is that there was discussion regarding Princess Elizabeth being given the title of Princess of Wales in the 1940s. She was only Heir Presumptive but the discussions began when it looked as if the then Queen would have no more children. The title was not given mainly because of a lack of interest by the Princess herself. Google it. Of course the title could be given to any female Heiress and of course the title is not automatic on any person becoming heir/heiress to the throne. It has to be conferred

    • notasugarhere says:

      There was talk of her being given the Duke of Cornwall title, along with the revenue from the Duchy. Instead after debate, she wasn’t given the title but the couple was given a portion of the revenue.

  52. Tina says:

    Caroline: the Wales title, Prince or Princess, is not automatic for any heir to the throne, male or female. The consort title Princess of Wales is automatic for a woman married to the Prince of Wales (the converse would not be true, just as the Queen’s husband is not the King in the same way as the King’s wife will (yes, automatically) become Queen Consort).

    On the specifics, nota is completely correct that it was contemplated to give the Queen the Duke of Cornwall title (in much the same way as she is Duke of Rothsay).

    And there is no way in hell that William will not become the Prince of Wales, unless, as I mentioned, he abdicates or Charles predeceases the Queen. The Prince of Wales title is not solely associated with Charles. In popular culture, both the future Edward VII and Edward VIII are equally associated with the title (i.e., “I danced with a man who danced with a girl who danced with the Prince of Wales”).