Ingrid Seward: Carole Middleton ‘set a good work ethic’ for her kids


In this week’s issue of People Magazine, there’s a side-bar cover story all about Carole Middleton, the mother of the Duchess of Cambridge. The timing on this story is really, really odd. Even if you just take the story and the timing at face value, it’s very much a “don’t forget about the Middletons!” story, when there was really no reason to remind us. As we discussed on Wednesday, Part 1 of the story was all about how Carole is Kate’s “secret weapon.” Secret, not so much. Weapon? Why would Kate need a weapon again? In any case, Part 2 is even more bizarre and pointless. The headline? “Granny Power! Inside Carole Middleton’s Unprecedented Bond with the Queen: ‘There’s Been No One Like Her’” No, seriously. Why are these stories happening? Some highlights:

Carole Middleton is a commoner “raising” the next-gen royals. People writes: “Carole Middleton, the daughter of a trucking company employee-turned-builder dad and a shop clerk mom, occupies an unprecedented position in raising the next generation of royals — namely, her two grandchildren: future king Prince George, 3, and his 18-month-old sister, Princess Charlotte.”

Carole’s work ethic. Ingrid Seward notes, “She has encouraged her children and supported them and been there for them, and set a good work ethic for them.”

The Queen accepts the Middletons. A “regular observer” at Balmoral says: “I’ve never known a family drawn into the royal family like the Middletons.” The same observer notes that the Queen invited the Middletons to stay at Balmoral, and that Carole had lunch with the Queen. Carole also got an invite to the Royal Ascot this year as guest of the Queen.

Carole has no delusions of grandeur. Another observer claims, “The Middleton parents really could be the people next door. They are lucky their daughter is going to be the future queen, but there are no delusions of grandeur. I think certainly Prince Philip appreciates that.”

Ingrid Seward says the Queen is fine with the Middletons’ involvement. “Because of the circumstances of William’s childhood, the Queen has made a big effort to include the Middletons much more than she would have done otherwise. She is recognizing they have a big role in the lives of her family – and she is happy with that… [Carole] can afford time to devote to her grandchildren – which must be bliss for her. She’ll be taking time to read to them, play with them and do all the things you want a granny to do.”

Carole is unassuming, of course. Robert Lacey (royal historian) claims Carole “is openly surprised and enjoying her situation but without any suggestion of lording it over anybody. In terms of a non-royal, young and trendy granny there’s been no one like her at all. In the past, [young Princess] Elizabeth had a Scottish nanny who was the daughter of a railway signalman and actually slept in her bedroom until she was a teenager. She would teach her the habit of unwrapping your presents carefully and then ironing [the wrapping paper] and putting it back in a drawer so you could use it again. That sort of contact with ordinary life came through the servants in that generation — and now it’s coming through Carole.”

[From People]

We should perhaps take this beat by beat, because OMG. First of all, is Carole “raising” the next-gen royals, Charlotte and George? We could easily argue she IS raising them, but perhaps the better question is WHY is she raising them? Shouldn’t Kate and William raise their own children? Second thing – Carole absolutely has an amazing work ethic and unbridled ambition, none of which is a bad thing. But she did not pass that along to her kids. Kate is lazy, needy and helpless without her mother. Pippa failed as a socialite/writer for years until she landed a Terribly Rich guy. And James has like four failed businesses under his belt already. Third beat: Carole has no “delusions of grandeur” and she’s not “lording it over” anyone. Yes, I guess that’s why People Magazine published a two-part exclusive about how she’s so indispensable to her daughter, son-in-law and royal grandkids. Because it’s not like she fancies herself the Queen-in-waiting or anything.

Photos courtesy of Getty, WENN.

Related stories

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

110 Responses to “Ingrid Seward: Carole Middleton ‘set a good work ethic’ for her kids”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Loopy says:


  2. Sixer says:

    Oh, FGS.

    Also, the underlying assumption of all this is that moving “up” to the circles of the antiquated, anachronistic, desiccated BRF is an admirable ambition, one all of us would obviously share.

    I can’t imagine a more tragic ambition, frankly.

    • LAK says:

      You know, until the rise of the middletons, i really believed that we’d become a classless society to a certain degree. Remember when Mockney was all the rage? Everything seemed more fluid.

      It’s mindboggling that the Midfletons so believe in the class system that they willingly played, and continue to play into it.

      Uncle Gary once said all this stuff was ridiculous, but he recognised that it was important to Carole. Not simply becoming rich, but joining the upper classes was paramount. And she set out to do it.

      And she wants us to know that she’s arrived. She really is Hyacinth Bucket.

      • Sixer says:

        She really is.

        And this attitude shouldn’t be allowed to spread. It’s so damaging and regressive.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Mike is looking more and more like poor Richard, browbeaten by his wife and ashamed of his useless spoiled child(ren).

        I imagine Carole running about Bucklebury, intoning, “Michael. MMMiiiiichael. Michael, really!” in Hyacinth’s dulcet tones.

        “I once caught Richard playing with a frisbee. He says it was one he found, but I’ve never been sure. Sometimes on sleepless nights when my head is swimming with the responsibilities of organising another candlelight supper, sometimes I wonder, did he buy the frisbee?” – Hyacinth Bucket

      • LAK says:

        Nota: Lol

        Sixer: perhaps it’s another example of how much society’s attitudes are regressing.

        There is so much that i thought had been settled/ banished in the 90s that is now either being repealed legally or ressurrected as the new societal standard.

      • Sixer says:

        We need to come to our collective senses, LAK.

        The Middletons aren’t important in the cosmic scale of things but I think what they represent is significant. They should be emblematic of yesterday, not of tomorrow.

        Carole is the epitome of everything I dislike. Worse even than Katie Bucket!

      • Cee says:

        She wears a signet ring for a made up coat of arms, of course she cares. Of course she lords it over everyone. In her mind she has arrived, although I don’t know where to, exactly, as she managed to raise 3 twits with no accomplishments other than the people they shag.

      • Poppy says:

        Call me synical, but could this have anything to do with the build up to next years anniversary of the death of Diana? There’s already a fair bit being written regarding quotes from Will & Harry, how they plan on remembering their late mother and GRANDMOTHER of George & Charlotte! Even more will be reported next year as the date nears so Kate will be an after thought & Carole, all but forgotten, so why not get her two penneth of good publicity in now. After all Will & Kate can’t survive without her and the kids, well they’d be nothing without her – the perfect support system for Diana’s son & grandchildren! Plus when have the Middleton’s ever been over shadowed?!? And of course she’s best friends with HM & Philip whereas Diana only had a “warm” & respectful relationship, infact prefering to spend the annual Balmoral holiday carrying out engagements, not sitting in the front of HM’s landrover. Diana will be reported as the Grandmother George & Charlotte missed out on – all that fun they would’ve had together. If its true, Carole obviously sees herself as the lynchpin of a future monachy so, Charlie boy had better watch out!

      • Kloops says:

        What Cee said. Basically this article is an exercise in the mental gymnastics of reading one thing when it means the exact opposite. Regressive is the right word. It’s a tabloid article circa the 1980s. Flashback.

      • Megan says:

        She’s getting in front of th PR train in case Meghan Markle is here to stay. She sees herself as the quintessential royal mother in law and she isn’t about to share the spotlight.

      • 600Purple says:

        OMG she really is Hyacinth. I loved her so much. Now I may have found a new love of Carole, just for the comedy factor and reliving 90′s TV.

      • Poppy says:

        We’ll see, somebody who’s daughter & family have been centre of attention for several years is not going to sit back & do nothing! She the matriach that’s going to push her family to the fore no matter what – that’s why she has always lived vicariously through Kate – plus making sure she is irreplaceable! But even she knows she won’t be able to compete with ‘ England’s Rose’. We’ll see what the next 6 – 10 months bring!

  3. Janet says:

    Sounds like Meghan Markle is a threat.

    • Nic919 says:

      This two part article certainly suggests she is afraid of Markle stealing her thunder. And interestingly, the story to counter it is about Carole and not Kate.

      I just find it interesting that it confirms Kate and William aren’t heavily involved in raising their own kids. And that Carole is basically the governess , on top of Nanny Maria. So what the hell does Kate do?

      This commoner Royal stuff is pure nonsense. It is not a bad thing for a grandmother to be in the lives of her grandchildren. The problem is that she is acting like a parent for the most part, and it seems like the other grandparent, Charles, is being excluded.

      • Oriane says:

        >Carole is basically the governess

        So Wills did not quite manage to marry a governess, but he came as close as he could? ;)

      • Kitty says:

        Which Kate and William will lose because if he marries who knows a black women they are going to be pushed aside and I see a shift in the monarchy.

    • HappyMom says:

      This. I think Harry is really serious about her. And the two of them would totally eclipse W & K.

      • Yolanda says:

        If that’s the case, then why aren’t they building up W & K instead of Carole?

      • Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

        @yolanda – they are building up Carole to give her a title. She is desperate for one – all this recent PR is a distraction from the state of the Cambridge marriage and to float the public’s reaction to Waity’s family getting a title. We get stories about Carole the Supergranny every year.

      • Janet says:

        By building up Carole as normal and middle class, they are inadvertently building up Kate. Can’t have Meghan and her family coming out as more normal and hardworking than the Middleton family. Honestly, I think Meghan will be a real threat to Kate and her family. She works hard. She does charity work. She genuinely comes from humble beginnings.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Or the press are building up to a possible Carole vs. Doria series, and Carole intends to win.

        Carole with PP’s shady finances, child labour and offensive costume problems, and adult children who don’t know how to earn a living. Radlan with Masters in Social Work, working as a therapist, and a daughter who is a successful television actress.

        Which one are US audiences more likely to choose as their “favorite royal mother in law”? I’m guessing it isn’t the one with a coat of arms based on her love of skiing and her pride in marrying a daughter off to a prince (golden acorns).

        KM & Pippa learned their mean girling skills at their mummy’s knee. Carole’s pride won’t stand for 1) being disliked and 2) the other mother in law being openly liked. Whomever Harry ends up marrying, his mother-in-law will get the Carole treatment.

      • Kitty says:

        It wouldn’t work. The media decides who plays second fiddle.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The traditional media doesn’t control social media, and more and more they look to stories and trends in social media as source material for their published stories.

        If public comment sections are filled with independent praise for Doria? Traditional media articles praising Normal Carole will only engender more public cynicism towards the Middleton family and their obvious PR.

        The media will try hard to keep up the spare-and-spare’s spouse bashing, but ultimately they do not control social media as much as Jason may try. (Waves Hi to the Berkshire social media team!)

      • Kitty says:

        @Nota I disagree. If Harry and whoever he marries are more popular in the public and media the media will do all they can to make them have all the attention and WK will just have to suck it up.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I think the media will do whatever gets them the most money and the most clicks.

      • Alicat1822 says:

        Notasugarhere- you make very valid points. Minus the core group of commentators, that seems to be something that is lacking of late.

    • Kloops says:

      This is the only thing that makes sense. And they’re right to be concerned. If MM is interested in taking on the role of Harry’s bride W&K are screwed unless she also agrees to play second fiddle. MM is far more interesting, charismatic, intelligent, beautiful and hard working than Kate. That’s really evident. It’s only a question of how much damage she’d cause the W&K brand.

    • seesittellsit says:

      Markle is undoubtedly a threat – she may be just a D-list actress, but she still has more substance than Waity Katy ever did. And she’s ten times prettier. There were always rumors that Kate was instrumental in discouraging Harry’s relationship with Cressida Bonas, fearing that the comparison between her and a younger, prettier, aristo blonde who was born into the circles that Kate aspired to. I’m sure Kate saw Bonas recede with a sigh of relief. Now she may find herself confronting a far more charismatic sister in law.

      Comes under the heading, “Be careful what you wish for.”

      • Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

        It was the same with Chelsy – there were rumours that she (Kate) was suggesting Harry was cheating on her when she allegedly told Chelsy that she’ll have to put up with the cheating if she wanted to be a royal GF. There has never been any stories about Harry cheating, getting around when single but by all accounts he’s a faithful bf, unlike his brother.

      • Emily says:

        Even if Megan Markle were a total loser (I don’t think she is, I’m more inclined to agree with your assessment of her), she’d be a threat to Kate just because she’s more interesting: she’s a working actress and humanitarian, she’s American, she’s of a mixed-race background, and maybe most importantly, she’s NEW. The most significant thing we know about her so far is Harry cares enough about her to really put his neck out for her re: the media coverage of her. So I’m not surprised if Kate, and by extension her mother, are worried.

  4. Cerys says:

    Carole might have a strong work ethic herself but she certainly hasn’t passed it on to her children.

    • justsaying says:

      She’s happy that Kate still needs her mommy.

    • seesittellsit says:

      Indeed – and the irony of Carole’s undoubted work ethic, is that its ultimate goal was to ensure that none of her children needed to work at all, except at increasing their foothold on the rungs of wealth and social position. I doubt that privately Ms. Seward is in any doubt of this, but her job is to push the monarchy as RBF jourmalism pays for Ms. Seward’s rather nice lifestyle, as well.

      • addie says:

        Totally agree. Though I think Party Pieces is one shady number; other companies of the same size, selling the same cheap tat don’t make millions of pounds. I’d guess Uncle Gary’s money has been regularly pumped in. The Middleton kids have been taught to (1) assume the pose of the elite and (2) shag till they bag a rich/titled one. That’s all they are about. Ingrid Seward is on a whole bunch of drugs if she thinks otherwise.

  5. agnes says:

    “.. and set a good work ethic for them.”
    So she has more children than the three we know of?

  6. ohmy says:

    I laughed so hard when I read “work ethic”.

  7. notasugarhere says:

    Carole is aiming to be Queen Mother and Grandmother in waiting

    Let’s forget all about favorite Sophie’s father, who really has been brought into the royal fold, is welcomed by the Queen, and has spent his holidays with the royal family for years.

    • Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

      Yep. Carole is angling for a title and front and centre role within the family when Willy takes the throne. She wants to rule the royal family.

    • HappyMom says:

      But he doesn’t publicize it, so we don’t see it in People magazine.

  8. Christin says:

    If I were a working parent in the U.K., this would especially irritate me. This is not grandmother trying to assist a working or otherwise time-deprived couple with few resources and no paid help.

  9. Yolanda says:

    I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.

  10. oce says:

    Just a thought/guess: these People Mag articles might be the lead up to “Party Pieces” planning a USA expansion (the Middleton family run business). Wouldn’t surprise me if this occurs in 2017. #WatchThisSpace

    • bluhare says:

      That’s an interesting thought. Nope, Carole doesn’t trade on royal connections at all if that’s the case, right?

    • Erica says:

      I don’t understand why the Carole has to always be front and center.They sure fooled William pretend to hate the press then when Kate got the ring they were everywhere doing press.The sad part of the story is they have to build up Carole’s work ethic and history to make Kate look good.Carole raised three clueless,lazy children two of which are now kept women.The verdict is still out on James .I don’t see him marrying Donna or any….

  11. Seraphina says:

    I’m sorry, I was completely lost after the work ethic statement. Hilarious!

    • Maria says:

      I agree. I can’t believe that Ingrid Seward would actually say something that ridiculous. Didn’t she say several posts ago that Will and Kate were “lazy and entitled”?

  12. notasugarhere says:

    What is Carole offering People and Seward in exchange for these pro-Carole articles? Or what anti-Meghan Markle articles will they be offering up in exchange for Carole’s insider info?

  13. Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

    Ahaha have. How much ch was she paid to say this? Or what was dangled in front of her?

    The Middletons really r the Buckets.

    This is normal behaviour for the new rich. If u watch some of the property programs you will see all the self made millionaires buying run down stately home on the cheap to ‘restorer’ them on the cheap as well. All the while planning their coat of arms.

    I thought we seen that die off but the Middletons have made it trendy.

  14. Tourmaline says:

    All 3 of the Middleton kiddies have obnoxious delusions of how hardworking they are.

    Remember James claiming that he is entirely self-made for his Boomf marshmallow folly/business. Pippa has claimed to be oh so hardworking, before her engagement to a billionaire removed the need to pretend she had a busy career doing …something.

    And of course Kate in her engagement interview claiming to put in long hours at Party Pieces in a feeble attempt to throw off the Waity Katie mantle. And all the keen, hard work that KP flacks have tried to portray her as doing ever since.

    Lots of smoke and mirrors.

    • Cee says:

      I work at my family’s company and I take offense at her comments. Working hard is staying at work until 2 AM to make sure an order gets shipped correctly, or to receive containers and installations. She is idle because she was allowed to be.

  15. CrystalBall says:

    Correction: Carole is raising six children – Kate, William, Pippa, James, George, Charlotte.

    Did you notice how Kate didn’t give a speech for months but now suddenly after all the photos of Meghan Markle addressing ths UN through a bank of microphones, the idle one was pictured saying a few words at Place2Be event. Her words were ones of admiration foe the children. Her tone was so lacking in warmth she could have been talking about politics. What a waste.

    • Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

      At least she didn’t write it herself – last time she did that she basically said that poor parents were bad parents who caused their children’s mental health issues.

    • Trixie says:

      “Kate didn’t give a speech for months”

      Kate’s previous speech before the Place2Be one was on October 10

  16. Starlight says:

    Can Carole do A Who Do You Think You Are (ancestry investigation program on BBC) – and Trump Danny Dyer – mind not such a good idea I see someone did an in depth tree on Carole’s side and there was a road sweeper – nothing wrong with that whatsoever as long as you acknowledge it

    • Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

      Carole famously didn’t invite her side of the family to Kate’s wedding – they were on national TV to call her out on it. Thats why they invited a bunch of strangers from Buckleberry – to fill those seats.

      • Yolanda says:

        Uncle Gary plus daughter were there, right? Does she have any other family members we don’t know of?

      • Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

        ^ Yes she has cousins etc.. that weren’t invited. Plus Gary has to be there as he funded the 10 yr great Prince Hunt.

      • Olenna says:

        Just as an aside, I read not long ago that Pippa asked Uncle G’s daughter to be one of her bridesmaids. Apparently, this move is to make up for all the snubbing he’s received over the last 6-7 years. It will be interesting to see if she/Carole invites more Midds or Goldsmiths to her wedding than Katie did.

  17. seesittellsit says:

    Working at what, is the question? Of course, one realizes how exhausting social climbing is. . . all the hours at the gym keeping the muscles taut, all the shopping for the correct clothes, the elocution lessons erasing traces of the working-class accents, keeping up with the real aristos at places like St. Andrews, making sure one knows which fork to use at dinner . . . did I forget learning how to ski, ride, shoot, and plan menus with the household staff?

  18. perplexed says:

    I guess I can believe she set a work ethic. She did work several jobs before and after she married. Whether her kids and son-in-law actually follow what she set is a different story.

    Maybe the laziness will skip a generation with George and Charlotte since they don’t have to social climb.

  19. Yolanda says:

    Everyone talks about Carole’s work ethic, but I have seen no evidence it even exists. The Midds are rich thanks to Mike’s inheritance and rich uncle Gary’s help.
    In what way exactly is Carole successful?

    • Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

      Carole started Party Pieces from her kitchen and Gary funded its start up. Mike’s inheritance paid for the children’s education.

      Am no fan of the Mids but Carole and Mike worked very hard to make PP successful and provide the kind of lifestyle that their kids take for granted.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I think the true Middleton net worth is unknown and highly exaggerated. All the talk of how much money PP made, but the majority of the time they were in business was pre-big internet sales. The reporters investigating the value of similar companies, plus evidence of their out-of-UK massive second mortgage, tell a different story.

      • Yolanda says:

        But how do we know PP is successful? I thougt their finances were not public information.

      • Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

        We don’t know how much money PP is worth but there was a time it was doing very well (as NOTA says pre Amazon days when it was all mail order, it was started in 1987). Given the competition they have from online retailers such as amazon its prob not as profitable as it was once was. But my point is they worked hard to build it up – you can’t take that away from them.

        I can’t believe i am defending them :(

  20. I didn’t think about the angle of pushing for a title. My first thought is she’s vying for a Christmas invitation to the Royal festivities.

  21. Kitty says:

    Anyways I think William and Kate won’t be King and Queen in the future. Charles is not popular with the public and also once The Queen passes I bet a lot of the commonwealth countries would leave the UK.

    • joannie says:

      They won’t leave and William will become king. Despite those that would like to see royalty disappear it won’t. There are far too many benefits to having the monarchy especially in the world of today. People want stability, democracy and strength. If you wish to be more of a republic simply looks at the US and the mess going on there. Plus it’s actually more expensive. People like to blame the monarchy for our economic troubles. No it’s because the people we elect.

      • Kitty says:

        Ask yourself you really think William wants to be King?

      • joannie says:

        Yes I do. Maybe not prior to his mothers death or shortly afterwards but I think he’s accepted it.

      • Kitty says:

        Well I disagree.

      • Sixer says:

        The Irish president’s office and upkeep costs considerably less than the BRF expressed both in monetary terms and in proportion of public expenditure . Were we to keep the same parliamentary system under a republic, the Irish model with a non-executive head of state is the model we’d most likely follow as it would ensure the most seamless transition with least change to actual governance.

        It would be vastly cheaper than the BRF.

        This would be no less stable than the current arrangements as the head of state role would continue to be largely ceremonial, just with input from the public by vote. Which, to my mind, would be infinitely preferable as well as cheaper.

        Transition to republic need not involve combining the executive with the head of state. I don’t much like the US system because of this.

      • joannie says:

        Sixer I think that’s unrealistic. The Royal Family legally owns the crown estates. If they are gone so is the income which is worth billions in pounds. That land then becomes theirs. It’s held in trust for now.

      • Sixer says:

        Not this again, Joannie.

        The nation owns the Crown Estates. The BRF holds them in trust on behalf of the nation. They don’t get to keep them in the event of transition to a republic.

        The BRF get to keep their private wealth: such properties as Balmoral and Sandringham.

        Try to understand this concept, please. “The Crown” is not the BRF. “The Crown” is the symbolic embodiment of the British state – the nation. It is a legal concept.

        This is why, for example, court cases are referred to as Crown v Person or R v Person. Nothing to do with the Queen. Everything to do with the state known as the UK. The same symbolic representation is expressed in the US as “the people”.

      • joannie says:

        There are no provisions regarding the ownership of The Crown Estate in the
        hypothetical situation where the monarchy was to be abolished
        For now it is hers as long as she reigns.

      • LAK says:

        Sixer, it’s reached the point where one is banging their head against a brick wall, such is the determined denial of the facts around the Crown Estates or any of the state property held in trust by the royals and continued denial of what happens to such properties when monarchy is abolished.

      • Sixer says:

        I know, LAK. Black is blue. Up is down.

      • Sixer says:

        LAK – marginally related but I think a similar misapprehension and it might make you laugh. France is bacon:

        I had a similar thing as a young child. So far as I could see, Don Quicksot did not own a donkey called Oty.

      • LAK says:

        That made me laugh. Thank you.

      • Tina says:

        @Joannie, if the UK were to become a republic, the only way in which the monarch would be able to have sole possession of the Crown Estates would be if s/he agreed to take on responsibility for paying for government/Treasury obligations. Those were the terms on which the Crown Estate was surrendered by George III in 1760, and those are the circumstances in which the monarch could take it back.

        @LAK/Sixer, it’s amazing how people who know nothing about UK constitutional law (usually American and Canadian royal-lovers) are so free with their opinions on the subject.

      • Sixer says:

        Tina – quite. I mean, the Crown Estate owns half the UK’s shorelines, for flip’s sake. Plus seabeds surrounding the Scottish Isles and similar. It’s not a matter of country houses. It’s the actual country! To Britishers who don’t get it, I try and explain the Crown Estate corporate status as like an old nationalised industry, such as British Rail. It’s a corporation that belongs to the nation. But Americans don’t have much in the way of nationalised industries, so they don’t get that either!

      • joannie says:

        It would probably take a court ruling because these things were not properly nationalised its all on agreement with the monarch and by abolishing the monarchy the government would be breaking this contract so the Monarchy would be entitled to the lands so some sort of settlement would have to be met.
        Like I said hypothetical! The RF are not going anywhere….not in our lifetime. Useless conversation actually. Plus you are in the minority. Too many people want them.

      • Sixer says:

        At what point have I ever said the UK is likely to become a republic, joannie? I’m all over this thread and many others on this site disagreeing with American friends who think it’s likely to happen after ER dies. Much as I’d like it to, it won’t happen. And, much as I’d like it to, it would be so far down on my list of priorities as Glorious Leader of the UK, I’d probably never even get around to it myself.

        None of this has anything whatsoever to do with the legal situation, which you have entirely, utterly, completely wrong. Sorry!

      • Tina says:

        @Sixer, agreed. And for anyone out there who doubts the truth of what Sixer, LAK and I (and no doubt others) have been saying: the way you know that the Crown Estates don’t really belong to the Queen is that she has to take whatever percentage of the revenue the government decides to give her, be it 15% (which is a wildly generous measure anyway) or 25% (which is bonkers).

        She can’t just tell the administrators to give her all the income. Nor can Charles. And not even the most sycophantic toe-rags in government want to entertain any of his daft notions concerning the Crown Estates. Because they are nonsensical and (more importantly) unconstitutional. Joannie is right that it would require a court ruling to enforce what we have been saying. But every judge in the UK would agree with us. And it would never come to court because the royals know this.

      • joannie says:

        I apologize for my assumptions but you complain so much. By the way I’m English. Live part time in Otterton. Being from Devon I’m sure you know where that is.

      • kar says:


    • Sixer says:

      Charles is nowhere near as unpopular as it was. The Commonwealth countries have already left the UK. I’d be perfectly happy to see the demise of the BRF but it is highly unlikely to happen any time soon, ER or no ER.

      • Kitty says:

        Once The QUeen passes a lot of the Commonwealth countries will leave.

      • Sixer says:

        Leave what, Kitty? The Commonwealth countries aren’t part of the UK so they can’t leave it when ER dies. They’ve left already.

      • Kitty says:

        What are you talking about SIXER? There are still 16 countries in the Commonwealth that The Queen is head of state.

      • LAK says:

        Kitty, REALMS are not the same thing as COMMONWEALTH. What you are describing as the commonwealth is a collection of 52 Countries. HM is not head of state of commonwealth countries.

        The Realms is a collection of 16 countries that still have HM as their head of state.

        The realms are part of the commonwealth, but not all commonwealth countries are realms.

    • Sixer says:

      “Anyways I think William and Kate won’t be King and Queen in the future. Charles is not popular with the public and also once The Queen passes I bet a lot of the commonwealth countries would leave the UK.”

      I’m talking about what you said.

      So you didn’t mean countries would leave the UK? You meant they would leave the Commonwealth of Nations?

      So you didn’t mean that William won’t become King of the UK? You meant that some more Commonwealth nations might transition to a republic? You do realise that a majority of Commonwealth nations are already republics? ER is only head of state of a minority of them?

      William will almost certainly become King. The UK will almost certainly not transition to a republic. There will probably be a slow drift of Commonwealth nations transitioning just as there has been since the process of decolonisation began in 1949.

      You seem to think things will change. I am telling you that is highly, highly unlikely.

  22. Hazel says:

    I like the bit where a Royal ‘s previous contact with the ordinary things of life used to come from contacts with servants, and now that comes from Carole.

    • LAK says:

      Supreme shade methinks.

      Goes hand in hand with description of her as a nanny/governness by a royal biographer, Robert Lacey

  23. Bess says:

    For Carole’s plan to come to fruition, she needs to be alive to see William ascend to the throne. That means that Carol must outlive Charles. I wouldn’t bet on that happening.

  24. Tough Cookie says:

    “In terms of a non-royal, young and trendy granny there’s been no one like her at all.” LOL…I’m about the same age as Carole. And while I am by no means “old” I really don’t see how being a grandmother in your 60s is “young.” If she was in her 40s, yes. But being in your 60s and being a grandmother, gosh, how trendy. Maybe I’m just being petty. Everything People magazine writes puts my teeth on edge, starting with the way they always refer to “Princess Kate.” Are they really so lacking in stories to cover that they needed a two parter on Carole?

  25. Bitchy says:

    Carole’s alleged work ethics isn’t really what you imagine work ethic to be like. Because encouraging your daughters to go after rich and titled men all the while not developing your professional work / business is not exactly meritocratic but rather that kind of work that includes undressing and … legs.

    Also I don’t quite see in how far Carole had such an amazing work ethic. Her own “work” is that Party Pieces business and that is just a retailer for plastic party stuff. And that business does neither pay the bills (Uncle Mike pays the bills) nor is it particularly important for mankind. If Party Pieces would disappear then you would miss it less than if your local baker / drugstore disappeared.

    • addie says:

      “Because encouraging your daughters to go after rich and titled men all the while not developing your professional work / business is not exactly meritocratic but rather that kind of work that includes undressing and … legs. ” You forgot to say ‘open legs’.

      Carole has taught her daughters to be nothing but courtesans. It’s one thing to believe all this royal nonsense, quite another to encourage your daughters to NOT aspire to be intelligent, educated, curious and independent women but just be sexual companions to wealthy men. If she needs a title, why not Madame?

  26. HyacinthBucket says:

    I hear my name mentioned in C.Middleton stories quite a bit lately. Please note, there can be only one. 😎

  27. Kitty says:

    Off topic but do you guys agree that Harry is becoming irrelevant now that he is 5th in line and George and Charlotte are ahead of him in the line of succession?