Prince William lied about his ‘rest days’ from his 20-hour-a-week EAAA job

wenn22966951

The British press has been having fun over the past week as they take the gloves off and openly bash, criticize and mock Prince William. The word “petulant” keeps coming up, as does the word “lazy.” The Sun got the ball rolling with an exclusive story about how little Prince William actually does at his job at East Anglia Air Ambulance. Their sources claimed he was already “a bit bored” with the job just seven to eight months on, and that doesn’t include the month-long Christmas holiday he took. Considering William has never, ever seemed like he was eager to do royal work, many questioned just what William does all g—damn day. Well, William has heard the criticism. And he sent Poor Jason out to make some excuses. But what’s particularly amazing is that the official word from Poor Jason is not good enough – even The Telegraph side-eyed Jason’s claim that William is “restricted” from working on his “rest days.”

Kensington Palace has blamed European red tape for preventing the Duke of Cambridge carrying out more royal duties. The Duke has faced accusations in some quarters that he is “lazy” because he has only carried out two royal engagements this year, in addition to his part-time job as an air ambulance pilot. Palace sources claimed that Civil Aviation Authority rules on rest periods, which are handed down from Brussels, mean the Duke is banned from doing any sort of work on some of his rest days, including carrying out royal duties.

But the CAA rubbished the excuse, saying pilots could do what they wanted on rest days, even including paid employment, as long as it did not involve flying aircraft.

The Duke managed 87 public appearances in Britain last year and 35 overseas, which was 128 fewer than the 94-year-old Duke of Edinburgh. He tries to average 80 hours per month – or 20 hours per week – in his part-time role as a pilot for East Anglian Air Ambulance, taking part in a four days on, four days off rota, in which pilots average 8.5 hours per shift. A full-time pilot averages around 120-130 hours per month, meaning the Duke works around two-thirds as much as them. If the Duke worked ten shifts, he would clock up more than 80 hours, meaning he might have more than 20 days off in a month.

A royal source said the Duke was restricted in the number of royal engagements he could carry out because “there are mandatory rest days enforced by the CAA, when you’re not meant to go off and do other work because it’s not rest”. The CAA said the Duke’s staff were “confused”. A spokesman said: “It’s true that you can only work a certain number of hours in any given period, but to suggest that pilots can’t do anything else on some rest days is totally unenforceable. When they are having rest days their time is their own, and they can do what they want, including carrying out royal duties. We check pilots’ shift patterns and the Duke is fully complying with CAA rules within the rota he is working, so his days off are his own.”

The Palace source responded by saying that the Duke’s diary had to include enough rest between his various roles as a pilot and as a working member of the Royal family.

[From The Telegraph]

Let me put this in gossip terms: William was like, “You guys don’t understand, when I’m not flying, I’m supposed to be resting from my grueling 20-hour work week, that’s why I can’t do any royal work.” And the CAA was like, “No, he can do whatever he wants with his time off, he’s making sh-t up.”

I’m also loving the shifting narrative around how much William actually does at EAAA. At first we were told he was going to work full time, only we quickly found out that “full time” in Prince-speak is “around 30 hours a week.” And now we’re at a place where even EAAA acknowledges that he’s only working 20 hours a week (which is like an after-school/weekend job for a high school senior) and that the poor sausage is so overworked and overwrought that he needs to take as much downtime as possible to “recover.” And then on top of that, he takes generous vacation days whenever possible. Poor overworked William!

146282PCN_Church17

FFN_PrinceWilliam_FFUK_exc_011216_51947191

Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet, WENN & PCN.

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

218 Responses to “Prince William lied about his ‘rest days’ from his 20-hour-a-week EAAA job”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

    • mandy says:

      Nice work if you can get it!
      How hard is it to show up for a few one hour Royal engagements and keep the peasants happy? Its not even as if its actually any work at all- At least Kate has to worry about her clothes and hair- Silly Billy wears the same blue suit and doesn’t have any hair to worry about !!!!!

  1. Betti says:

    The smoke and mirrors and blame shifting only serves to prove that he does as much work at his ‘hero’ job than he does with his royal duties – which is sod all.

    He’s just like his snowflake wife, a few hours work requires days of rest. #firstworldproblems

    At the rate the snarky articles are appearing things are escalating – i wonder how Willy will react to this round of unpleasant (and deserved) press?

    If it comes down to it he’ll walk but won’t take the kids out of the line of succession – that way he gets to keep the financial/security perks of being Royal but without the pesky public duties. As parents of the future King they’ll still get the taxpayer funded lifestyle while Harry does all the work. Plus he will use access to George as a weapon to get what he wants for the BRF and gov.

    • Shambles says:

      “He’s just like his snowflake wife, a few hours work requires days of rest. #firstworldproblems”

      I have to wonder if it isn’t the other way around— if his snowflake wife is just like HIM. The man has been in her life for well over 10 years, and like someone said yesterday, it seems like KM was never allowed to form an identity of her own. So I feel like maybe part of the reason she is the way she is, is that that’s how he wants her to be per se. I’ll bet he encourages the flighty, work-shy side of her, because she’s essentially an extension of him (which makes me feel gross).

      • LAK says:

        There is a saying that people unconsciously choose partners that reflect them, so Kate is a reflection of William and vice versa.

      • notasugarhere says:

        She chose to make her world revolve around William, so the blame is on her not him. He would easily have gone off to someone else without a backward glance. Doesn’t say much for him but less for her. She chose to be Always Available Girlfriend for a decade instead of an equal partner in an adult relationship.

        If she was secretly a work horse, we would have seen some sign of it in the last 15 years. She would have figured out how to use Uncle Gary’s money to start her own business with flexible house and still be “available” to William. She would show up at her few engagements doing the Best Job Ever.

        Instead we see them both for what they are: lazy, workshy, entitled.

      • Betti says:

        @Shambles. What you wrote about Kate is true to a point but look at the other Middleton siblings – they too exhibit the same lazy, entitled ‘I’m a special snowflake’ attitude that Kate and William do. Carole raised them this way – all 3 are an extension of her and her ambitions.

      • Eleonor says:

        I hate to defend Kate: but can you imagine if she worked, publicy, more than him ? The epic mess.
        I don’t know which can be the dinamic between them, but she has to be like that l to not make her husband look even worse. I don’t know if she is in the position to dictate the rules, or if she has to obey to Will’s version of Royal work.

      • Zimmerman says:

        Agree with Eleonor. Kate may naturally be like that, but if William demanded she worked more, she would. She wants to maintain her position. She and her family are climbers and do whatever it takes and no more or less.

      • anne_000 says:

        ^ If Kate wanted to work more and respected the act of working, then it would have shown in what few engagements she has done.

        She would have thus far shown up prepared, practiced, and well knowledgeable of the subject of her few charities. Her rare speeches wouldn’t be disasters. Her small talk with the charity employees and recipients wouldn’t be so ignorant and irrelevant. She wouldn’t be seen rolling her eyes, shifting around in her chair as if in torture or go all dead-eye when others are talking, and wouldn’t rush out in less than an hour especially on the visits she’s arrived an hour late and kept everybody waiting.

        And since she seems not to want to improve her few appearances throughout these years, I doubt working more would mean she’d change her disrespectful attitude towards work.

      • Bridget says:

        I agree with LAK. But I think William should be getting the lion’s share of the criticism, not Kate – he’s the one born into the responsibility, he’s the one that has the title, he’s the one that should be stepping up first. The onus is on William far more than it is on Kate.

      • Shambles says:

        Betti, I totally agree with you. If William does have anything to do with it, I know he’s only part of the reason. Kate definitely seems to her own natural inclination toward laziness and frivolity, and I think that comes back to Carole.

        I don’t know, I guess I just can’t help but feel bad for Kate. She seemed so vibrant in older photos, and I get the feeling this isn’t the life she truly wanted, even if she doesn’t know that yet.

    • Nikki says:

      Is it possible for him to take himself out of succession but keep his kids in?? (I’m counting on all our British readers who are always so fascinating!!)

      • Sixer says:

        It would be whatever the negotiations between Bill and the Establishment came up with. They’d just write the legislation accordingly!

      • pf says:

        Or how about this – what if Queen Elizabeth takes after her mother and lives another ten years. That’s 2026! And who cares if Princes Charles is 77 years old, he will be crowned King no matter what. He will not step down for his son. And if Charles takes after BOTH of his long-lived parents (let’s not forget Prince Philip) he could easily live another 20-something years. Now it’s 2046! Prince William is in his sixties. I doubt he’ll still be married to Kate. And Carole might be dead. Ha!

      • Nikki says:

        Thank you all! (Especially LAK and AAA; you are AMAZING )

    • anne_000 says:

      According to Wikipedia and iirc, the Duchy of Cornwall goes to the eldest male heir. If there isn’t one, then it goes to the Crown.

      So I doubt William will bow out when it’s time for him to be King. I think he’s relishing the idea of Charles being King and living a long life, so that he’d then be the eldest male heir with his hands in the till of the Duchy money for as long as possible.

      If William abdicated to George, then the Duchy money goes to George.

      So when it comes to money, abdicating isn’t in William’s best interest. Staying the Duke of Cornwall is.

      • aaa says:

        @anne_000, I concur that the Duchy of Cornwall is a big, juicy carrot in terms of William not removing himself from the line of succession, although I don’t think that he would do that anyway, but I do predict that William will become King and will ultimately abdicate to George and IMO that will be a good thing assuming that George wants the job and William waits long enough for George to be old enough to take on the job, 30-something is a good age IMO. The reason I think it is a good thing is that by then having a young monarch will be a refreshing change.

        William and George become the Dukes of Cornwall with the accompanying benefits when their respective fathers become King, if William removes himself from the line of succession, or even if he dies before becoming King, then the title and funds go to the crown. I recall reading that George VI requested that his heir Princess Elizabeth, who was not the right gender to become the Duke of Cornwall, get money from the Duchy, and based on that precedent, presumably a monarch can make a similar appeal for a non-Duke of Cornwall heir.

      • LAK says:

        If William dies before becoming King, the Duke of Cornwall title and income goes to the next person in line after him. Assuming he has inherited the title. If he has not, the title and income go to the crown until the next Duke of Cornwall is appointed or becomes apparent by virtue of being the next person in the line of succession after William.

        At this moment, it’s PGtips followed by Charlotte followed by Harry, then Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie, Edward, James, Louise, Anne, Peter, Zara etc

        Should William step out of the line, but leaves his kids in there, then PGtips will be the next Duke of Cornwall.

        Please note that the rules of inheritance of peerages haven’t been updated to reflect gender neutrality, so Charlotte can’t become the Duchess of Cornwall, if it falls to her as the ducal title is a peerage one. She Can be Princess of Wales because that title has been updated. By Law, she can be Princess of Wales because she’s the heir, BUT she can not be Duchess of Cornwall in her own right because she is a female. Sadly, that part of the legislation was overlooked. I suspect due to objection and headche of having to change entire peerage. Every Peer in the land would be affected and lots of families suddenly disinherited. As the current law stands, Charlotte would be heir without income, just like her great-grandmother, the current Queen, so arrangements would have to be made to give her an income.

        IF William stepped away and took his kids with him, the next Duke of Cornwall would be Harry since he is next in line, then his kids, then Andrew, then Andrew’s kids etc etc and so forth. As people step out of line or die, everyone below them is upgraded a spot. It’s a linear shuffle.

        Only Parliament can choose a person randomly from the line/by passing other heirs.

      • aaa says:

        @LAK,
        To be the Duke of Cornwall you have to be the eldest son of the monarch. Under the current protocol if William dies before he becomes King, George will not become the Duke of Cornwall because he is the great-grandson of the current monarch and the grandson of the expected next monarch.

        If Charles were to predecease his mother, William would not become the Duke of Cornwall

        Absent any overhaul of the current rules, if William removed himself and his children from the line of succession then Harry would not become the Duke of Cornwall if/when Charles becomes King, now if William and his children were dead (ugh this sounds so morbid), then Harry would become the Duke of Cornwall if/when Charles is King.

      • LAK says:

        AAA: I was thinking about Charles being Monarch when William became Duke of Cornwall, not as currently stands ie Elizabeth being Monarch. I was also thinking about the line of succession as far as who comes after him.

        I should have made that very clear in my comment.

        Further, I assumed that people are aware that only the son of the monarch can have this title, not the grandson or other random people even if they are in the line. In the same way that only the children of the monarch rather than the grandchildren can be POW, DOY or Princess Royal therefore my meaning would be clear.

        While we are here, I should clarify that in places where i’ve listed females eg Beatrice, Eugenie, Zara, i’m talking about the line of succession NOT the ducal title since the females can’t inherit that title under any circumstances as a result of current laws.

      • aaa says:

        @LAK,
        If Charles is the monarch and William is the Duke of Cornwall and William dies, George will not become the Duke of Cornwall.

        If Charles is the monarch and William is the Duke of Cornwall and childless and William dies then Harry becomes the Duke of Cornwall. Or even if childless William died while Charles is still POW/Duke of Cornwall as soon as Charles becomes King, Harry would become the Duke of Cornwall.

        I don’t think that a lot of people are aware that only the son of a monarch can become the Duke of Cornwall, I think that people understandably assume that it goes to the next in line but that is not the case if the next in line is female or is not the son of the monarch.

      • LAK says:

        AAA: I’m not sure why you keep belabouring this point to me since I’ve said the same thing several times AND clarified that my initial comments were made in the assumption that everyone knew this law and thus understood my meaning without my having to lay it out explicitly.

        Perhaps you haven’t read my second comment where I make this clarification? Half way down. The paragraph where I say that only children rather than grandchildren of monarch can have this title in the same way that only children of the monarch can be POW (Prince of Wales), DOY (Duke of York), Princess Royal not grandchildren?

        Therefore having made the point above, isn’t it implicit that in order for PGtips to be Duke of Cornwall or Charlotte Princess of Wales, William would be monarch?

        Perhaps because I discussed the line of succession as well as DOC in the initial comments, that’s creating the confusion?

        I’m genuinely confused as to why my paragraph confuses you. No snark.

      • bluhare says:

        That is really interesting. I thought the Duchy of Cornwall was to give the heir an income, so if Harry isn’t the actual heir (that would be George) he still would get it?

        I guess I haven’t been paying attention very well, LAK and aaa. I hereby send myself into the corner for a time-out.

      • annne_000 says:

        The reason why I’m thinking the Duchy and its money will still stay with George if William abdicates, is because Charlotte isn’t a male heir and I’m assuming that George wouldn’t have a son by the time of this supposed William-abdicates timeline.

        So, iirc, the Duchy reverts back to the crown, which in this example would be George.

        And I’m assuming that what is meant by a male heir is the son of George and not his uncle Harry.

        For a more current example, if Charles had no sons and he became king, from my understanding of this, Andrew would not become the Duke of Cornwall, but that the Duchy reverts back to Charles until there’s a son by a future monarch.

      • aaa says:

        @LAK,
        I am belaboring the point because in order to be Duke of Cornwall you have to be male, oldest son of the monarch and the next in line of succession. There was something in your comments that indicated that all three of those things were not in place which is why I provided scenarios-although admittedly I got carried away with scenario creation. I can point out specifically what you stated that caused me to “belabor” the point but that would be poor form and it’s best to just leave it alone.

      • LAK says:

        AAA: I hope you come back to this thread and see my response to your last comment.

        I don think it’s bad form for you to point out where you think I’m mistaken. That’s the point of understanding history and that’ why these royal threads are so interesting.

        I might know something about history, but my knowledge isn’t complete, and i’m always eager to have a discussion that improves it or brings out facts I hadn’t considered.

        I’ve been posting on these threads for a long time and have learnt a lot from many people and or been pushed to go learn more about something I had previously glossed over.

        So, as I said in my previous comment where I said you were belabouring the same point that we both agree on, I don’t know what exactly you are objecting to in my comment and I am seeking a clarification.

  2. PHD Gossip says:

    Counting down to photos of George and Charlotte.
    Counting down to a scandalous story about Prince Harry – tried and true method of deflecting Prince William bad press.
    3…2…1 Boom.

    • Anett says:

      I agree, if you wanna a bet 1-2 weeks and they are here. Cutie kids can save the day!!

    • Sarah(too) says:

      Yep. Right on cue yesterday, Kim released photos of Saint. I’m waiting for poor Jason to do the same. Kate better get her iPhone out and snap a few “candid” family shots.

    • LAK says:

      Don’t forget a story about those terrible Yorkies

    • Erinn says:

      Hey, I can’t complain about seeing photos of the kids – though it’s a shame that it’s used to cover up their failings.

      • Anett says:

        Erinn

        I didn’t mean as a complaint, I love those adorable cheeks. Sad thing is that these photos have a purpose.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Photos of the kids with Nanny Maria have shown up in Australia. I’d say these weren’t the PR photo ops, otherwise KM would be in them not the nanny.

      Beatrice hosted a lunch for Forget Me Not Hospice at Buckingham Palace yesterday, no coverage in the press.

    • Charlotte15 says:

      PHDGOSSIP, although you are right, I don’t think it will work this time. People are so far beyond fed up with him that I don’t think cute pics of the kids will cut it (especially since we all just saw the pap ones of them yesterday). And I think many people have caught on to his BS re: hurling Harry under the bus.

      I don’t think those deflection methods will be enough anymore, but we’ll see!

      • Fallon says:

        I must be the only person who hasn’t seen them and I can’t seem to find them anywhere!

      • Lady D says:

        I can’t find them either, Fallon.

      • notasugarhere says:

        They’re running around tumblr and some royal forums.

      • aaa says:

        According to polls William is one of the most popular members of the royal family so the general population is not fed up with him by a long shot. Yes this is a significant blow to his image, and I certainly would not rule out the tides turning against him down the road, but at the same time this could be a minor blip that will eventually blow over.

      • aurelia says:

        LOLZ, I never believe this popularity poll. I bet Jason conceived it. It has about as much intregrity as the polls cosmetics companies carry out. You find out they polled whole 9 women!

        I bet if I went on the streets, peeps would say they think willie bucket is a lazy wanker. It was even on the news last night here in New Zealand about how lazy he is. Asking what he does apart from being a country squire?. Willie hasn’t pulled his weight at his part time pilot job, or his royal duties. Its all coming out I swear.

    • anne_000 says:

      But if those photos of the kids are taken by only Kate or a single, hired photographer, then there’d be criticism by the crowd of royal media photographers .

      • Lady D says:

        Any idea how large the royal media crowd is? Are there 30-40 of them jockeying for position, like they do with reality stars? Do you know if they are hired by the palace, or can anyone call themselves a royal photographer?

      • anne_000 says:

        I’d think that they’re called upon to work an event via their respective employers or if they’re freelance, then they still would have some sort of accreditation in order to get authorized press passes to show up and stand in the secured areas allocated for the press.

        I think they would have different and more specialized access to the royals than just the regular paparazzi.

  3. Cate says:

    I think a month in Mustique might clear his head and make him feel better, poor baby.

    • cr says:

      A month in Mustique, followed by some time in the country, followed by more beach time. It’s very stressful being the future king!

      • Snazzy says:

        Do you think the Monarchy will last that long? I mean, i used to be very ” I don’t really care, whatever” as a Canadian, but nowadays, when I see who our future king will be and how useless he is, I am becoming more and more of a republican.

      • LAK says:

        Snazzy: i think that’s the way its going.

        Some rabid Royalists who change their minds + indifferent public who slowly [or suddenly] realise what tits the incumbents [or future incumbents] are + rabid republicans = no support for the monarchy.

        Add in terrible economic times [or any sort of upheaval that affects the public] = upchuck the monarchy

      • aaa says:

        @snazzy,
        I think that there will be a Monarchy but little or no Commonwealth Realm. I don’t think that will be due to shortcomings on the part of Charles and his descendants but more due to the the sensibilities of the people living in those countries.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        aaa,

        I agree. I do think that a large part of the Commonwealth will reject the monarchy but it will remain in Britain.

        Historically speaking, monarchies have only fallen through radical (sometimes violent) political upheaval. Furthermore, after the Danish one, the British monarchy is the oldest European one, which means there is an inbuilt inertia at play. Factor in a political establishment where the majority doesn’t seem interested in major social change. So I doubt the British monarchy will be dissolved. I also doubt that William will step down for a number of reasons. 1) He probably want the Duchy money as Prince of Wales – he and the wife has a very expensive lifestyle after all. 2) The BRF most definitely don’t want a hypothetical situation like this to happen because that would most likely open a public debate on the relevance of the monarchy in the present day (especially not in the present economic and political climate with austerity measures, etc.).

        So I think the people of Britain will be stuck with the Petulant Princeling who’ll then be a reluctant king. I could be wrong but the larger patterns of history make me think otherwise. The Spanish monarchy is by far the most vulnerable one at present because it has only been restored a few decades and restored monarchies are vulnerable – just look at the history of France in the 19th century. I’m remain convinced that Juan carlos only abdicated because the very survival of the institution was at stake.

      • aaa says:

        @ArtHistorian,
        I agree on all counts. As I stated above I think that William will go the distance and become King but will ultimately abdicate to George and that will be a good thing for Britain/England to have a young monarch assuming George wants the job.

        I’m glad you brought up Spain because it is interesting to see that the monarchy there is vulnerable despite having a King and Queen who are model royals (IMO), while Denmark and Britain are less vulnerable mostly due to the long history of their monarchies and not necessarily because their royals are without faults and foibles.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        Whilst today’s constitutional monarchies are vulnerable in the sense that the popularity if the institution is much more dependant on the individual members of the RF and their relationship with the media (as the interface with the public) and the political establishment, it would still take something quite drastic to dislodge an instution that has existed for centuries.

        The Danish monarchy has existed in one form or another for a millenium, whether it be as an elective, an absolute or a constitutional monarchy.

        The British monarchy is equally old, despite the brief interruption during the Civil War in the 1660s.

        The French monarchy was also an old one and it dissolved in blood and terror on a degree without precedence in European history. Other European monarchies and empires fell during the aftermaths of the huge world-changing events that WWI and WWII were. My point is, that it takes a LOT to dislodge old institutions whether they be political or religious. Much more than mere unpopularity in terms public opinion. However, there’s a first for everything but historical precedence makes me think thatthe BRF will weather this storm too, though William may have to accept that he isn’t golden anymore in terms of public opinion.

  4. Kath says:

    If William wanted to live a low-key life and had a passion for a particular profession, I think people would be OK with that. Problem is, he loves all the perks that come with being rich and a prince, but doesn’t want to do much of anything. In his case, the money comes with strings attached, so he can’t emulate his toff friends and do bugger all, given that he is effectively being bankrolled by the British public (and us, when he comes to Australia).

    • LAK says:

      i think he fails to see that even his toff friends aren’t living a truly consequence free life. They might give him that impression by dropping everything whenever he calls, BUT they probably arrange their lives so that he doesn’t see the working part of it.

  5. Mia V. says:

    Commoners just don’t understand how hard it is to be rich and bored, peasants.

  6. Anett says:

    I think this is a point where I lost my remaining respect for PW. What an a..hole!

    • Mrs. Wellen Melon says:

      And his father. And his grandmother.

      Prince Charles and Queen Elizabeth managed to raise a future king without any work ethic. They went along with the future king’s long courtship and eventual wedding to an equally spoiled woman.

      • littlemissnaughty says:

        Absolutely. Honestly, I don’t like bringing up Diana, it’s usually a moot point. But by ALL accounts, she was not the type of person/royal who would’ve let him get away with this sh*t. His upbringing wasn’t perfect but whose is??? They all kept treating him like a child forever after she died and this is what you get. I do not understand the Queen nor Charles. They must remember how close they came to total disaster in 1997. Look how hard they worked to rectify that. Chaz got the public to like Camilla for crying out loud, that is no small feat. And along comes Willy and starts ruining it all. I’m starting to think the Queen wants to be the last monarch in British history.

      • Anett says:

        I am not sure I agree. QE has one of the busiest diary in royal families at the age of 90. PC is also not lazy. I do not know where and what went wrong that William became like this. For one losing her Mum didn’t help. But there is his opposite Harry who is much more like Diana was. I think maybe sth to do with his blood and gene and his fate.

      • LAK says:

        I would be on board with this IF Harry had turned out the same.

        …..BUT perhaps some of this is the people he surrounds himself with because they all encourage his indolence whilst Harry’s people and friends don’t encourage the same in him.

      • K says:

        Seems his father and grandmother are constantly working as is his brother- not that I fully understand what their “work” is.

        I think Di gets a lot of credit but really she wasn’t doing more then Charles or the Queen. Also it’s not always the parents sometimes you can do everything right and your kid still sucks.

      • notasugarhere says:

        William was coddled by everyone especially the press. Harry took the brunt of it in the press as spare. That has to have affected things.

        Their adult personalities are like they were as kids. William as petulant and not wanting to be royal, Harry saying I’ll Do It.

      • Mel M says:

        I don’t understand it either. I follow Clarence House on IG and PC is always working and we all know that the queen has been a work horse. Not sure how William ended up being so lame.

      • Amber says:

        Totally agree with you @LAK and @NOTA. I imagine those differences in siblings is the same for a lot of us too. I wouldn’t blame Bill Middleton-DoLittle’s parents and he’s in his mid-30s now, (well past the time to get over it and get a grip.) It just happens. Look at George III vs George IV. Or George V vs Edward VIII. Now look at QEII and PoW. It didn’t skip a generation there. So I wouldn’t even chalk it up to the heir vs the spare thing either. That it’s the expectations, worship, coddling, and enabling that makes heirs a-holes. There have been a number of firstborns who did fine. It seems to be just a roll of the dice at the end of the day. One of the MANY reasons hereditary monarchies are so damn dumb.

      • littlemissnaughty says:

        I don’t think one single person is to blame, not even him. The responsibility is his at 34, nobody’s denying that. But to look at Harry and say he did fine is a bit easy. My sister and I aren’t even 2 years apart and while you can tell we were raised by the same people, we are vastly different in certain areas that have little to do with personality but with circumstances. Especially – in our case – when it comes to money. She never worked a crap job in her life and you can tell. It’s ONE little thing but it makes a huge difference. He’s an adult. I find them both pathetic. But let’s not pretend he is not a product of his environment.

      • Bridget says:

        This is pretty classic stuff when it comes to how the heir is treated. William follows a long tradition of entitled royal first borns.

      • Charlotte15 says:

        I can’t stand William’s awful attitude, and I’m not defending him. That said, some people are just born with very poor coping skills and a tendency to feel sorry for themselves. I know there is a lot more going on with William, but he I don’t think it is fair to compare his personality to his brother’s.

        Also, isn’t it possible that Harry was able to grow up with a kind of freedom to forge his own path that William never had? Not having to worry about being the heir took a lot of pressure off of Harry, and it remained on William. Again, not defending Will’s ridiculous behavior, but if the roles were reversed and Harry was the older one with all of the expectations on *his* shoulders, William might be a very different person today.

        I don’t pity him, understanding that in the grand scheme of things, it is beyond stating the obvious to say that William has it pretty good compared to most people on earth. But I wouldn’t trade places with him for all of the tea in Britain, and I know a lot of others feel the same.

        His cage may be gilded but it is still a cage!

      • anne_000 says:

        Parents can have favorites and lavish all their hopes and care upon one child while telling the other child that he will have to fend for himself.

        It can be that though raised in the same household at the same time, it can seem as if the children were raised by two different sets of parents.

        As for William, he’s old enough to know better and to seek ways to improve himself.

      • aaa says:

        Harry does not constantly work. Harry has more charisma than William and wears his heart on his sleeve in a way that plays better in the public eye but his numbers are lower than William’s – and yes I know that he does work that does not get counted in the court circular but his uncounted work is not going to take him off the “your ninety-four year old grandfather works more than you” Wall of Shame.

        I think that both William and Harry are very sincere about the causes they care about like conservation, wounded warriors, the homeless, children’s issues, etc. but neither one of them are working long hours on these causes months on end unless it is part of his job, e.g., Harry and the Invictus Games. I do think that Harry has demonstrated better leadership/managerial ability than William in that he was able to take Sentebale and the Invictus Games from an idea to reality.

        I think that Prince Charles and the Queen are overall dutiful people but I also think that they have indulged William with no strings attached, e.g., gifting/assigning big homes and allotting millions to make these homes just right for the Cambridges including moving a tennis court when the Cambridges aren’t even full-time working royals, and I don’t have a problem calling them out for that.

        To me if William doesn’t want to do the work, he’s not gonna do it and Charles and the Queen can’t force him and it’s antithetical to their nature to even use that kind of forcefulness, especially directly, although neither is above getting others to do their dirty work. However the writing was on the wall about William, and Kate is no Crown Princess Mary of Denmark who ostensibly does more royal work than her blood royal husband, and if Kate fit that bill she would have never gotten that blue sapphire, so the Queen and Charles should have thought twice before catering to his every whim when it comes to both royal duties and lifestyle, unless, of course, they are totally on board with William’s way of doing things.

        I don’t think that if Diana had lived that she would have been the difference between whether or not William became a dutiful royal, and if by chance she did it would have been in a Kris Jenner and Carole Middleton way but I don’t think that William would’ve been as compliant/co-dependent and Kim and Kate.

      • Amber says:

        But @Charlotte15 that argument assumes that Harry’s path is a significantly easier one. I don’t mean to pick on you. :D I just see this sort of thing all time. Like I said, I think it depends entirely on the person. It’s a roll of the dice. History is filled with failed Kings and Queens of diverse upbringings. It’s filled with spares who stepped in to be sovereigns, and firstborn heirs who were stellar rulers as well. (I don’t quite understand what you mean in not comparing them, when you compare them. Do you mean you don’t think it’s fair to judge William even though certain personality traits and patterns of behavior manifested themselves even when the princes were kids?) Trying to figure out who you are, what you want, where you’re going and what you want to do, is one of the most common challenges for most of us transitioning into adulthood. Some never figure it out. I think for plenty of people the bigger nightmare would be having to attach oneself to an institution, while also having no defined role within it, with the added bonus of becoming increasingly irrelevant. Harry is going to give his life to the family business too and he isn’t going to get jack sh*t for it. (Just like Anne, Andrew and Edward.) That has proven difficult for numerous spares to cope with. On the other hand, many would just get on with it, or have flourished under the expectations William tries to avoid. We need look no further than Will’s father and Grandmother to see just that. (If it wasn’t preceded by his mother’s death I bet Charles unequivocally couldn’t wait to be King.) I guess it depends on what buttons you don’t want pushed. What you’re willing to bargain. What matters most to you. And too right, how well you cope. Of course “nurture” shapes you. But people often make this leap that it’s simply compounded all the “bad” in William and heightened all the good in Harry, even though the signs were always there, and so many heirs and spares before them actually appear to have experienced the opposite effect. If their roles were reversed we could just as easily see William as the worst version of Andrew meets Princess Margaret. And King Harry might be… Harry. (I don’t know which King or Queen to compare him to really, LOL.) I get that you, Charlotte, don’t want any of it. I don’t either. But it gets kind of hair split-ty to me…

        Even now, being the second son with a married brother and two other heirs ahead of him, I wouldn’t argue that Harry is all that free. Will has a defined role and a laundry list of duties. But he also gets all benefits, luxuries and yes, even the opportunities to define his reign. (You think Charles isn’t aiming to do so?) Would you marry Harry? Let’s say Harry was the perfect guy. Would you marry him? Maybe the bars are further apart on Harry’s cage. But it’s still a cage. Harry’s trying to make it not a totally superfluous and thankless one. But it’s not as grand, as ornate, or inherently/potentially as historically important a cage as William and Kate’s. In the meantime William is free to define his role, just like Harry behind him and PoW in front of him. William is literally doing that right now. Doing what he pleases. Doing nothing except whining, spending other people’s money, and living like the future King is how he’s chosen to pass the time.

    • Anett says:

      The mistake they might have made is that they let William go on his own path for too long. Having a job as a “normal” person and not stopping this BS in time. Now he does as he pleases. And he has a perfect partner in crime doing nth, Kate.

    • bluhare says:

      I think I”m with you, Anett. You know what bugs? Being a royal and doing their slate of engagements is boring. I understand that. You open hospitals, train stations, refuse stations, ad infinitum, while meeting local dignitaries and making small speeches that say nice things, and listen to others do the same.

      But those people are us. And William doesn’t seem to like us very much. It might be dull to do a variation of the same thing every day, but I would hope that realizing you are making someone’s day, if not giving them a memory that will last a lifetime, would make up for some of that. Apparently not.

      And they have such an opportunity to work with something that can bring them joy. That’s what I don’t understand. Kate supposedly volunteers with the Scouts in her spare time, or did. William supposedly makes under the radar visits to Centrepoint. They have their own foundation. The things they could do!!!

      • Anett says:

        I know what you mean Bluhare! And it is so true. I think being a royal, kind of an honour. This is how I would regard anyway. Visiting charities, sahking hands, pursuing many worthy goals, he could have so much possibilities and yet. Maybe after 50 years it is boring to do the same stuff but they are so young and so lucky. No worries to make ends meet, have a lovely family, best of everything in the world. Still they can’t give us a moment to be proud of them.

        Every time they have an engagement, William looks and acts so awkward. Their body language tell us all.
        The only hope is Harry, I wish we could see him more. Also it would be nice to have him a separate office because at the moment it doesn’t do him any good that he is stuck with the Cambridges’ PR department.

      • notasugarhere says:

        “We are never tired and we all love hospitals.” – Queen Mary

        “I have to be seen to be believed.” – Queen Elizabeth II

        “Something as curious as the monarchy won’t survive unless you take account of people’s attitudes. After all, if people don’t want it, they won’t have it.” – Prince Charles

        I wonder what quotes we’ll remember from William?

      • hmmm says:

        “The term, ‘full-time royal role’ is bandied around quite a lot, and no-one actually really knows what that means….”

        But I like this obscure quote by a 21 year old William that I found:
        “My father thinks I’m the laziest person on earth”….(for sleeping late in the morning).

      • LAK says:

        #whateverworkmeans!!

      • Tourmaline says:

        @notasugarhere here is another good quote from the Queen Mum: “The work you do is the rent you pay for the space you occupy on earth.” :)

  7. Chrissy says:

    Endlessy pathetic. What a lying loser. The blood sure is in the water, isn’t it. Keep digging, journos!

    • Jib says:

      Really! How stupid to lie when it can be so easily checked.
      Well, at least we know they are reading the bad press!

  8. JulieM says:

    What a crock! William could run a marathon on his rest day if he wanted. Rest day means you don’t fly, not you don’t do anything. Caught again. And who didn’t predict he would get bored with his EAAA job. At the risk of repeating myself, what a crock.

    • OhDear says:

      Heh, it’s like he means religious rest day, lol.

    • anne_000 says:

      It’s just humorously sad the extent that W&K go to find excuses not to do royal duties. And now blaming the law.

      I wonder if William had this all figured out before he decided to join the EAAA. Work a few hours there and then use a distorted interpretation of the CAA rule to say that he’s legally bound not to do any other work and thus find an excuse to continue living his lackadaisical lifestyle?

      And good for the CAA not to try to help William save face. But William and his staff weren’t ‘confused’ about this particular law. I think they knew full well they were spewing bull crap, but they gambled anyway, hoping that the CAA would be yet another entity that would bend over for William as well as counting on the media to look the other way again and not question this.

  9. Sixer says:

    This is just completely hilarious. Even taking aside that Americans work much longer hours (my school has guidelines for 16-18 year-olds that they shouldn’t do pin money jobs for more than 8 hours a week for fear their studies will suffer, Kaiser!), 20 hours is HALF a working week here.

    Other evidence on how much #poorjason is floundering with this clusterf!ck: last week Bill was told off for saying something that could be interpreted as pro-EU political, but this week, he’s gone anti-EU political with the old hackneyed blame it all on EU red tape nonsense!

    I will also add that the new junior doctors contract being imposed by our Health Secretary, which has garnered a great deal of fuss here, has doctors going from 12 hour day shifts to 12 hour night shifts with less than 24 hours inbetween, something deemed unsafe for patients. Clearly some medical workers are more equal than others!

    ETA: I forgot! The Fail’s resident mental health doctor was even rude about Katie’s HuffPo gig: “It sounded as though it was lifted out of some PR handbook. Slightly inauthentic, and when you’re talking about mental illness, authenticity is quite important.”

    • Kaiser says:

      When I was in high school, I had a part-time job where I worked about 15-20 hours a week. When I was in college, I easily worked a 20 hour week AND I was a full-time student, plus I had activities like the college newspaper. William’s a lazy, lying git.

      • Sixer says:

        I also did! I worked on the deli counter of a supermarket two evenings and Saturday. 15 hours in total. But that was 20-odd years ago. My school really does have those guidelines for kids starting the last two years of high school. They send it round in the “Welcome to A levels” pack. Not that they can, or try to, enforce it, but it’s an idea of the culture here, you know?

        He is.

      • littlemissnaughty says:

        Yup, me too. I think a lot of students these days do. I sometimes had to cram all my work into Saturdays and Sundays so that I could focus on uni during the week. Didn’t always work out so it was mostly nights and weekends.

        My parents wouldn’t allow me to work at all in high school because they thought reality would set in soon enough. Plus, they didn’t want my grades to suffer. Looking back, I could’ve easily worked a little but I’m grateful to have had that carefree time in my life. It shouldn’t, however, extend to 34!!!

      • NUTBALLS says:

        I worked 15 hours a week during the school year, but I didn’t have the homework demands that high schoolers have nowadays. Talking to my friends with kids that age, the challenging junior year course load to look good on college applications is now being pushed down to sophomores — get more activities on your calendar, take your pre-SAT tests, High schoolers who want to play a sport or be involved in civic activities and take advanced coursework are left with little time to work jobs during the school year, it seems.

        What I have also seen, is that kids nowadays have so much of their fun activities funded by parents that on the whole, they have no motivation to work in the summer. I worked in retail and as a babysitter to earn my fun money and I was motivated to do so since my frugal parents wouldn’t pay for them. The majority of the 15-18 YO that I know aren’t given the motivation to work even 15 hours a week, from my own experience of hiring sitters for my kids. It’s like pulling teeth to get them to commit to watching my kids even one or two days per week over the summer break.

      • bluhare says:

        I was a lazy git in school, Sixer. I made up for it in adulthood though!

      • The Original Mia says:

        2 jobs while taking a full load at Chiro school. William can have a stadium full of seats.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        In my first years at university I worked 10-15 hours while studying, took care of my ill mother and ran my parents’ household. Then my father retired and I could move out and focus on just studies and work.

    • mayamae says:

      Wow, what a difference. I’m a nurse, and frequently worked three twelve hour shifts in a row. It’s pretty common here. And doctors in training do much longer stretches of on call, with short naps thrown in.

      • Sixer says:

        Oh, no. They can – and do – do them in a row. It’s the transition from day to night that’s the problem. And I guess you can argue the toss whether it’s dangerous to patient safety or not.

        But my point is that at the very same time we are being told by TPTB it’s SAFE for junior doctors to do this, we’re also being told it’s UNSAFE for Normal Bill to do this.

        Can’t have it both ways.

      • mayamae says:

        Yes, well he’s a special snowflake.

      • Charlotte15 says:

        @MayaMae, they do it, but that doesn’t mean that it is healthy for them or for the patient (this is *absolutely* not directed at you, just a general statement!).

        I know a police officer who works nights and IS actually supposed to be “resting” on his days off; it is mandated. Yet he takes a second job doing private security “off the books” on his days off so his employer doesn’t know about it. I understand the temptation to make that extra money, but I really disapprove of it because those rules were put into place for a reason by professionals who understand how much sleep one’s body needs in order to be able to function well. He carries a firearm and cannot risk being overtired or not at his best when on duty. But he does what he wants anyway!

      • Lady D says:

        Charlotte, is their anything you can do about that situation?

      • Hudson Girl says:

        I just wanted to clarify one thing:
        Pilots aren’t “working” or flying the full hours of their shift. It’s more of an on call situation where they are sitting around waiting for emergencies. They can’t even fly around randomly if they wanted to -which pilots always want to do- because fuel is too expensive. It’s the same thing for Air Force pilots. Much of their shifts consist of sitting around playing video games, etc.
        It’s not like working a shift as a Doctor, nurse, or even a deli counter worker who has been on their feet working the whole time.

    • Lucrezia says:

      Off topic (sorry!) but I took a guess at the name of the book you were trying to think of in the old Tom Hiddleston thread Sixer. Is that the right one?

      Better write something on topic. I really can’t be arsed with Lazy Bill today. Um. Here in Oz kids in the richer areas only work a few (6 to 8) hours a week, just for experience. Unfortunately, kids in the lower socio-economic areas end up working 20+ hours to help out the family or afford books. That obviously creates an unfair playing field, where richer students have more time to study, but I don’t know if there’s a good solution, because if you put a maximum legal limit on the number of hours kids work, then the poorest might not be able to afford the book they need to study.

      We have a youth allowance (dole/welfare payment) for kids aged 16+ who are looking for full time work, but full-time students don’t get any monetary assistance unless they’re 18+. Do you guys have something similar?

      • Sixer says:

        I saw it but couldn’t reply because the comments closed early. Yes, it was, and thank you!

        Yes, 16 year-olds can claim JSA if they are out of school and can’t find work, but the conditions are draconian. Parents still get child benefit and low income welfare top ups for kids up to 19, so it’s really not worth leaving school. We used to have a small stipend (£20 a week?) for 16-18 schoolkids from low income families that was given straight to the kids, but that went the way of all flesh after the 2008 financial crash.

    • me says:

      I have relatives in the UK and I swear they get so much time off work and go on so many holidays. They ask me to come along and I have to remind them that in Canada you have to work 12 months in order to get 2 weeks off. They think we are insane. They seem to work a lot less hours during the week as well. They used to all have half day Fridays so they could start the weekend off early.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        There are definitely differences between countries. In Denmark you get 5 weeks off if you have a full-time job (which is a 37 hour week – though in some profession people work more). It is related to how strong the unions are in a given country.

      • Sixer says:

        Britons get 5.6 weeks paid holiday per year as a legal minimum, but this does include 8 public holidays. So it’s really 4 weeks you can choose and 8 single days already chosen for you. Standard working week is anything between 35 and 40 hours.

  10. mm says:

    The traction on this is stunning. It’s front-page news for the Telegraph and the Mail, even an article in their paper of record the Times!! This means the Queen and POW will be reading these stories with their morning tea; they can’t ignore it in the print editions. Prince William disregards this at his peril.

    • OhDear says:

      Wonder if William will shape up or if he’ll abdicate.

      • Lady D says:

        William is going to keep on doing exactly what he is doing. At this point, I don’t expect any different from him or his wife. Count me another Canadian who would like to see him gone.

  11. Karen says:

    When I was 16 I was working 30-35 hours a week in the summer. Its very impressive this man has worked, I’m guessing, 40 hours of piloting in all of 2016 given his Christmas 4 week break, plus his 2 royal events (another 2-3 hours).

    43 hours in 2 months. Versus the at least 240 hours in 2 months by 16 year old me.

    He’s so impressive. He’s out worked more than 5 times by a teenager.

    Now I’m 40+ hours a week. Poor man would run for the hills.

    • Hazel says:

      I didn’t have to work while in high school, but worked a 40-hr week the summer I graduated. Later, as an adult college student, I worked 20-22 hours a week and went to school full time. As I say below, pilots & others have a required rest period where they’re not to fly or drive, but to do nothing is ridiculous. Although I’m guessing a 40-hr work week would put William and Kate flat on their backs in hospital, it would be such a shock.

  12. Lucrezia says:

    I would like to thank The Telegraph for doing such an amazing job with all the tricky math in this article. I liked the part where they explained that ten 8.5 hour shifts would mean more than 80 hours of work. But the best part was when they pointed out that 10 shifts in a month “might” mean 20 days off per month. I can never remember how many days there were in a month. 14? 28? 972? So this was most helpful.

    /end satire

    English posters … does The Telegraph normally do that? It read like I was reading a sketch from The Onion.

    • Sixer says:

      Funny you should say this. One of our broadsheets has just closed – citing the digital revolution. In the wake of this, my friends and I have all been discussing the decline of British media. They all reacted to said digital revolution by prioritising comment over actual journalism. A stupid move, considering online now means we can get comment for free anywhere. Example: the Grauniad pays commentators like Polly Toynbee in excess of £100k per year, but the freelance payment for a front page, researched NEWS article is about £200.

      I think they’ve either dispensed with subs altogether, or the subs are all interns. Or something equally stupid and self-destructive.

      • LAK says:

        The Guardian’s opinion piece on William’s lack of work referenced an article in the Independent written in 2013.

        Lucrezia: PC and HM’s breakfast kippers in the past 5 days have had an extra helping of opinion pieces/articles on William’s lack of work from The Sun, The Mirror, The Guardian, The Times, The Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday AND the Telegraph!!!!

        Their old school disciplinary methods are applied when stuff is written in print media and usually when it’s avalanche city. Exception Andrew.

      • Lucrezia says:

        I just realised I’m not sure how the British system works. Was quality journalism over there ever profitable?

        There’s been a rapid decline in print news sales here, for both mainstream (trash) and quality papers. And online versions are not as profitable as print once was. However, our quality newspapers have always run at a loss. They are subsidised by media moguls (Murdoch, Packer etc) who use profits from mainstream media to prop up the “serious journalism” papers in order to gain status/prestige.

        So, while it’s obviously stupid to react to the internet by focusing on comment, I guess that it would’ve been equally obvious that shifting to high quality journalism wouldn’t work out either.

        What to do? Rely on the BBC (for you) and the ABC (for me)? At least your Auntie is funded by a direct tax. Ours is government funded, which rather puts the kibosh on the whole “4th pillar” concept. On the other hand, I always thought the media were kidding themselves with that idea anyway. 99.99% of the time, even quality media isn’t thinking about upholding democracy, they’re just selling stories.

      • Lucrezia says:

        Sorry LAK, didn’t mean to ignore you, you must’ve posted while I was typing.

        I actually meant something more like “does the Telegraph treat its readers like they can’t count past 5?” than “does the Telegraph normally attack the royals?”

        But I’m glad you replied as you did, because otherwise I’d have missed a glorious piece of pure Britishness. Took me a good minute to translate, and I’m normally quite fluent in Pom-speak.

        Now that I’ve figured out what you said …. they do rather pile on don’t they? Maybe I should take back what I just said about media kidding themselves with the 4th pillar idea. The British media certainly have a strong idea of their role in a constitutional monarchy.

      • Sixer says:

        I really don’t know. And Auntie is not free from bias or from the descent into tabloid territory. But the FT (Financial Times) still produces good old fashioned journalism. As does Private Eye. Both characterised by lack of free online content. And, even though people laugh at it, from another political angle, the Morning Star (communist and run as a co-op).

        I actually think people will pay. But these days, only if the product is worth it.

      • teacakes says:

        I heard about the Independent shutting down its ink-and-paper edition – it’s a sad day indeed :(

    • K2 says:

      I think they are more nailing William’s lies to the wall for all to see in faux-innocent, polite confusion, than talking down to their readership. They are British so openly calling someone a liar is less likely than calling them, “confused” as the CAA did William’s people. Similarly, when he claims to be unable to do royal duties because of fulltime work as a pilot, rather than call him a liar on it they just set out the hours in mind-numbing detail and then casually say he works part-time on the hours claimed. The whole article is a series of extremely passive aggressive claims about his absolute unsuitability for and/or refusal to perform his role.

      If the Telegraph are calling him out on his crap in such very thinly-veiled terms, shit just got real for William. Interesting to see what the Queen does about it. She’s famous for ostriching over her kids and grandchildren’s misdemeanours, but she is also famous for self-preservation where the monarchy is concerned.

    • bluhare says:

      Hi Lucrezia, I’m going to say they did the math because sometimes you really have to connect all the dots, so you don’t get questions from people who don’t connect them at all or those people shrug and scroll past. Hate to use the term “dumb it down” but sometimes it’s apt. I’ve done many presentations where I have to explain things and until you know your audience we always go for 1+1=2. In these days of short attention span theatre, you have to get people’s attention right away or else you lose it.

  13. LAK says:

    Kaiser, i think the 20 hrs work week isn’t correct because his EAAA workmates are complaining that he is ‘more off than on’.

    That suggests that he is CONTRACTED to do 20hrs a week, BUT he doesn’t do 20hrs a week hence the complaining.

    And when poor Jason tried to say that by aviation standards 20hrs a week is about right, they are trying to hide behind industry guidelines to say that Normal Bill isn’t working longer than the recommended guidelines.

    Sadly for them and lucky for us, CAA isn’t going to roll over like the RAF and pretend he is working those hours OR that he can’t work because of them.

    Also, in the DM piece this morning, poor Jason also threw in Prince Charles and the Queen to deflect as in….Charles and HM know about the rest days and they are OK with William’s schedule…

    To which CAA replied *in print* that ‘The Duke and his staff don’t’ understand the rules’

    • Sixer says:

      As you said the other day, #poorjason can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

      How pissed off must the CAA be, FFS?!

    • Christin says:

      I love it that the co-workers are apparently calling this out, with the media willing to run with it. How demoralizing it must be to watch this load of rubbish be sold to the public about his special schedule when the others are doing the heavy lifting.

    • Lucrezia says:

      I *love* it when bureaucracies get snippy at politicians, so this is just amazing.

    • Green Girl says:

      Yeah, they must be so mad to go to print with that comment! Didn’t CAA jump through hoops so Will could work in the first place?

  14. Jayna says:

    Diana would be so disappointed in William.

    • Anett says:

      I agree.

    • NewWester says:

      I predict by the end of this year/early 2017 there will be a noticeable increase in William and Kate’s “workload and charitable endeavours ”
      The public will be more focused on the royal family as it will be 20 years since Diana died. I can see the Queen reading the riot act to some of the less hard working family . members.

      • Anett says:

        I think next year they gonna have another baby, I do not expect them to work more for this reason. Maybe there will be an increase in the coming months, but they have a tour anyway.

      • Betti says:

        Can’t see that happening in any perm way – W&K and proven time and time again they only ‘pack em in’ when they are forced to, normally when they are shaded by the press only this time it hasn’t been working and the press have upped their game. It says a lot that they have directly questioned William’s commitment to his hobby job playing at being a hero and have been asking ‘Where’s Willy?’. He’s not been working and he’s not been doing any royal duties, instead we have him at his MIL watching telly while she makes him tea and cheese on toast.

      • Tourmaline says:

        I’m sure Kate will be pregnant by or around Charlotte’s first birthday. Continuing to pump out cute babies is going to be their only strategy.

    • Christin says:

      And it was her death (and resulting long term public sympathy) that bought William and the BRF as a whole some time. When she died, I recall the BRF not having a good image at all. And here we are, 20 years later.

  15. Tourmaline says:

    This is truly hilarious–he can’t do ANYTHING on his rest days, people!!! The fact that “palace sources” needed to rush this lame excuse out there shows how desperate they are and as I must assume it came straight from the future sovereign W himself, shows he is an utter moron.

  16. K says:

    Ok I don’t really pay attention or care about royals outside of big events but seems like people are mad they aren’t “working” which I can get but what exactly is there job? I mean they go to parties and a few charities right or are they suppose to do other stuff?

    Like what is their job I know these two vacation way to much and stuff but what are they suppose to do?

    • lower-case deb says:

      dress up and throw fairy tale castle tea parties for young children, apparently…

      like Sweden’s own storybook princess:
      https://instagram.com/p/BCGDkGUv8ox/
      http://youtu.be/pd0XQLFpNG8

      • K says:

        That is my point. Like I geniunly don’t get what they are suppose to do, what is there job?!?!? Seems like it’s looking pretty- which I could be incredibly wrong but as someone who doesn’t know I am trying to figure out what they need to do. They are incredibly lazy but what can they do to make it better.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Madeleine is about to be 6th in line to the throne. She has stepped out of a full-time royal role, lives in the UK with a husband who supports them, works for her mother’s Childhood charity against sex trafficking, and receives a travel stipend based on per-event appearances. In other words, comparing her to W&K is apples to oranges.

        It was a one-time event for sick children, to give them a day at the palace to pretend to be princes and princesses. She showed up in full princess gear, including tiara, and brought their two-year-old along to join in the fun. While it may seem frivolous to some, she brought joy to terminally ill children. I can’t fault that.

      • Deedee says:

        Can you imagine if Kate did something like that and brought along one of her kids? It would be a sensation! #nevergoingtohappen #lazyKate #toomuchwork

    • Tina says:

      Charitable and ceremonial work are the main things. When someone is given an honour like a knighthood or an MBE, one of the Queen, Charles, Anne or William gives it to them. And they are all patrons of particular charities. Charles has the Prince’s Trust, which has been his life’s work and is a really impressive achievement. Charles and Anne work the hardest, with 500+ engagements a year each. The Queen and the DoE do fewer engagements (250-300) because they are elderly, but they still work much harder than William. If William did 250 engagements per year plus his flying, that would amount to about full time work and no one would bat an eyelid. But doing 122 is just taking the piss.

      • K says:

        Thank you so their job is to do charitable work and do a few political engagements. Got it.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        Queen Maxima of Holland works with the UN as Special Advocate (UNSGSA) for Inclusive Finance for Development.

        Crown Princess Mary of Denmark has her own foundation that forcus on grief bullying and loneliness among children as well as domestic violence. She is also a member of High Level Task Force for ICPD, under the The UN Population Fund (UNPFA). The panel is focused on women reproductive health in developing nations.

    • K2 says:

      The Queen actually has a massive political role, too. She reads almost all Cabinet briefings and has a red box for papers of state, just like any other senior Minister. She has to sign any law for it to enter statute, and she has to be briefed on them before they are put to Parliament. She also has the right to be advised about any foreign policy decisions and the right to express her own views in private to the ministers discussing them with her. Most of that is never counted as official duties, just the actual meetings and not the research she needs to do to prepare for them, so she works at least twice as hard as any other member of the family.

      The rest of the family have a role to play for charities, schools, hospitals, military and various other endeavours. They also highlight British industry by touring factories, tourism sites, trade fairs and exhibitions and so on. Their patronage can give a charity an extra legitimacy, and if they do their promised work in coming to events and providing publicity heft then they are great at raising profiles and money. It’s hard and boring work, though. Pierre Trudeau’s wife (Justin’s mum) wrote a fascinating book about her time as a First Lady and she said that every wife of every head of state loathes and detests their more mundane official visits, because you have the same small talk, and the same smiles and polite comments to make, and everyone is scared stiff of you, but you do it because you know it’s the job and it helps people. It’s a very dull Groundhog Day, but it does help people and it’s the job. She said that one Queen she was close to used to tell her she was lucky because her time doing it was finite – a Queen is in it for a lifetime. So their hating it isn’t unusual; what is unusual is their refusal to do it at all, more or less. I mean, we all have aspects to our jobs we hate, but that’s life. They are paid obscenely well and have crazy levels of status for their work, plus a very great deal of leisure time and a lot of privilege, access and luxury… so refusing to do the dull bits is appalling – especially given the cost to society of that refusal.

      I also noticed that they do the jobs that look fun. With Kate, she went to tour the Downton set, she went to the Emma Bridgewater pottery factory for a tour and to make some crockery of her own; she went to the Wizarding World of Harry Potter, and she goes to big-ticket sporting events (Wimbledon, Commonwealth & Olympic Games, and so on). I have no interest in Downton but that is rare as hen’s teeth and their tours sell out months ahead of time for holiday dates. I have been to the last three, and getting tickets in holiday time is expensive and difficult because they are all in huge demand. She is doing what most of us have to be very organised to manage and which usually costs a great deal of money, and then having that tagged as being work. William does exactly the same. It’s the perks they want, but not the actual grind. Don’t we all… but most of us know we need to pay the bills.

      Basically monarchy is a crazy anachronism. It’s bonkers. The only excuse for having it is that it works – that they provide a benefit and value for money which nothing else can. With the Queen, and Charles (and in her lifetime, Diana) I think we did and do. That worked. The problem with William is he seems to think being Royal is a divine right rather than a constitutional bargain. He may learn rather brutally to the contrary if he doesn’t shape up, and extremely rapidly.

  17. Talie says:

    This TERRIBLE publicity. I wonder if the press is firing off these warning shots, as if to say, we will start exposing stuff we have on you, if you don’t play ball?

    • HK9 says:

      I think that’s exactly what the press is saying. I don’t know if it’s Will’s hatred of the press made him think he could dismiss long held relationships or if he just thinks that people will keep quiet about his habits because he’s Diana’s son but apparently people are tired of his attitude and are talking quite loudly about it.

    • MinnFinn says:

      It might be payback for press being told there was not enough room for them in the hangar where they did the search and rescue goodbye event last week. Richard Palmer tweeted about it here. https://twitter.com/RoyalReporter/status/700232837245620225

      • Feeshalori says:

        At this point, being Diana’s son is a liability for him in my mind because people could say how ashamed she would be of him and his lazy ways if she were alive today.

      • aaa says:

        Richard Palmer can go suck it, what he fails to mention is that the “old chums” that William and Kate were meeting up with had family members in attendance and that is why there was limited space for the media.

        I do pay attention to Palmer and his ilks criticisms of William and Kate, some are valid and I agree with them, but if he wanted to cover royals at work then he should start showing up, photographer in tow, to more of Sophie’s, Anne’s, Edward’s, Philip’s and Charles’ engagements.

      • notasugarhere says:

        It was easy to see from the photographs, and from HM’s previous visit there, that there was plenty of space in that massive airline hanger for the attendees, families, and loads of press.

      • Deedee says:

        We all know how tiny and crowded those airline hangars can be (snark). And Palmer does cover other royals. He would starve if he only covered Bill and Waity.

      • MinnFinn says:

        aaa – Your post is illogical. Look at the hangar photo Palmer posted. And The Express is a for profit newspaper which means Palmer needs to selectively cover royals who sell newspapers.

      • aaa says:

        @MinnFinn,
        So Richard Palmer posting a photo of an empty hangar shows that my comment is illogical, LOL.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Either photos of the empty hanger that he posted or of earlier ones when HM visited, there was clearly more than enough room for the staff, their families, and the press.

  18. wow says:

    Ooohhhh Prince William, the press is mad at you and they are ciming for what’s left of your edges!

  19. Wren33 says:

    Obviously, where there is smoke there is fire, and he clearly is not a really hard worker. But, I actually don’t get the math. It seems like he is working 50% time at his air ambulance job, and he is making half the royal appearances than his grandfather, who doesn’t have an outside job. Doesn’t that sort of add up?

    • Tina says:

      He should be doing at least half the appearances of his father, not his 95 year old grandfather.

    • anne_000 says:

      I think the article is saying that for the EAAA, he ‘tries’ to work 80 hours a month which is about 10 days a month. I don’t think it says he definitely works those 10 days a month for certain. It’s in theory, but not necessarily in practice. After all, he had four weeks off during the winter holidays.

      He’s babied by being given work credit for just about anything, including showing up to his own daughter’s christening and iihc, for showing up at the hospital after her birth for the photo-op.

      So he got credit for 122 appearances. With 20 days off a month, that’s like 6 months of ‘work’ at an average of one appearance a day. So what’s he doing the other 6 months or 120 days?

    • aaa says:

      @Wren33,
      It does add up IMO but someone dropped a dime on him and said that William “is more off than on” at his air ambulance pilot job, however EAAA issued a statement in support of William saying that he is doing ‘a very important job’ and is ‘very much part of the team’, so it depends on who you believe and to what extent.

      It certainly does not surprise me if William is “more off than on” but was that a temporary thing perhaps during the holidays or is he pulling the wool over our eyes. If he is pulling the wool over out eyes that is not a good thing but I do get a chuckle out of William’s “game.”

      • notasugarhere says:

        The people in charge saying on-record that Golden Boy is pulling his weight vs. his co-workers admitting off-record that they’re sick and tired of his skiving off.

      • aaa says:

        Did the reports say it was multiple co-workers? Maybe they did and I missed it. It seems like the same person dropped the dime to multiple news outlets because quotes from the source are the same.

      • bluhare says:

        Does it matter if it was one or multiple? Maybe it was one speaking for multiple, too. I do not expect the heads of the charity or Bond Air — who he really works for — to slam him in the press. Too much to lose. But I can see a coworker willing to lay out the goods on the condition of anonymity. If William were going in and doing his bit, I don’t think there would be anything to report. The unnamed source even said they expected him to take advantage a bit, but he’s gone over and above what they thought he’d do.

        And four weeks off for the holidays? Even if it was temporary I’d have been livid if I worked with him. I bet a lot of his coworkers have spouses and small children at home too, and they all work a job that needs to be staffed 365/24/7.

  20. vava says:

    I’m loving it. William deserves this and has deserved it for quite some time. I want to know how he spends all his time. What is he doing when he’s hiding out?

    • Olenna says:

      Ditto to everything you said! I chuckled when I saw this headline because we’re all used to the media throwing a dart or 2 at the Cams, but now they’re shooting bullets. Poor Jason–he should watch his own butt in the likelihood he needs to find another job in the near future. Making up stuff to cover PW’s laziness and, in the process, throwing the CAA under the bus was not a smart move.

      • vava says:

        My guess is within a fortnight, Jason will be relieved of his duties – if he hasn’t been already.

        I doubt this media blitz will actually take the Cambridges down much, but it will open the eyes to a few more people. They’ll try to recover by showing some photos of the children, maybe some with them with the children, and increase their engagements for a couple of months.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I would expect him to find a new position and leave voluntarily (ie. give up and wash his hands of them). PR for a US political campaign in an election year?

        They lose a lot of staff, from the Anmer housekeeper/groundskeeper pair who left after a few months to the head of security who went to work at Broadmoor psychiatric hospital.

  21. Lainey says:

    I really want to know what him and Kate do with their days!? They have so much time off. And 20 hours a week?! Please I’m a full time student and I work more than that

  22. sauvage says:

    Will and Kate are going to be remembered one day for single-handedly ending the British monarchy.

  23. Hazel says:

    Wow, what a lame excuse on the part of his staff. Pilots, train engineers, bus drivers all have required rest days so that they don’t get overtired on the job–because that becomes dangerous. But to take that sensible rule & try to use it as William’s excuse for doing nothing–nothing–in the way of royal ‘work’ is jaw-droppingly dumb. Just plain stupid.

  24. QQ says:

    On the real: Can someone fill me in on WHY exactly are they SO lazy??? like: Do You wanna be civilians?? carry on! or do you wann be treated like special glass royal people?? then by all means stay there but like what is this halfassery and Laziness? what are they SO TIRED of? (this is btw a question i Put to my doggie regularly)

    • HappyMom says:

      And wouldn’t you be embarrassed if your 90 year old grandparents and 70 year old parents were doing WAY more?

      • QQ says:

        Right, right, I just don’t understand WHAT is it that he wants? what’s his endgame? Normalcy? we plebe MUST work and pay the bills?, Royal work?? Attention? like does he want to abdicate and be a moneyed expat in Bali or what?? is like he can’t commit to a course of action longer than 3-6 months like he is restless for something?

      • Sixer says:

        “I WANT TO BE ROYAL AND I WANT THERE TO BE NO QUID PRO QUO ABOUT BEING ROYAL AND IF IT DOESN’T HAPPEN FOR ME NOW I WILL SCREAM AND SCREAM UNTIL I AM SICK AND MY NAME ISN’T EVEN VIOLET ELIZABETH.”

        How’s that, QQ?!

      • QQ says:

        LOL Sixer, thanks for this simple ExplanationTantrum LOLOLOL

      • MinnFinn says:

        The Dicktator Duke.

      • Christin says:

        @HappyMom – I would be completely embarrassed just for that reason. He’s not a teenager. Time to step it up.

  25. Jaded says:

    His whole life is a “rest period”.

  26. Citresse says:

    I think it was the Telegraph which featured the article yesterday about KP “red tape” as the explanation for William’s laziness.
    I used to think the laziness was a strategy to promote Charles and Camilla. You know, a way to promote them as a hard working couple, make them more acceptable and for Charles to appear worthy to be King. If it is part of a strategy, then it’s working.

  27. cr says:

    I was on another gossip oriented site that had a post mentioning the Sun article in passing. The number of commenters who defended Wills was amazing: The Sun’s a rag/The Sun is out of touch, he’s still very popular. He and Kate are protecting their children. They don’t need to work much now, they’ll won’t be on the throne for years, etc.
    My first thought was ‘what color is the sky in your world?’
    Do people who still support him not believe what’s being written, even though, as often pointed out on this site, this isn’t new behavior for either one of them, even before they were married.
    The narrative was that Wills was The Good Prince, the one who should take over instead of Charles, and save the monarchy. He’d be the People’s Prince, just like Diana was the People’s Princess.
    Harry was the charming, but immature (or worse) scamp, but Wills was the mature, but still ‘normal’ prince.
    Except that Harry seems to finally have grown up, and Wills has devolved, and his true personality is getting harder to hide. This is who he is, he doesn’t want to work, he doesn’t want to do, or be, anything. Which would be fine if he were a private citizen. He’s not.

    • Sixer says:

      I think it’s just the ebb and flow of narrative, to be honest. In ten years time, when this one is all over and there’s a new pro-royal narrative going on, the die-hard monarchists will just switch to aggressively defending the new narrative!

      • cr says:

        Oh, I get the ebb and flow, but the stubbornness of the defenders amuses me. We were sold a narrative, and it turns out to be not true, having bought into doesn’t make you a bad person., but they defend that narrative as if they can’t admit it was wrong.

      • K2 says:

        I had no problem with either of them until recently. He was young and doing a valuable job in Wales, and apart from the (avoidable) cost of security for his housing there he wasn’t on our dime. And before she married, what Kate did was none of our business as she was a private individual. I wasn’t going to attack someone who owed me nothing.

        These days, my taxes are paying for an extraordinarily luxurious lifestyle for the pair of them, and they are meeting that with what amounts to a two-fingered salute. At this stage, screw the narrative the Palace are selling because the facts are apparent. They are not keeping up their end of the constitutional bargain and unless they start to do so soon, they should stand down for someone who will.

      • bluhare says:

        I think it depends how personally invested someone is in the subject or their opinions. In the case of the diehard fans, they are personally invested in William and Kate and do not want to have that fantasy — and it is a fantasy — destroyed. They scream and stomp their feet about how horrible you are to Kate and how jealous and envious you must be. On the other hand, the people who can’t stand William and Kate are very invested in their opinions too, and if they are shown to be incorrect, or you disagree, they can take it quite personally and scream they’re being attacked.

        Just my experience of being middle of the road and posting in places where people are not. And, yes, I seriously wonder why I bother sometimes. :)

      • K2 says:

        No, I know what you mean. For example those sneaked boob shots of Kate were really wrong. Just as wrong as the ones stolen of Jennifer Lawrence, or random women whose shitty exes post personal images online in revenge. I don’t care who the women are – as a feminist I will stand with any woman whose body is being exploited without her knowledge and/or consent. But some people hated her so much they wound themselves in knots to justify what they would later be disgusted and outraged about when it happened to Lawrence.

        And others on the opposite end will I imagine want to believe the fantasy because it’s pretty well spinnable as Cinderella, if you believe in fairy tales, so they will freak out to an intense degree when you threaten that escapist opportunity, and sense that they “know” them (and I do think that familiarity with people living bizarrely different lives is what underpins it – funnily enough, you get the exact same with fans of the Duggar family, that supposedly ultra-religious, mammoth clan whose feet of clay were exposed. A lot of their biggest fans deny the things the family themselves have admitted to ever happened at all, claiming it’s “just haters”, which speaks volumes for the intelligence of their fanbase really).

        I always have a tendency to side with anyone being vilified, but at this stage and on the work subject it’s justified anger. They are an expensive national institution and if they want the perks and pay without doing the work, they are no better than the MPs who fiddled their expenses. They need to shape up or ship out. Full bloody stop.

        You must feel a bit like you’re standing in No Man’s Land, getting shrapnel from both sides!

      • cr says:

        “if you believe in fairy tales, so they will freak out to an intense degree when you threaten that escapist opportunity, and sense that they “know” them ”
        I’ve always viewed the BRF as escapist fun for me, but I’m an American and didn’t get emotionally involved in them as it’s not my tax money that’s supporting them.
        And I’m also not the type to dream about weddings, especially snagging myself a royal, of any type.
        Even knowing that Kate didn’t seem interested in a job while waiting around for The Ring didn’t bother me.
        But this, especially in comparison to their much harder working relatives, is annoying. It’s not as if it’s really going to bring down the monarchy. But it’s sad, because they could be using their positions for good, and they just don’t want to bother. It’s a waste.

    • Green Girl says:

      IME, the people who follow the royals casually only get their gossip from the likes of PR-friendly gossip magazines and sites. It’s sugar-coated and the sites are quick to point out that yes, W&K are on vacation, but they’ve worked so hard they deserve it! So you have a group of people who think these two are just hard-working like everyone else, and people who say otherwise are jealous and mean.

  28. Betti says:

    Speaking of the TQ, she was was visiting the Crossrail in Bond St today and looked thrilled with the plaque she was given commemorating the new line being named after her, the ‘Elizabeth’ line. Her outfit matched the new line colour – purple. Wonder what the nickname will be? The Lizzie Line, the Queenie Line? The Victoria line is often referred to the Vicki Line.

    • MinnFinn says:

      Lilbet or Brenda.

    • annne_000 says:

      Imagine what a William or Kate Line would be like.

      It’ll be a strip of rail of about 3 feet long and then just stops with a “Be back in an hour’ sign permanently staked up at the end of the line.

  29. maggie says:

    The queen has given over sixty years of service to her country. Her family is like any other. That the press takes them on and trashes her family is disgraceful. People love to believe the worst of someone. William likes his privacy and finds the press intrusive so this is what they do and people fall for it. I truly believe he despises the press for the constant harassment of his mother and ultimately caused her death. I think he’s scarred by that and doesn’t go out of his way to try to impress them. The press in general have way too much power and influence.

    • snapdragon says:

      The Queen’s family is not “like any other”. They believe and hold themselves out as born to rule and are paid to do so by their “subjects”. As long as that is the case, they are required to uphold their duties which include publicizing themselves and their works through the press. If William doesn’t like what the press is writing about he should do and give them something more worthy to write about. Apart from these few recent articles, I also can’t think of any public figure who has been as wrapped in cotton by the press as William — everything is controlled and edited.

      Perhaps monarchists should seriously consider one of the more cruel aspects of the institution is that it may impose roles on people completely unsuited and unwilling to assume them.

      • Tourmaline says:

        +1000

      • maggie says:

        They are like any other family in the fact that they have issues. How would you feel if your family’s dirty little secrets were plastered all over the news? The British press are relentless in their search for any dirt and show absolutely no respect for their privacy. If they can’t find anything this is what they do. Trash him!! I get that not everyone supports the Royal Family but to buy into every little piece of garbage the press puts out there to support your dislike of them isn’t right either.

      • Snapdragon says:

        Maggie — since I don’t know him I don’t like or dislike him. He could be the most wonderful person on earth but I don’t support hereditary rule — it’s discriminatory and undemocratic in every way possible and belongs in the trash heap of history.

        And you are correct that I wouldn’t want my family subjected to press scrutiny — I’m a private citizen and I’m not claiming God put me on this earth to rule over anyone. But if you are claiming that and expecting your fellow human beings to bow and curtesy to you, you’d darn well better deserve it.

        I’m every day more grateful for the wisdom and courage of our founding fathers.

    • Anon says:

      Oh yeah better live in a country where the press has no power. Poor Willliam

    • bluhare says:

      -For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

    • hmmm says:

      Yeah, he’s such a victim.

  30. Mary Carol says:

    W was asked about himself in a roomful of children, and he answered I’m a prince. That is how he sees himself. Nothing more. He gets to do as he pleases because he a prince. He saw Diana shoved around by courtiers, and he is having none of it. And I’m bet he is beyond pissed that would give Kate a princess title. A prince is married to a princess, only a princess in his mind.

    I’m surprised more has not been about his interview. It was recently, forgot with whom, and he said something like, whatever a full time royal is. It reminded me of the time Charles said, whatever love is.

    W has been so damaged by the death of his mother, and combined with his own personality, and being pissed at the world, it’s a wonder he ever leaves the house.

    • Mary Carol says:

      Would NOT give Kate

    • Guesto says:

      I agree. I do think he’s really damaged. I’m not using that as an excuse for his petulance, more that he’s just so not suited to the life he’s been born into and his approach to it is never going to change and is always going to fall way short of what’s expected of him.

      I actually feel a little sorry for him and his dilemma.

  31. me says:

    Harry would make a better King. Too bad he wasn’t born first.

  32. Christin says:

    PW is prominently featured on my (US) Internet provider’s news page today. They’ve linked an article about “Major Shade Thrown at Prince William”. He’s the second scrolling story that shows up when I log in.

    Oh, William, your American cousins are all going to know your lazy reputation before this is over!

  33. Sunsetsnow says:

    Poor Jason – better luck next time!

  34. bettyrose says:

    I’m not at all a WK apologist, it’s just that I love royal gossip because – like WK – I fantasize about a Jane Austen existence. Days of tea, gossip, and long walks. Nights of champagne, dancing, and scoping out lovers.

  35. What's inside says:

    Both of them look older, tired, and unhappy. Compare the pictures from 4 years ago and now. I think he is difficult and entitled and she does whatever she has to to be able to be a companion to him.

  36. Cricket says:

    Can someone please clarify… Does William actually fly the helicopter? Is he actually a pilot? I thought I read that he doesn’t have a pilot’s license and basically is a passenger in a special helicopter the palace donated so that he can ride along with a pilot and the crew of medical staff.

  37. aurelia says:

    Jason will prolly hand his resignation in next week and join the ex Amner Housekeeper who took a job at Braodmoar Mental Asylum. Only thing, Jason will be an an in-patient.

  38. birdy says:

    If he works a 20 hour week, does that mean he woks 2 days a week then the rest of the week off? Cause I can’ imagine shifts for that type of work are 5 hrs a day. So does he not work 4 on then 4 off (as stated by other pilots) because he is part time? I would assume 10 hour shift would be the norm for this type of work. So say he works Mon and Tues. Wed to Sun is his down time and he can’t fit in royal duties at the barest minimum??? I hope the queen dumps a number of patronages on him at her birthday and he gets no say in the matter.

    Considering how he is lying repeatedly and getting caught out – doesn’t he run his own charity? Wouldn’t mind getting a look at their books and see where the money is actually going f Will is so willing to blatantly lie over ad over again. I man, if he thinks that the rules don’t apply to I’m, would it be any different in the other areas of his life???

    • Ollie says:

      Yes it’s time the press takes a very deep look. The palace people covered so much in the past years. Not just William’s behaviour and work lies but especially the finances and side projects they hide

      • Chrissy says:

        I agree. For example, a big deal was made about his EAAA salary being given to a charity. Is that charity in his own back pocket after being written off as a charitable donation? He needs to be audited. I wouldn’t be surprised considering that he’s a liar who lies.

  39. Sixer says:

    Aaaaaaaand there’s more!

    Apparently, he’s only done 12 x 8.5 hour shifts so far in 2016. So that’s 1.5 per week. And none at all in December 2015. And The Sun’s headline is “Where’s Willy?” (in the UK, the kids books are called Where’s Wally, not Where’s Waldo). This is not deferential!

    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/6951845/As-Prince-shirks-royal-engagements-and-pilot-job-we-ask-Wheres-Willy.html

  40. Jib says:

    That is a major negative article – he’s not overly liked? People are afraid of him? It’s a token job and he’s bored out of his skull??? LOL!! Someone he works with certainly doesn’t like him! Sounds like he is the petulant brat that the media hint at and maybe that’s why Kate looks so “haggard” all of the time: putting up with NormalBill seems to be no piece of cake.

  41. notasugarhere says:

    Prince William’s new boss is the man who organised his and Kate Middleton’s WEDDING
    Mirror, 23 Feb 2016
    By Victoria Murphy

    “Prince William has a new boss in his job as an air ambulance pilot – and it’s a man who helped organise the royal wedding.

    Major General Sir William Cubitt CBE has been announced as the new chairman of the East Anglian Air Ambulance and will oversee the charity that employs William to carry out life-saving missions.”

    What a racket.