Just thought you’d like to see the front page of The Sun! I love how The Sun doesn’t even care, they’re just calling him Work-Shy Will all the time now. The Daily Mail has been doing it too. Anyway, if you’re still reeling from how tone-deaf the Cambridges’ vacation was, you’re not alone. Obviously, a lot of people in the British media feel the same way. Which is why all the papers have been on the hunt for damaging details about the trip, or any unnamed-source willing to go on the record about how out of touch William and Kate are. HuffPo UK ran some coverage about how Piers Morgan claimed William “hates the press and this is a very deliberate and unacceptable attempt to shackle and control them.” To which HuffPo’s “source” said:
A source told The Huffington Post UK that this was not the case and the Cambridges’ decision to holiday in relative privacy was borne out of a desire to shield their young children from a stressful exchange with the media. The source said: “The Duke and Duchess feel strongly that small children should not be paraded around the media and inviting a trusted photographer allowed pictures to be shared with the public in an less obtrusive way. There are no deals to be done around the privacy of the children, and they [the Duke and Duchess] are confident in the decisions they are making.”
That’s their habit, whenever anyone questions the way Will and Kate operate, they deflect to their children. It’s all for their kids, and they are raising their kids their way. Except that The Telegraph points out the holiday was mostly a getaway for Will and Kate, and they brought lots of nannies and staff to handle the children.
Details have begun to emerge of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s first family holiday as a family in D, which included arriving by private jet and dining in some of the resort’s finest restaurants. They took Prince George, two, and Princess Charlotte, 10 months, on a four-night secret jaunt to the French Alps, with Kensington Palace only releasing photographs following their return to the UK.
Conditions were too dangerous on Wednesday to land at Courchevel’s altiport, which has a runway of just 537m and is considered to be one of the most dangerous airports in the world. With no lighting aids, landing in fog and low clouds is impossible. Instead, the royal family are believed to have flown by private jet with their close friend James Meade and his wife Lady Laura Marsham. The jet reportedly owned by the billionaire Duke of Westminster, to Chambery and travelled the remaining 60 miles by a chauffeur-driven private hire car.
The royal family and their entourage of nannies and security guards stayed at a luxury chalet in Courchevel 1850, the most expensive district in Les Trois Vallees, hiring an English team of chalet staff from a local company. Lined with designer boutiques including Dior, Chanel and Prada, the resort is the highest in Courchevel and boasts five Michelin star restaurants. It has more expensive hotels than any city in France other than Paris, including three with the top “Palace” rating, 16 with five-star status. The lower resorts – Courchevel Le Praz (1300), Courchevel Moriond (1650) and Courchevel Village (1550) – are more modest and affordable.
An employee at Le Pilatus restaurant, at the base of the slopes, said that the royal couple enjoyed a meal at the restaurant during their stay at the exclusive resort….The couple appeared to have just been skiing and were accompanied but two adult friends but no children, he added.
The Duke and Duchess were also spotted lunching alone at La Soucoupe, a popular and expensive mountain restaurant above Courchevel that is run by its vivacious owner, Marta Pecchio. The restaurant on the piste, which is only accessible by skiing, has a roaring log fire and serves dishes such as tagliatelle with truffles, squid cooked in its own ink, or grilled lobster.
A diner at the restaurant said: “They clearly seemed to be enjoying themselves. They were on their own without even a ski instructor, just like normal people. There was no obvious sign of any security guards.”
Emily Taylor, 23, from London, saw William and Kate walking just outside a bar on Thursday lunchtime.
“I think George had been in a ski lesson because someone was carrying really baby skis,” she told the Daily Mail. “They looked happy and were just walking and talking. A nanny was looking after Charlotte. They were just like a family on holiday but with loads of help.”
Of all the complaints that I have about the Cambridges, I have really never cared about the fact that they have child care. They have nannies… so what? A lot of people have nannies. What I do care about is A) when they lie about how much help they have and B) when they lie about how everything is for the children when clearly, Will and Kate just wanted to go on vacation. They brought along their kids so they could pose for photos with them and then William and Kate enjoyed the rest of their holiday without dealing with the kids. And they honestly believed that everyone would just be so grateful to see the kids that no one would question it further.
Photos courtesy of The Sun, Getty & KensingtonRoyal Twitter.
Taking a three or four day vacation ‘in secret’ is not the big deal, IMO. Taking and releasing staged photos of said trip is what I find odd.
It’s as if the children having fun in the snow was the main (controlled) message for the public.
But… there are no pics of the children having fun in the snow. Only those of W&K doing so, unless one considers them children too…
You’d think that parents of young kids would think that photos of their kids playing around in the snow for the first time would have been more adorable, but not W&K. Instead we get two pics of the ‘adults’ playing around with the snow as if they believe they’re that much more cuter than their kids and as if it’s these photos of them that would melt the public’s heart.
Oh I remember well the days when the Cambridges were reported to be raising their family with minimal help. And no boarding school, ever. It was all going to be just normal, normal, normal.
There were lots of folks here who bought that, too.
Like Kaiser I don’t care about the nannies and the big paid staff. They’re royal, it’s how they do. I don’t even care about fancy vacations – thats what they and their peers do.
Just do what you are paid to do, and don’t be coy about your incredibly lavish lifestyle. And stop using your kids to double down on the super secret life behind closed doors, where you are accountable to no one but yourself.
The ‘help’ aspect is likely part of what they want to hide.
Did no one on the street get snapshots of them in the village?
+1
Exactly. Go out and be patrons for your charities, work hard, and people will be more willing to forgive wanting to keep the kids private.
Exactly. The criticism isn’t about the nannies or vacations, it’s about not fulfilling their duties. Crap, we don’t criticize celebs for having nannies and luxurious vacations with their own money. Clearly, most people don’t begrudge the rich their luxuries (in txt, we enjoy living vicariously through them) but WK aren’t holding up their end of the bargain.
If they would perform royal duties 2-3 days/week alot of this controversy would die down. If they want to stay relevant they need to be seen by the public. I think they would be more valuable/useful working behind the scenes doing fundraising, but they still need to be seen.
*raises hand* I bought it!
Again, I ask why are the British public ok with this? They’re public figures and are being funded by the British public. They do the very bare minimum and they get away with it. What also gets me and it’s a bone of contention is that they paint themselves as a middle class family. Who paid for their little excursion? With staff and everything, no doubt it was expensive. Totally ridiculous.
You’ve hit on the heart of the matter exactly, @aims: WillNot and CanNot are public figures, and their children are as well. At this point, there can never be the kind of privacy and normality WillNot seems to expect. The only way to have attempted it would have been for him to remove himself from the line of succession… and then he’d not get the attention he seems to crave, which is somewhat perverse. But it isn’t really: as a royal, he’s become used to adulation. It’s easy to adore cute kids, after all; and even though he had that “Billy the Basher” nickname from schoolmates when young, his youthful good looks made it easy for those relatively few who’d heard it to overlook it. His mother’s enormous popularity helped with that, too.
And of course, her untimely death continues to fuel his tug of war with the press. It’s an unassailable crutch to rely on when he doesn’t want press attention, but what he doesn’t seem to realize is that the public’s attitude toward the monarchy has changed a lot since his boyhood days. The goodwill his grandmother has built up does not extend to the rest of the family… in fact, it actively works against him, as the Queen’s and Prince Philip’s work records are a stark contrast to his and his wife’s.
I know it’s been said many times here and elsewhere, but it bears repeating because it’s so simple and true: if Workshy Wills truly wants peace with and cooperation from the media, all he and the Duchass (not a typo) need to do is learn from Sweden’s Crown Princess Victoria and her husband Daniel. They’ve done a wonderful job balancing public exposure and privacy of their daughter Estelle, and I’m sure they’ll do the same with their newborn son Oscar. I don’t think anything like that will ever happen, though, because WillNot doesn’t seem to understand that it’s a two-way relationship with the media; he can’t control them, no matter how much he may want to.
Well said! I love your nicknames, too. 🙂
@aims
Because the ‘British public’ couldn’t care less. The Sun is desperately trying to whip up another anti royal stint that nobody gives a toss about.
Why non-Brits get so angry over the workshy Cambridges and their abject refusal to parade a 2yr old and 10 month old is beyond me. Most of us taxpaying Brits just want this family to live quietly away from us, conduct themselves with dignity and conduct their private affairs privately. So they took one poxy week away skiing, I mean, so what?? The notion that we Brits should be up in arms because the Royal family went on holiday, again, is just laughable. I mean, the only people who would profit from that would be the arms dealers!
I read some of the comments on here with incredulity. Why would any fulfilled person want to see endless pics of someone else’s children? Oh, here’s Charlotte’s first nappy change, oh here’s George’s last baby teeth falling out….etc….etc. There was too much of this dross in the Diana era. She used the ‘boys’ every chance she got, something Wills clearly hated. As we know, nobody ever consults the child as to whether they are comfortable with all this ‘in your face’ nonsense. They should not have released any pics, that’s where their PR team shot them in the foot!
Whilst it will help society for the Cambridges to ‘give back’ more of their ‘born into’ privileges, many of us don’t watch when they do, couldn’t name one charity they support/front and do not agree that wandering about shaking hands is ‘work’. It’s an irrelevant smokescreen…….no more no less. Plus, I don’t see how parading their children will be any different from what the celebs do in a crisis. Bring the smiling kids out for a photo op when things go wrong!
BTW, not that it matters, but the Cambridges holidays are not funded by the taxpayer. They are funded by the Duchy of Cornwall – owned by the Duke of Cornwall (Prince of Wales). 10 quid says a lot of their private accom/plane rides on hols are free (gifts) from those trying to brownnose their way into the ‘royal circle’. Heavens, Al fayed paid for endless expensive holidays of the Princess of Wales in his pathetic attempt to buy into that circle!
Maybe it’s just as well Britain does have a monarchy because it would be terrible if we went all ga ga and goo goo over what the Spanish royals get up to every time they stepped outside the palace. For now, allow their children to be children, they will have to take up the reins of public life, be body shamed, criticised daily and called all sorts of things, soon enough.
See, this is what happens when you idioticly put your taxpayer-funded marriages on TV!
Hoi! I’m British! I can’t stand ’em. I don’t care if they go on expensive holidays or hire a gazillion nannies. But I do care if they skip off on the constitutional compact, which confers the privilege and the resources for expensive holidays and nannies.
That said, I agree most Brits don’t GAF. They’re neither republicans nor monarchists. And, being Brits for whom change is anathema, would rather keep ’em than go to the effort of getting rid.
BTW: on the glorious day we become a republic, the Duchy of Cornwall (and that of Lancaster) will revert to the state. The BRF don’t own the royal duchies. They hold them in trust on behalf of the nation. They would get to keep Balmoral and Sandringham but not the other residences.
BTW x 2: I found that paper on cultural matching in hiring you were asking about! Posted the link ages ago. Did you see it? I can look it out again?
The Duchy of Cornwall is NOT owned by the Duke of Cornwall or POW. Ditto the Duchy of Lancaster. They have never, EVER owned them. It’s as much owned by the Duke of Cornwall/Lancaster as No 10 is owned by the Prime Minister. The difference is we haven’t managed to work out a system where we can appoint a Duke of Cornwall or Lancaster like we do the Prime Minister.
It’s one of the better cons the royal family has successfully sold the public who really believe that the duchies and the Palaces (some of them) and the Crown Estates belong to them when they do not and never have.
They’ve deliberately allowed this lie to flourish without correction beyond a small notice ie one or two lines on their public forums acknowledging that they don’t own these properties, but who reads small print?!
I’m a Brit, and I agree entirely with Sixer’s message.
@LAK, at least Charles appears to have given up his delusional plan to take over the entire Crown Estate. I’m a Conservative, and I’d rather see John McDonnell as PM than that.
Tina: me too.
I can’t believe Charles had the brass balls to attempt to have the crown estate revert to him as a permanent and personal pot. If he wasn’t exempt from the FOI act (which he shouldn’t be), i’d wager that he tried the same trick on the duchy.
It’s bad enough that the family got the govt to give them 15% of it without changing any of the existing laws such as the fact that they can never receive any less funding in any given year than the previous one. Nevermind the state of the economy.
Hi Sixer, noooo…….sorry I missed it! I don’t go back to threads sometimes……they move on so quickly.
Please post it here again if you can, thanks in advance 🙂
Here you go: http://www.asanet.org/journals/ASR/Dec12ASRFeature.pdf
It’s US research but I think I applies to the UK also.
Brit Africa,
You have said it all! And well!
I am American and hold the same sentiments.
Thanks Sixer, much appreciated :-). Interesting read isn’t it?…..
Thanks Sass. I thought it was only me that would very much like this bunch of ‘royals’ to go about their business quietly and manage their private life behind closed doors as the rest of us do.
BritAfrica: it’s ages ago now but as I recall, you were wanting more female CEOs in the City, right? And to work out why they are missing? I do think this kind of research provides a basis, if not the specific detail.
On the BRF: I could happily get with your lack of interest in their private lives, PROVIDED they are putting in the spadework on their public lives. Since the Cambridges aren’t doing that, I see them as fair game. More than that: worthy game! For the BRF to continue as an institution in the 21stC, they must be accountable.
So HuffPo UK is now their ‘official’ mouth piece. An organisation that doesn’t even pay many of its contributors! Guess that ethos fits right in with Willy – who’s tight with money as well. He’s clearly learned how to freeload from the Middletons, who are experts at it themselves.
And as for the kids, of course they were farmed off to the nannies once the photo ops were done, god forbid they get in the way of their parents enjoying some rare free time away from work, as you know they work SO HARD.
Plus the help has to have been a big group – at least 8+ RPO’s, a press person as well as her PA and the nannies which means you are looking at around 15 people just accompanying them (and not including their friends).
Willy really must be the most stupid person ever – he continues to lie even when caught and called out on it.
I don’t have kids so I don’t know about the nanny on vacation thing but … why exactly do you hire a nanny? To help out, take care of the kids so you can work or do whatever else it is you need to get done? Why does a nanny come on vacation then? Isn’t that the time to actually spend with the kids? It’s not like they have 6 children, it’s two frickin’ kids and they do have additional help. So really, the nanny is there to raise the kids not just to take care of them when needed?
And WOW to that new nickname of his. The gloves are off.
I don’t have a nanny. So what often happens with young children is that when we are on a family vacation, one of us – my husband or myself – will end up back at the hotel with the kids during nap times or down times.
They are lucky to have help. When the kids need downtime or nap time, there is someone to look after them and the parents can actually do things together. I would gladly get a nanny if I could afford it so that my husband and I could actually spend our vacations together, rather than partly separated. My kids could nap and we could go out to a nice lunch all alone. A girl can dream, lol.
I understand but that sounds more like a babysitter?
You’re talking about time with the kids… that involves plenty of time to go skiing and eat out, not having to change nappies or get up in the night if one of the kids wakes up, or having to sort out their meals- preparation and clean up.
You basically get to play with the kids in the snow a little bit (not the baby clearly but maybe a snowman or two with the toddler) and then relax and enjoy the skiing.
I remember going to a playgroup with the lovely Russian nanny of a v wealthy couple. Think private jets and ten holiday homes across the world type of wealthy. The wife didn’t work and supervised her three year old’s progress with the nanny between spa and lunch dates. All the yummy mummy cliches you could think of. The nanny told me that she worked twice as much when they went on holidays- the parents expected her to be on call from wakeup to 11PM- and then get up in the night if the three year old woke up.
Holidays are for the parents not for the kids. That’s how it works with rich people.
If the kids didn’t have to be used as photographic click bait (by their own parents) and W&K were a bit more honest about how they view their responsibilities, even their parental ones, then the kids wouldn’t have been forced to go fly out with them in bad weather, be driven 60 miles on mountain roads in the cold (presumably in a different car than with W&K because mom and dad had adult guests with them) , be used for the first five to ten minutes at the start of the vacation for the photo shoot, and then be sent back to the nanny and not bother mommy and daddy again for the rest of the vacation.
And what I don’t get is why aren’t there photos of W&K playing with G&C in the snow? It’s like that thought never went through W&K’s minds. What? Play in the snow with the kids? That’s what nannies are for.
I’m not a big fan of royalty in general. I don’t much care for any of them, including these two. Having said that, I think your post makes wayyy too many assumptions on the amount of time they spent with their children or why they brought their children. There are 24 hours in a day. If they were spotted eating out twice without their kids over a four day trip, that is hardly ignoring them or bringing them along as an excuse for a vacation/photo op. Plus a 10 month old is still napping twice a day, while the toddler is likely still taking a afternoon nap. There are plenty of reasons to dislike these two, but some of the assumptions in this post go a bit far. Sorry to have to say this.
But Kaiser doesn’t make those assumptions. She’s reporting on a UK newspaper article that does. You are criticising her for someone else’s assumptions.
But then why bring a toddler and a 10 month old on a skiing vacation, especially one in an extremely exclusive and adult resort where the non-skiing attractions are designer shops and Michelin-starred food? I’ve never been skiing, but I’m assuming Will and Kate wouldn’t have been teaching George to ski themselves, so he’s off with a teacher whilst Charlotte is off with the nanny sleeping or being otherwise entertained.
So if Mum and Dad go for a ski session in the morning, stop for lunch at a restaurant accessible only by skiing, then maybe another ski session in the afternoon (got to get back to your private chalet somehow) ….? Kids in bed by 6.30pm, parents hit the apres-ski and another Michelin-starred restaurant? In context, it’s not that crazy to think that bringing the children was mainly for the photo-op, especially when this ‘family holiday’ could have been somewhere child-friendly. I know they went to Mustique when George was only a few months old, and babies love sand and sea.
I would add the question, “Why in France?” Shouldn’t they promote skiing in Scotland? Since they are so important to tourists, as has been mentioned in many a royal forum.
Someone mentioned tiny skis. So it seems George was having lessons. There are plenty of things that toddlers can do even though they have a baby sibling. I would take one of mine to dance lessons while my baby slept in the carrier or in my arms. Same for vacations. Babies sleep a lot, but they are still part of the family. I would not dream of going on a vacation and leaving my baby at home. I’m guessing she is still breastfeeding as well (she was breastfeeding or am I wrong?).
I’m not a ski person so I don’t know what a child friendly ski resort is like vs one that is not child friendly. But when we go on vacation, we all go, even if the baby at the time had to stay with mom or dad at the hotel for a nap, while the other family members went on an adventure. It’s just how we parents roll.
I do agree that they should be doing more to promote English tourism.
God knows I can’t stand William & Kate, but even I wouldn’t insist they try skiing in Scotland at this time of year (there’s no snow).
And everyone laughed at him, but Charles made an effort in that regard, he said that we should take holidays in flood-hit regions. At least he’s trying.
Tina, there actually is snow in the north of Scotland just now. I live there and all the hills are covered with it. Whether there is still enough snow to ski there is a different matter though…
Regarding tourism, I don’t know if some of you know that England and Scotland are both different parts of the UK. You would encourage ski-ing in Scotland to promote “British” or “Scottish” tourism. “English” tourism would be encouraged by ski-ing in England
@Carolind, apologies, I was unclear, I meant no snow for skiing – I had a look on the Ski Scotland website (or whatever it’s called) and it didn’t look like any of the runs were open.
@drknowitall
I’m not at all arguing that they should have left the children at home because young babies need a lot of sleep or that a toddler can’t do anything else whilst said baby sibling is sleeping. I’m just wondering why you would make a point of your first family holiday being at a ski resort which, to me, doesn’t sound like it is as family-friendly as other locations, like Mustique. Holidaying at an exclusive ski resort sounds designed with primarily the parents in mind; this is fine, of course, and I wouldn’t begrudge any couple the chance to get away together. But then I wonder why they brought their children at all, if they wanted an adult skiing getaway, and made such a point of it being ‘our first family holiday together’.
I’ll happily second that they should be promoting English tourism though. @Deedee, I didn’t even know Scotland had any decent outdoor skiing resorts until you mentioned it and I started Googling!
@Rachel, it really depends on the lifestyle and interests of the parents. I am reluctant to judge and “family friendly” is really not as available or entertaining for all involved as people think. I have friends who surf and bring their 1 year old along. I would not. Nor would I take a toddler skiing. But then again, I don’t ski and I don’t surf. But there is snow and kids love snow!
People often give me crap because my five year old loves ballet and likes going to see live performances. I am careful to go during afternoon shows, when possible. I am careful to always get seats by the door. I am careful to keep my child’s enjoyment as quiet as possible. It always works out and she enjoys it. But I often get crap from other parents who think my daughter is too young to be going to an adult performance (ballet!!!).
The point is, kids can and do find enjoyment in all sorts of things. Until they truly develop their own interests, their enjoyment comes from their parents’ preferred activities. In this case, skiing for little George in the snow. That actually sounds like fun! Maybe they had snowball fights too?
As parents, we simply don’t get the choice of an “adult getaway” because are kids are always with us.
My 3 year old is learning to ski and loves it. However, since we don’t take our nanny with us when we go skiing, it means either my husband or I have to skip skiing to play with him on the magic carpet slope. Don’t get me wrong, it’s fun and I love being with him, but it’s mildly painful to drive hours to get to the mountain, gear up, pay for a crazy $$$ lift ticket, and only get 2-3 runs, especially as I am still learning also.
W&K are athletic people and they are sharing a sport that they love with their kids early on, so that they will grow up as skiers. My guess is that the nanny was there mostly for Charlotte, that George was in ski school, and that W&K skied themselves on the hard runs. You can have a family vacation and not spend every moment with your kids. Heavens, my favorite vacations are when my in-laws come so I can have a moment to read a book without my beloved small people interrupting me every 2 minutes to repeat the same comments they made all day long. Doesn’t mean I don’t love and adore my kids and dote on them and spend tons of time with them.
The Sun even did a print editorial slagging them. Most amusing.
Sad to say, it’s bitten off a bit more than it can chew today, Some kerfuffle over Her Maj being a Eurosceptic (or not). Buck House have actually complained about Rupert and his minions. Bad timing for those of us with unhealthy levels of schadenfreude over the Cambridge battering. Bah!
I’m not anti-nanny at all, maybe it’s hard once you get used to having one around (as I’m sure Will and Kate are VERY used to) to go without. And maybe they thought Nanny Maria would enjoy going along to Courchevel.
It is funny how they once claimed (pre-children of course) that they planned to have no nannies?!?! And then Kate must have realized how kids do cut into your yoga, shopping, hair appointment, and tennis time!
“Workshy Wills”, thanks The Sun, that is awesome!
My favourite Sun headline so far has been “Snow go, Wills”.
I liked “Throne Idle”.
I liked the snowed under too:-)
That’s the thing. If they had come out and said “Yes, we’ll have help” and actually worked as much as TQ/DoE or Charles and Camilla, most people would be understanding. But they’re not working nearly as much as they should be AND they have help. They think they’re so coy and sneaky. They must take us all for fools who are easily distracted by cute babbehs.
They are getting called lazy on frontpage !
I don’t begrudge them bringing nannies on vacation. Traveling with small children is not fun. What bugs me (and I admit to being late to the game on this, I made excuses for both of them for a long time) is the lack of work. If they put in the time like his 90 year old grandparents do, and then wanted to take a luxurious trip with extensive staff-go for it. If I was a British taxpayer, I would be furious.
So apparently when Victoria and Daniel bring out Estelle in Sweden they are ‘parading around their child’ instead of raising their daughter to know what to expect for when she’s in charge. And every other royal family that brings their kids out for family photocalls (Hell the Danes do it several times as year as a ‘tradition’), are just doing it wrong. /s
You prepare the child for the road-not the road for the child. This is going to be their job, and preparing them in small age appropriate doses is key. I just don’t get these two.
I thought that was shade, too. All the other European families do this. As did Charles and Di, back in the day.
Apparently they are all doing it wrong.
As have many royals–especially the British–since the dawn of photography. It’s especially important in a constitutional monarchy which relies on the public goodwill rather than some divine right.
This exactly. So when the Dutch royal family have their annual ski slope photocall (after which the photogs leave them alone–i.e. Princess Alexia broke her thigh bone the other week and there were no pix of that, her getting helicoptered to hospital, etc.), that’s exploitation?
W and K are playing to their “sugar” fans who will gawp over the cute babies and the details of Kate’s expensive possum-lined mittens (a gift from Carole! Pippa has them in red!). And they have a lot of those fans.
The Telegraph published more specific info about the ski trip including info pertaining to the possum mittens. Apparently those mittens aren’t considered animal cruelty since possum in NZ (where they’re made) are considered vermin. It leads me to wonder if Carole knew that? She gave he daughter vermin mittens.
Only the finest vermin mittens for Ma Midd’s daughters! 🙂
I think the problem is that the British press is more aggressive and perhaps don’t back off after the photocall. I can certainly understand the parents wanting to control media access to their children, especially when they are so young, but W & K need to reach a compromise with the press–all this sniping is damaging to the monarchy. Just working more would help alot also !
@littlemissnaughty Yes, I guess a babysitter. But given their celebrity status, I’m guessing they have a vetting process and security checks. So they keep their babysitter on salary and take her/him on vacations… just guessing of course. Plus, where would one find a babysitter on vacation? I know that some hotels provide that service, but I would never leave my kids with someone I just met. But then again, I rarely use babysitters in general. This may explain all of my gray hair:)
Interesting considering all the criticisms of lazy Cambridges, People magazine completely ignores it. They just carry on lavishing praise and adoration. People magazine seems to be their best friend. Why?
I think People mag is playing to the sugar crowd — those who don’t want to hear anything substantive about these two. It’s all look at the cute kids, doesn’t Kate have pretty hair and isn’t she slim and fit, and wow Will and Kate are so keen on their “work”! It goes along with the simpering “Princess Kate” crap People also insists upon.
And P.S. People magazine also insists on continuing to shove the Duggars down their readers’ throats (including a cover story on Cousin Amy!!!–the horror, the horror)–so that publication has a definite recent trend of sycophancy toward the non-deserving
Thanks, I can remember buying People magazine back when the engagement of Charles and Diana was announced. I was twelve, I rode my bike to the store. I remember thinking Diana was the best thing since sliced bread. Soon after I discovered US magazine. I thought US meant United States magazine LOL. They had excellent coverage of the Charles and Diana engagement and wedding. They too seemed neutral during the War of the Wales’. People and US magazine; the Switzerland of magazines.
People magazine is also known as Kneepads, I think the equivalent in the UK is Hello! magazine.
I’m just laughing at all of these papers piling on!! Good!!! It’s about time!
Did kate get an eyelift…something is off with her face in these pics to me.
There’s ample PhotoShop going on. Tough to say what’s real and what’s not.
Will has a horrible smile. He just sort of bares his teeth. It’s weird.
Are they seriously trying to sell a ski vacation as a family vacation when their children are a toddler and a baby? How dumb do they think the public is?
There was a UK journalist documentary last year which was dropping hints the newspapers were not happy to be kept in check if I recall on the Australian tour one journalist on camera said he wasn’t comfortable with the way journalists were being kept in check only allowed certain access or something on those linesI. But he came across as really angry. It crossed my mind, then that if the press were not happy, if W and K said something wrong or did something that was questionable the press would print it. I wonder if this years W and K India tour will be to the press’s satisfaction,
Or they’ll do what they did with Diana 2.0’s christening. Only allow pre-selected pro-W&K photographers and journalists to certain events on the tour. ie. No one who questions their actions is allowed a press pass. I can see them trying to pull that and claiming it is for security reasons.
Lol. I love it. Those Cambridges have a lot of the public so pressed. I’m telling you, they are easier to read about once you realize that there are those people in life who get to live a certain way due to either their hard work, marrying someone wealthy or being born into a certain historical family. They have the luxury of picking when they want to work, staying home to raise their kids or just floating through life if they chose.
Will and Kate just don’t bother me anymore. Stories about them make me chuckle now instead of annoy me because I’m sure a lot of people would enjoy having those same privileges and would do a lot of the same things they are complaining about with this couple IF they could.