Duchess Kate is still the least-working royal, for six years running

wenn30621058

An annual tradition around the end of every year is the release of the royal family’s “numbers,” the number of work engagements they managed to do over the course of the year. Since 2011, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s numbers have been rather sad, which have caused many royal apologists to claim that Will and Kate are having babies and they need to spend time as a young family, etc. Personally, covering Will and Kate as I do day after day, week after week, year after year, I find it remarkable to see how much time they spend finding ways to AVOID work. Obviously, the senior working royals – the Princess Royal, the Queen, Prince Philip and Prince Charles – are all consistently out-working the younger royals, which happened again this year.

Interesting enough, the Daily Mail reported the working-numbers story differently than other outlets. They tried to make it about the DAYS worked, as opposed to the actual number of engagements undertaken. If you’re counting the “days” royal figures worked, Kate only worked 63 days in 2016. William worked 80 days and Harry worked 86 days, although keep in mind that Harry doesn’t get to count his volunteerism, his Invictus work and more towards his royal-engagement numbers. Princess Anne worked 179 days, Charles worked 139 days, the Earl of Wessex worked 118 days and the Duke of York worked 112 days. But those numbers sound low, right? Right. It’s better to go with the actual royal-engagement numbers:

The Princess Royal, who regularly undertakes more than 500 engagements a year, carried out more engagements than Prince William, Prince Harry and the Duchess of Cambridge COMBINED. Being forced to take a week off due to a bad chest infection in September did nothing to dent her reputation as the hardest working royal compared to younger generations. The 66-year-old topped the list as the hardest working royal for the second year running, thrashing William, Kate and Harry despite them flying out for a number of overseas trips this year. The trio, who all reside at Kensington Palace when the Duke and Duchess are not at Anmer Hall, Norfolk, carried out 485 duties but were outperformed by their older relatives who carried out the bulk of the Royal Family’s 4,712 duties.

Prince Charles carried out 469 engagements, Prince Edward 429 and Prince Andrew carried out 348 royal duties. Not to be outdone, 90-year-old Queen Elizabeth also undertook one of her busiest years and actually increased her workload, carrying out a huge 385 engagements compared to 337 last year.

Her husband the Duke of Edinburgh also carried out more engagements than his grandsons. 95-year-old Prince Philip undertook 336 engagements this year compared to 217 last year.

Despite increasing his workload Prince William, 34, is still a way behind his grandparents. The father-of-two carried out 204 engagements including major tours in Canada and India, compared to 122 engagements last year. Prince Harry, 32, also upped his game and carried out 166 engagements compared to last year’s 108. The Duchess of Cambridge, who returned from maternity leave after having Princess Charlotte, increased her royal duties with 115 engagements, with a focus on removing the stigma surrounding mental health.

[From The Daily Express]

It doesn’t surprise me that William has nearly double the engagements as Kate. William stepped out solo a lot this year to do “work,” even though his solo events didn’t get the attention he would have gotten had he brought Kate. As for Kate increasing her numbers to 115…as the Daily Mail points out, that’s still just 63 days of work in a 366-day year (it was a leap year). She literally averages one day of “work” a week.

wenn30633510

wenn29588701

Photos courtesy of WENN.

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

273 Responses to “Duchess Kate is still the least-working royal, for six years running”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. JustME says:

    The young royals are a joke compared to the older ones.

    • Megan says:

      Never fear, they are keen to roll up their sleeves and get to work in 2017. I read so in the Daily Mail so it MUST be true. 😉

    • Splinter says:

      Someone in the DM comments mentioned a documentary that can be found on Youtube – Charles and Di: In Private In Public. It gave a good insight into how they used to work while having two small children.

  2. Kimma says:

    It’s so sad, she just does not seem to be aging well. And, it’s not even because she is stressed with “work” because clearly that is not a factor in their lives…

  3. Serenitynow says:

    I don’t understand why she isn’t doing more. Kate is in the position to help and influence people on a large scale. I must admit I am very underwhelmed by the future queen. I get the vibe that she likes the idea of being a royal in theory but doesn’t actually give a rats ass about the requirements that come with the title.
    As an Aussie, I see it as another reason for my country to become a republic.

    • Sarah says:

      She likes the title, (free) clothes and jewellery.

    • Nic919 says:

      If she gave a crap she would at least match Will’s numbers but she is a lazy slug. She literally waited for over ten years to get engaged, doing nothing after university, no charity work, no jobs and only went on holidays. You do not develop a work ethic with such epic laziness unless forced to and she has not been forced to.

      The mere mention that she was on maternity leave is a joke too. You need to be working first to take a maternity leave. Stay at home mothers don’t have nannies and staff that she does either. So many excuses every year and nothing ever changes.

      • Tourmaline says:

        Agree she is lazy to the bone and the proof was in the pudding years ago. No normal woman with a lick of sense or spirit would have spent the many years from university graduation to engagement the way she did. No wonder she and William found each other – they are a true match in the petulant and truculent department.

      • burnsie says:

        That’s why it bothers me so much when people say Kate would work more but she can’t outshine William. THere’s just no evidence that’s true

        Ditto that she’d work more if the Queen asked her to. Even when the Queen kind of asked her to during the dating days, all she did was take that Jigsaw job, where she worked 1 day a week for 4 months

    • Kitty says:

      That’s my number one problem with her! She is so lucky to be put in a position to influence good around the world and make a huge impact and be a great humanitarian but does not seem like she wants to. I don’t think her path in life was to ever be a royal. She and William are the downfall of the monarchy!

    • holly says:

      Until recently I would have agreed with you regarding Australia becoming a republic. trumps recent election have made me seriously question the wisdom of that system.

      • addie says:

        The US and Australian systems are completely different. The extreme choice of Trump is a result of many peculiarities of the US election system: the existence of an electoral college; extreme gerrymander of electoral boundaries; the very partisan nature of those managing elections denying the vote/making it difficult to vote; the voluntary nature of voting. Australia does not have those problems – it is a much cleaner system with much more accountability. Looking to a good, workable republic, try the Irish president model which is closer to the Australian system of government.

  4. Seraphina says:

    I hope everyone is happy with their investment. the tax payers keep funding her and see little return. I don’t think anything will ever be done.

    • addie says:

      Too much inertia on the part of Brits, sadly. Too much obfuscation by royals and establishment types who have too much to lose if the monarchy is dismantled. It will happen, though not soon enough.

      • Seraphina says:

        Not soon enough is right. So sad that people he placed such high hopes on this couple and so sad to see how the continually dissapppont.

  5. Rae says:

    Do you think we overplay the lack of numbers on this site, or are the press still reticent to speak badly about certain members of the RF?

    I just don’t get how glowing some reports are in the main stream press about W&K, at least how glowing they are compared to us. If the figures are as bad as we make out (which, by the way, I do think they are- I’m just playing devil’a advocate) then surely more people should be saying it?

    Whilst I love Harry, and I note his Invictis is not included, he still has a lot to catch up on too. We love him here, but he’s still hundreds behind his aunt.

    • Liberty says:

      LAK would know the answer to this, but I sometimes wonder if in addition to feeling they need to support the Royals for some of their loyal readership, the tabs are worried that Billy might bring a suit of treason or something against them for speaking ill of his wing of the monarchy. US-based press/the internet possibly have a freedom from this worry that they (UK media) do not. Just speculating. LAK? Sixer?

      • ncboudicca says:

        If anything, the US mainstream media worship Will & Kate. They still get the benefit of Americans loving anything to do with royalty.

      • Rae says:

        The US outlets seem to the cream themselves over W&K, from what I’ve read (happily to be proven wrong on this), so they don’t seem to be in a rush to tell the truth even if not leashed!

        Where are those lovely, harsh but true, reporters that were starting to pipe up earlier in the year?

      • LAK says:

        The reporters can’t tell the unvarnished truth about the heirs. From HM to Charles to William. It’s policy. They have to prop them up at every turn.

        Sometimes, the reporters step out of line, but it’s shut down very quickly. Look at how quickly the workshy headlines about William were shut down.

        Since then, HM has very publicly supported William with photo ops, pap strolls and documentaries that put them from and centre. She went as far as praising William for working at EAAA in her christmas message.

        The public has to revolt before any changes happen.

      • Cee says:

        LAK I was so disgusted at her mention of William’s work, I actually closed the YouTube tab.

        She is an enabler and if this comes crashing down then she will be responsible, too.

      • Sixer says:

        I agree with LAK.

        I think the default template for reporting is deference. Something specific and immediate has to be up for that to change. Also, don’t forget: everything is HORRIBLE in the UK right now with the entire population at each other’s throats over Brexit. I think sugar reporting just provides something relatively calm. Also, the BBC tends to set the tone on royal matters more than on others and it is always deferential.

        You get the occasional bit of press snark with roots in lack of access rather than actual analysis. For more than that, you need an outright public revolt as happened, for example, when Diana died. And since the public is currently preoccupied by Brexit and associated stuff such as immigration, there’s unlikely to be a public revolt soon. Unless Her Maj dies and they manage to cock up the aftermath. Laziness and overspending by the two Cambridge twits is just a side issue in the minds of the public at the moment.

      • Christin says:

        US person here — This morning, a co-worker started talking about The Crown(?) series she is watching and how intrigued she is with royalty. She admitted not knowing much about the current crop (I tactfully tried to throw in some reality points, thanks to the posters here).

        I live in an area that has a high percentage of Scots-Irish-British descendants. I think some think of the BRF as some mythical entity from the ‘homeland’.

      • WeAreAllMadeOfStars says:

        Americans aren’t obsessed with anyone’s royalty. You have acquired a warped perception from a gossip blog with some international and older readership. Every now and then, they show up in a tabloid, just like countless other TV stars and B-C list celebrities that nobody really knows or cares that much about. If you stopped someone on the street, they would most probably be able to name Princess Di, Queen Elizabeth, and possibly Will or Harry by name and tell you nothing about any of them other than Princess Diana.

      • Sixer says:

        That’s the thing, WAAMOF. Britons aren’t obsessed with their own royalty either. 99% of the population DGAF. I could go months on end before anyone mentioned anyone royal to me. The only time I ever talk about them is on here – ironically, an American blog.

        There is a pocket of American royal watchers as a kind of fandom and anti-fandom like any other on the internet. As a Britisher, I was surprised to see the level of interest but even so, I’m aware it’s a niche interest. Likewise in Britain. There are a small number of die-hard royal enthusiasts, a small number of die-hard republicans, and a huge mass of people who, quite simply, don’t give a toss and would rather watch paint dry than talk about them.

      • KB says:

        I think Americans and our media view the BRF as celebrities. That’s how they’re reported on here. If you asked 100 Americans on the street if taxpayers should support the BRF, I think about 90 would say no. The number of royal engagements would be completely irrelevant.

      • Jessica says:

        @Christin. I’m an American but can trace it back to Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. We still wear the family tartan to Christmas dinner. Weird American thing.

      • Where'sMyTiara says:

        To respond to something Rae and ncboudicca said: It’s true that the US *media* are pretty fawning when it comes to the BRF. I don’t think that’s anything to do with genuine affection; its about $$ and how many magazines they can sell.

        Most people I know (Northeast US) couldn’t give a crap about royals. Honestly, I’m only in it to honk for Harry and to see some tiara porn!

    • LAK says:

      Harry does alot of volunteering which takes up alot of his time. If his work ethic was focused on royal duties, his numbers would go through the roof. His job is to prop up the heir NOT outshine them.

      It’s clear that William and Kate require guidance. They are not curious people on top of lacking self-motivation. If they are not told what to do, they don’t do anything. That’s why when they work, they piggy back onto other people’s work. William’s patronages are mostly Diana’s old patronages.

      Further, they have no self awareness born of self examination whereby they could use their own life experience to put together a working programme of royal duties eg Air Ambulance issues or pregnancy/maternity issues.

      And when they do step out, it’s only for soundbites and pap strolls rather than substantive contribution to the cause.

      And that’s if they can be bothered to work at all.

      • Rae says:

        @LAK

        I don’t think anyone disagrees with your summery here, but why aren’t more outlets saying it in the main press?

        Are we just the minority?

      • LAK says:

        @Rea: because William is the heir.
        The Palace uses PR/ press control to promote the heirs which repeatedly enforce a positive narrative which the public accepts.

        When William’s workshy headlines started, the Palace invited disgruntled reporters to KP for a cosy meeting, the babies were brought out to be petted etc. And all the workshy headlines went away. Every single reporter invited to that meeting wrote a sugary, positive article that explained away his workshy ways and has written a ‘caring William who loves his babies’ article since then.

        Further, HM has very publicly been seen with them since those articles came out. An outward cloaking with her positive image.

        No reporter would dare write something negative about William and Kate when HM is publicly supporting them.

      • Melody calder says:

        Wasn’t Harry gone for months this year fighting poaching?

      • LAK says:

        Melody: Yes.

      • notasugarhere says:

        He was really only gone for 5-6 weeks. He had events in London second week in July, went to S. A. for the AIDS conference the third week, then worked on Sentebale and fighting poaching. He was back in London first week of September. Somewhere in there (spring?), he met and started dating MM. If he alerted the Palace to her in August, it must have already been several months in the making IMO.

      • Kay dee says:

        LAK- love the way you put all of that and will be cribbing your spot-on description of having “no self-awareness born of self-examination”. Thank you for offering up that turn of phrase. I will be using it egregiously in 2017 when I need to come up with something better than “_______ just doesn’t get it”! 😉❤️

    • suze says:

      If you are talking about the general press, not royal reporters, I have to say that they probably don’t care much about the royal family outside of a very limited interest in the Queen. They report what they’re told by the palace and don’t analyze it or think about it very much.

    • addie says:

      As long as the press refuses to speak truth to power, this grovelling to royals will continue. Year after year there is significant proof that William and Kate do next to nothing, that is, except for their own enjoyment. They cost too much and deliver f*** all.

  6. 4moredays says:

    Perhaps if they only got paid for their working events and effectively cut off from tax payer money they would begin to earn their keep.

    • Jan says:

      I was thinking something similiar. They should get paid by the engagement rather than getting everything handed to them and letting them work out their own schedules. Also, forget the free-wheeling clothing allowance. Force Cannot to purchase clothing within a budget, just like us “normal” people do. She must have tons of clothes stored at KP that we have never seen at all never mind the ones she’s only worn once. Also, start taking away the perks – Amner to be used only on weekends maybe? Force them to return to London to be seen by the public. This hiding away in the country is ridiculous. Limit the use of the extravagant helicopter. They don’t live that far from anything, living in GB, you can drive almost anywhere. Their laziness is unforgivable for the amount the taxpayer has to pay for their “needs”. So pathetic.

      • Kay dee says:

        So good! I could actually see something like that working if the Britons revolt against the monarchy. The basic concept of providing compensation for services rendered combined with a new system of accountability….heck, it should work in the US too! Now, for the red tape….

    • minx says:

      I think you’re onto something.

    • Christin says:

      In the real world, part-time work equals part-time pay. I don’t understand all the money and preparation it involves to get one of the generally disengaged younger ones to appear for a half hour or so.

      Sounds like ‘thrifty’ Kate needs three or four outfits per year to mix and match for so few appearances.

    • suze says:

      This is brilliant.

      Since much of the pay for royal work is done through perks, I think that they should have to “build a helicopter” or “build a royal house” or “build a vacation” with appearances.

      1 appearance = 1 bathroom or 1 helicopter blade or 1 day in Mustique
      2 appearances – 1 bedroom and 1 bath or 2 helicopter blades or 2 days on the slopes in Gstaad
      3 appearances – 1 roof or 1 helicopter cabin or 3 glorious days in the Maldives.

      I see a frenzy of work on the horizon.

  7. LAK says:

    It’s important to note that Kate has shortened the length of time she spends at engagements. Unless Sir Ben Ainslie is involved, she averages 30mins at an engagement. She ranges from 20mins to 45mins at different engagements.

    That ‘day’ she blogged for Huffpo was in reality 40mins despite Huffpo setting up office at KP for the day. She was papped shopping that very same afternoon.

    They did the same on their Indian tour where unless it was of personal interest, they stayed only 20mins per stop.

    • lower-case deb says:

      in addition, her handlers have also endeavored to make some of the engagements __at her own home__

      so she can just roll down the stairs.

      and even then, you cannot trust her to come late and leave early.

      (eg the Huffington Post gig;
      the patsy interns came in early in the morning to type posts for her to “don’t read it just press the OK button” sometime near lunchtime, then she had to leave early for ‘prior commitment’, which was smooth sailing until someone took a picture of her shopping and tweeted it)

      they should just create a charity called Shopping for Success and see her numbers rise like the sun on summer solstice.

      • LAK says:

        Lol.

        From your mouth to gods ears!!!😊

      • Christin says:

        In all seriousness, she might embrace a charity that would help young women obtain a work-appropriate wardrobe.

        She could donate old jeggings and flouncy short skirts as examples of what may not be work appropriate.

      • Digital Unicorn (aKa Betti) says:

        There was also an article in the Fail about her and Willys bad timekeeping, particularly on the Canada trip, it was packaged as an article about badly behaved celebs. Says it all.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Added all up, in the past year she’s worked less than most of us work in two weeks.

    • Sharon Lea says:

      Really?? And that includes getting out of the car, shaking hands as they arrive and depart?

      • LAK says:

        Yep!!

        When you see video of arrival/departures, she barely stops to say hello to the kids/adults outside

        She stops once or twice and for barely 10secs before heading inside or into her car.

        The resulting pictures give impression she spends ages talking to the kids/adults outside. She does not.

      • Poppy says:

        And yet according to the interview she gave for HM’s birthday, she keeps getting told off for spending too long talking to the public during walkabouts….!

    • Hazel says:

      I was wondering about that. I don’t think total number of engagements is an adequate accounting of their ‘work’. I think factoring in the time spent at each engagement, it would average far less than one day per week.

  8. Katydid20 says:

    Here’s hoping the Queen never dies…….the royal family is royally screwed when Charles takes over and “streamlines” the royalty, especially since his parents and siblings are doing most of the work!!!

  9. Alix says:

    She’s probably too lazy even to be embarrassed by this…

    • Olenna says:

      IA. She is her mother’s daughter; very thick-skinned about public opinion and almost self-righteous about her own behavior.

      • Maria says:

        She is controlled by her mother. But Carole had to work hard that get PP going. Remember she was’t known back then, so she would not have had the contacts.
        A question: does a walk from a car to the church qualify as an engagement. I mean she had to get up, get herself all dressed up, and walk two hundred yards in front of the paps. I mean, that’s exhausting!

      • Olenna says:

        Maria, I don’t think the Cambridge-Middleton pap stroll is an official engagement. When in doubt, I usually check the court circular and diary, but the BRF normally don’t schedule official duties during the Christmas holiday period. https://www.royal.uk/court-circular

      • suze says:

        Well, to an extent I suppose Kate and Carole are similar.

        But I will defend Shadow Queen Carole Middleton on this point: that woman worked HARD. If you think getting yourself from a council house to the highest level of society is easy, think again. Party Pieces is only part of it.

      • notasugarhere says:

        suze, Uncle Gary’s money had a lot to do with it.

  10. HollyMolly says:

    I know William has the “Diana-bonus” from his father but Charles needs to stop handling them with kid gloves.

    • tigerlily says:

      HollyMolly you hit the nail on the head. William has been treated with kid gloves since Diana’s death and at a certain point he should have been able to get on with it. The Duke of Edinburgh had a far worse childhood and more traumas than Wills did and he was able to “get on with it”.

      I blame Diana to some extent for trying to give her boys a “normal” life. They were never effing “normal” and to try and raise them as “normal” was foolish. Now William is just an entitled, lazy adult with an equally entitled and lazy spouse. Shame.

      • marjiscott says:

        I was around in the Diana days. Maybe in another country, but I was following every photo op that came out, read every book like thousands of Americans did back in the Eighties. I believe the thinking of Diana of exposing the royal princes to everyday people, everyday businesses, like McDonald’s, was to help round them out, so they could be able to be Royal, yet be more approachable at the same time.
        Diana’s error was that she was killed before she had a chance to finish her job. Charles, like he has always done, just went the spineless Royal way, griping and complaining. He let his sons be catered to by “Yes” courtiers while he did his spineless thing with Camilla the Rottweiler.
        This situation now, is the soon to be disastrous result. Willy the Wombat is now William the unprepared, stubborn, clueless, highly unprepared, and very unpopular, heir to the Throne. God Save The Queen.

  11. Rapunzel says:

    And in other shocking news… Water is wet.

    20-30 minutes an engagement is embarrassing. Flat out insulting. And not worth the money she spends on clothes.

    • Where'sMyTiara says:

      Would be interesting to, just on basis of the clothing expenditures she makes alone, tot up how many pounds-per-minute are spent on her “royal duties”.

      Say she’s only working (for some bone-idle definition of work) for 20 min per engagement.

      The main line is that she’s worked 63 days. But was that all day for those days? How many engagements per day? Does she get one 20 minute visit, with nothing else in her diary , to count as a day? Because that’s some serious organic Anmer manure there.

      I think we need better data from the Court of St. James re: work engagements by royals. Rather than issue “they worked x days”, count the *hours*. I don’t think the CoSJ will cosign on this, for the simple fact that it would show up Lilibet’s grandkids for the lazy, shiftless dullards that they are.

      Fun project for 2017 though: follow the Court Circular, what they report as far as engagements, then start counting up the hours actually put in. Then contrast that with released figures for Duchess Dolittle’s spending.

      The only way to get the Establishment to change course and repudiate the Duke of Can’t Be Bothered is to educate the public on the actual hours worked. If these two want to treat royal engagements like piecemeal mill work, they can be paid piecemeal rates.

      It enrages me to think of how much Duchy of Cornwall cash is spent outside of the Duchy, and never for the benefit of the people of that region. The EU funds Cornwall received pre-Brexit kept services going and that district financially afloat. With that set to evaporate, they could make up the £350m shortfall with some of the Duchy of Cornwall money, but the BRF continue to squander the pot to the detriment of the people.

      • LAK says:

        Quick answer to your first question regarding the Cambridges: it tends to be one engagement per day except on tour or an ‘away’ day.

        I’m not sure how often ‘away’ days happen. I recall 3 – once to Scotland, one to Wales, one to cornwall – where they undertook 4-5 engagements on the day.

        Bear in mind that engagements on any day start at 11.00am. They are done at 11.20am or 11.45am if they are keen.

        For tour/away days, engagements are completed before tea time which means it’s a 11.00am – 16.00pm work day of 4-5 20mins engagements which can be individually substantive or as shallow as walking across a town square or being received by a dignitary and photographed with them before moving to next engagement.

        It’s rare and noteworthy for them to do a multi-faceted engagement that requires them to do different things for an organisation on the same day. Where such an event occurs, they are counted as separate engagements.

        He is a little better because he has taken on things like Investitures and those require several hours rather than a quick 20-45min time slot.

        For the things that truly interest them eg Kate visiting Sir Ben Ainslie, or Downton Abbey set or William visiting Star Wars set, they spend hours. Kate clocked 5hrs at her last visit to Sir Ben’s charity and over 2hrs on Downton Abbey set.

  12. Adele Dazeem says:

    Maybe Kate can’t work more because she keeps cutting her fingers.

    Anyone noticed the weird band aid on her fingers thing? It’s always there on different fingers. So strange. It’s not like she works in a kitchen. Or does any kind of manual labor.
    Crayon blisters?

  13. Mrs.Curious says:

    I’d like to know what TQ thinks about this future King.

  14. anonymous says:

    Im sorry but to think that she is the future queen of England, this is a disgrace, what the hell are british people doing ? they should put her to shame.

    • Citresse says:

      Can we (Canada) link up with Australia when QE2 dies then formally dump BRF? William will be happiest of all while Carole Middleton will sit in St. Bart’s licking her wounds. And Waity? She’ll be seated at a posh salon oblivious to it all as usual.

      • Nic919 says:

        I posted a survey from global news yesterday which stated that 53% of Canadians want to cut ties with the monarchy when the Queen passes. This is going to increase as time goes on.

      • Joannie says:

        That was in Quebec and they despise anything British. It goes way back to when it took fifteen minutes for the English to conquer the French. Im surprised the number wasnt higher actually. Perhaps theyre more popular after their Canadian visit.

      • Tina says:

        It was 73% in Quebec and 53% in Canada as a whole.

      • Nic919 says:

        Yeah those damn Frenchies daring to dislike the country that took over the homes they had established well over a hundred years before and controlled their lives for decades under pain of death. I suppose the First Nations are a bunch of whiners too? I mean the reservations the British set up are great places to live, and are basically in the same condition as they were in the 18th century. But yes, let’s keep supporting the direct ancestors of the ones who set that up so they can maintain their numerous palaces and lives of luxury.

      • Joannie says:

        Polls are so reliable…example Trump.
        I can see why the French resent them and no one is denying the FN have been treated poorly. Not all reserves are horrible by the way. And some of those people are treated terribly by their own chiefs. They are free to leave the reserve. That’s a whole other discussion. Blaming the RF is ridiculous.

      • Mae says:

        @Nic919: Yeah, we may have to age out of it. Proportionally, the older generation probably doesn’t want to cut ties. I imagine that eventually some combo of meritocratic/nationalistic feeling (wanting a non-hereditary Canadian-born head of state), plus personal dislike of/indifference to the future king, plus an alternate model that meets majority approval, may be enough to outweigh practical reasons for retention. QE2 seems to be liked at some level, dunno about Charles. An older article, but still good for framing the issue: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/royal-family-support-by-canadians-waning-poll-indicates-1.3072469

        @Citresse: Apparently Australian opinions of the monarchy have improved in recent years, according to: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/27/australian-support-for-monarchy-has-grown-as-debate-for-republic-revived
        They attribute it to W&K actually lol. Dunno if that’s true, but they seem to generate goodwill in some people (is that the pr working?).

  15. Liberty says:

    Last year, with regard to the low numbers, my great-aunt said (with a sort of lip curl of disdain) about Harry vs W&K — “I would imagine any sane person would rather be visited just three times by someone who really cares and has warmth, instead of 100 times by two spoiled silly brats who don’t give a toss.”

    She respects Anne and the Queen hugely, and thinks Harry has what it takes and is told to hold back (or be down-counted) to avoid out-shining his brother..

    • Rae says:

      I love your great aunt.

    • LittlestRoman says:

      I agree! I wouldn’t be surprised if Harry was told to ‘hold back’. As noted in the article, his volunteer work is not considered an official royal duty, so he’s doing that by choice. He’s a young, active guy and I imagine he probably likes having a sense of purpose rather than being a piece of set decoration. In that vein, I have a lot of respect for Charles’ various projects. Decades of bad publicity aside, he does seem invested in the future of his ‘kingdom’ and ‘subjects’.

    • Sharon Lea says:

      LOL!

  16. Meow says:

    She’s a disgrace. The queen knew this when she was a pre-Duchess layabout. What on earth can they do? Strip her of her title? Unlikely, unless they force a divorce. She is single-handedly (though William is helping!!)!destroying any and all goodwill towards the BRF.

    • Call me AL says:

      I can’t attack her when she has two small, healthy children. They are her job. Many women make the choice not to work when their children are small. She has the rest of her life to do these events, her children will only be this age once and need their mother.

      • Nic919 says:

        She has at least one full time nanny and staff so a few hours a week will not harm her children. It’s not like she keeps herself from leaving the house and shopping without the kids on a weekly basis. She is not a regular SAHM and never has been.

      • notasugarhere says:

        If those other women are supported by their own savings or by their husband’s job, who cares? This particular woman happens to be supported by the taxpayers, and neither she nor their husband does the work required.

        In general, why do so many Kate Middleton fans feel the need to bash working parents?

      • NatalieS says:

        Children need their parents -mother or father isn’t relevant. Also, many women are essentially forced out of their jobs in the US at least because of the lack of paid maternity leave and the high cost of daycare. To their detriment, because that lack of earning power leaves them and their families financially vulnerable.

        Thanks to the taxpayer, Kate is enormously privileged to not have to worry about her earning power and to also have nannies to take care of her children. Kate will never work even a 40 hour week in her life. What people are talking about is taking 10 hours a week to show some gratitude to the people of the UK who have given her and her family so much.

        Something more than sailing with Ben Ainslie, going to movie premieres, and Wimbledon (all of which conveniently don’t seem to interfere with her children needing her. Kate also had no problem leaving an infant George with his brand new nanny so she and William could go on vacation.)

      • marjiscott says:

        What a load of crap, Call Me Al.

      • Where'sMyTiara says:

        HM The Queen managed to have four kids and not be a lazy dilettante. Her duty was to her family and her nation, BOTH. Diana’s duty when PoW was to her family and her nation, BOTH. Diana understood that. It’s no coincidence that one of Diana’s favourite hymns was “I Vow To Thee, My Country”.

        The problem is that Duchess Dolittle, while having grown up in affluence, was not raised with the principles of Duty, Honour, and Sacrifice that were passed down in the aristocracy.

        Wealth without duty breeds selfishness and entitlement. This is also true in Will’s case, because at a critical time in his development, he lost his mother, the parent principally urging this. Yes, he had tea regularly w/ gma. But his passive-aggressive backlash at his paternal line after Diana’s death coupled with Charles’ non-confrontational, let’s-let-the-grey-suits-give-Wills-a-bollocking whenever his kid screwed up, and Wills never being held to public account for his misdemeanors like his brother was, has created the selfish monster before us now. No one has ever attempted to properly rein William in. By the time they realized that yes, they really needed to put their foot down with him, it was too late. His character is fixed. He has the worst attributes of both his parents.

        Harry, by contrast, at heart is the best of both his parents. He is warm, courageous, and giving. He understands duty, though in his younger days he admits it overwhelmed him. The difference is, HE saw that as a flaw in himself to be conquered and learned to embrace duty. William gives every impression of a man who sees himself as a man without flaws. That will bite him in the bum ere long.

  17. Indira says:

    It’s sad that Anne isn’t the first-born. I like her/her family and I think she would be great a queen.

    • Splinter says:

      That wouldn’t change anything, in the line of succession she is still below her younger brothers and their heirs.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Anne works hard, but she can be as impolitic as Philip at times. She wouldn’t do well with the diplomatic parts of being monarch, especially as she doesn’t suffer fools period.

  18. European says:

    No wonder you can read more and more Rexit commentaries…

  19. Patricia says:

    Say whaaaaat? Am I to understand that the monarchy is a useless institution made up of entitled grifters who leach off of tax payers to live the good life? You don’t say!

  20. Granger says:

    What exactly does “maternity leave” mean for a member of the royal family? I’m all for every woman having a minimum of one year to spend with her baby, but Kate has all the help in the world. It’s bizarre that she can use the mat leave excuse to get out of royal engagements, when her children probably spend a lot of time with nannies anyway.

    • lower-case deb says:

      it depends. either she uses the kids as way to skip work, or use kids as way to ‘add work’z

      remember when we’re told that “giving birth to heir” made it as an official engagement?

      hell, i think we have seen more pictures of her walking george too and from a helicopter than we see her properly work.

      eh maybe that is a good idea. they should start putting “taking heir to throne for weekly walkies”.

      that should add 200% to one’s calendar.

      • LAK says:

        LOL!!

        They did it with her internal meetings, why not weekly walking of the kids.

      • Jade says:

        How do you make giving birth to an heir an official engagement? Is it by putting it in writing? What exact words are used? So many questions…

      • lower-case deb says:

        by definition, the Court Circular is:
        “the official record of past royal engagements.”

        so it is not just where they put announcements, it is an agenda of engagements that count toward their working total.

        therefore, the entry for 2nd of May, 2015 isn’t just an announcement that Princess Charlotte was born, but an official work of her mother pushing her out.

        the exact wording is:
        “2 May 2015–Kensington Palace
        The Duchess of Cambridge was safely delivered of a daughter at 8.34 a.m. today. Her Royal Highness and her child are both well. Signed: Guy Thorpe-Beeston, Alan Farthing, Sunit Godambe and Huw Thomas.”

      • lower-case deb says:

        in all fairness though,
        i think all birthing of heir (potential heir) is treated as an official engagement. same type of engagement entry for Sophie, etc…

        (for Sophie it is said: delivered safely; both mother and child are stable–rather the understatement of the century considering what really happened!)

        i just find it wierd that it counted as work.
        i guess it is just a remnant of the long distant past where it is really the only work of a woman that counts: giving birth to an heir.

        it’s just odd for a modern day monarchy…

      • Lady D says:

        I had the distinctly unpleasant experience of learning what stable meant recently in a Carrie Fisher thread. I always thought it meant you weren’t getting worse, therefore you would get better. Turns out, that’s not what stable means at all.

      • Where'sMyTiara says:

        Well, technically, they do call it “labour” for a reason… the real question is, has anyone else in the BRF who has popped out kids/heirs ever gotten credit in the Court Circular for that as hours worked? Or was it just announced that’s what the Royal Lady was up to (to explain why she wasn’t opening supermarkets somewhere).

  21. Louise says:

    What makes me laugh is “maternity leave” . Leave from what, exactly? that’s like having no job and saying I am not working, I am on maternity leave. eh?

    I think Meghan Markle and Harry are going to blow these two out of the water. You wait and see.

    • Rae says:

      I would pay to see this.

    • cait says:

      Coming from such a different background – i.e. not born wealthy, different country and actually working for a living – should be a plus as far as Megan is concerned. Seems to embrace the concept of work and giving back, based on her schedule and the charitable work she also does. Just a suspicion…

    • Maria says:

      Can’t wait!

    • HappyMom says:

      Yes! I am hoping for a spring engagement-winter wedding. Get on it, Harry!

    • Adele Dazeem says:

      Agreed. And I have a feeling Meghan will be like Diana and out working when the baby’s crowning.
      Joke, but seriously Meghan will be fashion porn will have cute sound bites and make a difference. I can’t wait!

    • Tourmaline says:

      This would be awesome sauce. I have a good feeling about that Meghan!

    • Tina says:

      I hope you’re right, but I’m worried that the same pressures on Harry to keep his numbers down will be visited ten-fold on Meghan. If W&K play their cards right, she could be used as a lightning rod for criticism.

      • Nic919 says:

        Maybe with Meghan on his side he won’t feel the need to protect his brother so much. Right now he doesn’t have someone who 100% supports him.

        Often wives have more influence over the husbands than their family, as we have seen with Carole and the Middletons over Will.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I hope that whomever he marries creates her own non-profit, a la Sentebale. And is publicly seen working at it at least 2 days a week.

  22. Marni says:

    These new royals are entitled cupcakes who just don’t want to work.

  23. Digital Unicorn (aKa Betti) says:

    The snark in the Fail article was unmistakeable, even they are slowly taking the gloves off with these 2. They counted days to intentionally show up the Cambridges as the lazy twits we know them to be while comparing them to a 90 yr old who has been stepping back fro a lifetime of service and who should do less days than 2 30 something losers.

    Now that they have more patronages, I fully expect her to spend less time at engagements now. It’ll be 20 mins for all of them now except Sir Ben.

    They will only become more petulant and whingey the more work they are made to do. This is not going to end well for the Cambridges. If they continue to push something will break.

    • Rae says:

      I wish they would take the gloves off sooner.

      It’s frustrating to see them being treated so delicately, when their peers don’t get the same treatment. Poor Anne couldn’t do right for wrong at one point, and the press openly admitted it was just the way they chose to go with that narrative.

    • addie says:

      Let’s hope so. The Cambridge’s are completely undeserving; time to give them the flick. Hopefully Charles will be the last ‘King’, and the monarchy will end once and for all. It’s a ridiculous concept.

    • Llamas says:

      How much time does she spend with Ben Ainslie?

      • LAK says:

        Shortest was 2hrs, longest was 5hrs.

        Plus she visited his charity 8 times in between June 2014 ( her first visit) and July 2016 (her last visit).

        Most of her charities get 1 or 2 visits every 18months. Some increase the frequency of her visits by going to her at KP.

      • lower-case deb says:

        don’t worry LAK,
        next year it won’t only be Sir Ben (Surben? Surban? Turban? anyway….)

        there’s Wimbledon!
        if tennis deities are gracious, each match will be 5 hours long and goes to the full 3 or the full 5 sets…

        if she’s lucky the Court Circular will count 1 set as 1 engagement…

        (i wonder if she’s going to avoid Grinder-tennis matches just in case 1 set stretches for a whole day though)

      • Sixer says:

        Deb – Surian and Surpat are my pet names for Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart.

    • Hadtobesaid says:

      Yeah, she likes Ben. Just found the “Well hello (again) sailor! Kate’s latest meeting with yachting hero Sir Ben Ainslie and she looks jolly pleased to see him” article. She never looks that happy with Wills.

    • Elaine says:

      haha @ Digital unicorn.

      At this point Katey-Waity will simply do a drive-by for each charity. Won’t even get out of the car. Just a hair flick out the window, a flash of diana’s ring on a bandaged finger and she’s out. You’re welcome peasants 😉

      • msthang says:

        Bitchy, he’s got his own affair going on, her could care less, in fact he probably welcomes the attention Benny gives her, because he is not gonna bother !!!

  24. Karli says:

    I’ve never read so many negative comments about the BRF than in this year. It really seems that many people are fed up with this family.

  25. Kate says:

    Good lord. She barely did a third of the engagements a 95 year old man in poor health managed. Why anyone tolerates this is beyond me.

    And frankly, for all the excuses made for Harry, and even counting the things that aren’t counted, he could do a hell of a lot more. If Anne can do over 500 engagements and his father can do almost 500, a young man like him should at least be equalling that. Yes he’s better than his brother but he shouldn’t get a pass because that waste of oxygen sets the bar so staggeringly low. Hell, at least William plays the game and pretends he has a real job. Harry hasn’t worked since the Army and shows zero signs of plans to. Which would be fine if he was a true working royal, but since he’s a part-timer at best it’s pretty shameful.

    • notasugarhere says:

      That isn’t the way the game is played. It is said Diana taught him to always support William, that William’s job was more difficult and he was going to need his brother’s unending loyalty. Harry does what Diana says, twisted as it was.

      • Jesie says:

        How does Harry working more not support William? Right now a 95 year old man and a 90 year old woman are picking up W&K’s slack. Having Harry do it instead can’t be any worse for William’s image. Anne does more than Charles.

        Harry could also go get himself a proper job if he doesn’t want to be a full-time royal or if William doesn’t want him to be one, but despite a lot of talk it’s pretty clear he has no interest in that.

      • notasugarhere says:

        No one is out publishing articles about Charles being workshy and Anne showing him up. They are publishing articles about William, and how much Harry is accomplishing on his personal time via Sentebale and Invictus.

        PR is all about optics, and the optics are the spare will be seen to do less. The BRF will continue to publicly support workshy William while throwing their hands up about him in private. And optics matter when the spare is seen as so popular, accomplishes so much, the heir is so petulant, etc.

    • LO says:

      I agree. I like Harry a lot, and I think he has great potential to really affect positive change in people’s lives but to make him seen like he’s a super hard worker is disingenuous in my opinion.

      • minx says:

        Agree.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I think Sentebale and Invictus Games prove that what he does, uncounted, is much harder work that what W&K ever do. And does affect positive change in many lives.

      • Jesie says:

        Right, but the point is ‘much harder work than W&K do’ isn’t exactly a high bar to clear. Yeah he does some good things, but there’s zero reason he couldn’t be doing significantly more on top of that. Even if we’re real generous about his unaccounted for work, he still has 20-25 weeks a year worth of ‘vacation time’.

        He’s a hell of a lot better at the job than W&K and he gets properly involved in some great causes, but nothing about that is remarkable. It’s the job. He’s doing the minimum, and he’s only being lauded because his brother and wife are such utter failures they can’t even do that.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I don’t consider the successes and work of Sentebale and Invictus to be “the minimum”. I think he needs to get his act together, possibly get a real job with MOD in rehab, don’t get me wrong. But he’s doing far more than W&K while still kowtowing to his late mother’s wishes and propping up his useless older brother. Maybe when he marries he’ll wise up, but I’m not holding my breath.

      • addie says:

        Agree, Jesie. Harry is doing the bare minimum and hiding behind some story of supporting his brother which has been translated as doing even less royal work than his brother. Every one in the family outworks William so the ‘Harry-can’t-outwork-William’ narrative doesn’t fly. At all. It is convenient though. Harry is better at working the crowd, for sure, but he has an awful lot of time unaccounted for over the year, even beyond Sentebale and Invictus, both of which have professional teams running them. So let’s be clear about that. He left the army 18 months ago but hasn’t settled into full-time work of any kind. Yet taking on The Princes Trust is needed. He needs to get his s**t together. As has been said many times over here, each royal family member sets their own work agenda. My overall impression is that William and Harry have been poorly instructed on the responsibilities of their positions, and have milked the Diana card for all it’s worth. And that will peak in 2017, the 20th anniversary of her death.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The Prince’s Trust is the Prince of Wales Trust, complete with Prince of Wales feathers as the insignia. It is William’s duty to take it on, not Harry’s. Just as running the Duchy will be William’s duty.

        The 3 days a week at MOD are never reported on, only via twitter sightings. So even when he is working, the press ignore it for the ongoing promote the heir treatment. I think he needs to make that a real job, which might make some realize what he’s been doing all along.

        I’m not going to underestimate promises made to his late mother vis a vis his elder brother. Whatever others may have thought of her, Harry seems to have been fully on-board with Diana as a wonderful mother. He stresses publicly how he hopes he’s making her proud. He’s not going to go back on supporting his brother as she requested, and if that means the appearance of doing less, he’s going to do it. He needs to wise up, but won’t until if/when he marries someone who makes him wise up.

  26. Rocío says:

    Maybe the Royal Family doesn’t want another Diana. Who knows?

    • cait says:

      Your comment is a bit cryptic – do you mean the royals truly disliked Diana and don’t want a replica or are you being sarcastic in that they just want the status quo and aren’t in favour of a new member who truly knows how to work and give of herself to others?

      • Rocío says:

        I was born a month before Diana’s death so zero shade on her.. My take is that they don’t want another outsider taking the Royal spotlight. She has fullfiled her duty as Hilary Mantel said a couple of years ago. Still I believe monarchy is such an anachonic institution.

    • notasugarhere says:

      All royals set their own schedules. This has been stated many times through the years, by both royals and the Palace officials. The royal family is not holding her back. It is W&K’s own PR that keeps trying to spin her as the caring children’s princess, dedicated to mental health and spending her spare time reading scientific papers. In fact, all she seems to care about is her next hair appointment and what time Bicester Village shops open.

      You do not have to be charismatic to work hard and be a good royal. As she will never be charismatic, they don’t have to worry that she’d be anything like Diana in that respect. And she doesn’t have to be. I like Sophie but don’t think she’s a charisma machine, but she gets out there and works. Ditto Princess Alexandra and Duchess of Gloucester. Queen Mathilde is as interesting as beige paint, but she does her job.

      • Emily says:

        But I think what the originial poster was saying is that no one (in the royal family) cares that Kate barely works because they don’t want her to. As in, Diana was seen as this incredibly charitable person, and that maybe that took something away from other royals. For example, her husband Charles. I’m American and am only interested in royals, really, because I like the coverage of them on this site. Had you asked me before I read Celebitchy’s coverage I would have told you that Charles is a bad person who was mean to his poor, young wife and never planned on being faithful to her, and Diana was this beautiful, giving soul her used her position as princess to really try to make the world a better place (I’m also in my 30s, which probably contributes to that view somewhat). I know a little bit better now, but…having a do-nothing princess is perhaps better than a princess who outshines the future king.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Given the sheer amount of negative publicity these two have garnered in the last six year? Yes, the BRF cares a great deal about the fact that they don’t work. And that they are publicly called out about their laziness. They may not want another charismatic superstar, but they do need a royal wife who pulls her weight and does the job.

  27. AfricanBoy says:

    A few years ago I’d have laughed if people would have said to me that they think the monarchy will end with King William.

    Now I’d be surprised if they wouldn’t abolish the British monarchy and let the lazy, whiney and work-shy Dolittles rule the Commonwealth realm.

    • addie says:

      Do Commonwealth countries want or need them? Don’t think so. Only Brits want to pay for them. Why should any country pay for two foreign layabouts (plus sprogs) who bring nothing to the table except demands for deference and huge privilege?

    • marjiscott says:

      AfricanBoy.. I bet the BRF will end with King Charles. William will turn it down.Too much work.

  28. Sharon Lea says:

    Does anyone have a list of engagements that both Charles and Diana did in the 80s? I found a link that no longer works.

    • LAK says:

      Try the national archive links.

      The BRF website used to hold all this information, but since it was redesigned, it’s hard to find the information.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Almost as if they don’t want us having access…

      • Sharon Lea says:

        Thanks for all your info LAK. Hmmm…I was not able to get any kind of list with a few basic searches. As I recall, a gentlemen, a private citizen, kept a tally based on the daily public record released from BP, from like the Times newspaper? Various tabloids would print his account, his work was highly respected.

        Yes Notsugarhere, it seems like they don’t want us to know. 😉

  29. addie says:

    Just 163 engagements of approximately 20-30 minutes each (except any event featuring Ben Ainslie) would equal c. 82 hours of ‘work’ annually for Kate Middleton. The equivalent of two x 40-hour weeks. She costs several million pounds a year to maintain in order to turn up to smile, shake a few hands, ask a few basic questions. She clearly cannot speak coherently (or be understood with her fake accent, or maybe it’s the big fake teeth that hinder enunciation), is not prepared for these events, and is barely interested. Her dolt of a husband is no better.

    The press should put on their big boy/big girl pants on and call these two out. Until they do they are little more than apologists for this useless couple.

    • LAK says:

      115 NOT 163 engagements.

    • can't even says:

      well it’s longer than 20-30 minutes. Think how long it must take her to get ready for each engagement. The hair, the make up (ok maybe not that), the shopping for an outfit…

      • notasugarhere says:

        The rest of us do those things on our personal time. We do not get to count shopping for appropriate work clothing, dressing, and traveling to work as part of our work hours. That shouldn’t “count” as work time for her either.

      • can't even says:

        Oh I know nota… that was pure sarcasm. I wish i could count getting ready (ugh and my commute!) as work hours!

      • Bitchy says:

        She does royal engagements only if she gets to go shopping immediately afterwards.

        Also they do probably count commuting time as “working”. The thing is that commuting to and from work IS NOT WORK. And you don’t get paid for that either.

      • S says:

        Disagree. For people for whom their appearance is part of their work gig, the “getting ready” definitely counts as work time. Think of an anchorperson getting in the makeup chair. Or an actor. And commuting in some cases also definitely counts. My husband travels for work and if he has to drive across the state to meet with a client, that absolutely is part of his work day.
        She does work less than the older royals, but consider that (1) she won’t be retiring at 65 like many of us and (2) she has young children that she likes to spend time with (the pictures clearly demonstrate that the kids are strongly attached to mom and not left neglected with nannies all the time) and is making them her first priority. Just because she has household staff doesn’t mean she isn’t also heavily involved. Houses like that don’t run very easily with just one person doing everything. I have a biweekly housecleaner and I have my nanny working full-time, even coming in on my day off and my house is still a wreck.

      • notasugarhere says:

        S, she isn’t an anchor person. Her hair, makeup, clothing, and commuting time shouldn’t count as “work”. Her appearance overall doesn’t matter. It only matters if she shows up looking presentable. That doesn’t require 3X a week at the London hairdresser and $200,000 in new clothing each year.

        If she was supporting herself on her own savings, or if she was supported by her husband, the SAHM would hold water. As it stands, they are supported by the taxpayers (Duchy, security, KP, all of it). That means she has to get out there and work. If they don’t want to do the work commensurate with the pay they receive, they are welcome to go support themselves.

        All of the other royals have managed to have children, raise them happily, and work for the family firm. It is only snowflake Middleton, who has never worked a 40 hour work week in her life, who cannot seem to handle it. Even with all the household staff provided by the taxpayers so she can get out there and do the job of serving the taxpayers.

        Many of us won’t be retiring at 65. If we’re going with years put in at the job, we’ll never see either Bill or Kate Middleton put in 40 hours a week, for 50+ years. They will never work enough to earn retirement.

      • LAK says:

        S: You can’t compare your lifestyle to Royal lifestyles. Only Billionaires can compare, and i’m not talking about penny pinching Billionaires.

        Their lives are Downton Abbey style staffing and run, not 2 staffers.

  30. Balea says:

    I read the comments on the DM articles today – it seems many people really have had enough of the new royals (Harry [+ Megan], Kate, Wills, …).

    OT:

    Could it be that the DM manipulates the comment sections, plus the upvoting?

    • spidey says:

      Wouldn’t put anything past the DM

    • notasugarhere says:

      They do. Sometimes when you call them on it (put a comment in the comment section about how all the arrows changed), the original arrow numbers reappear. Magic.

    • LO says:

      It’s probably that people are sick of the excuses from W&K as well as the over exposure of H&M and their relationship. But it’s probably also a selection bias. It’s not like DM commenters are a statistical sample of the general population.

      • Kitty says:

        @LO, but the DM is the second most popular online news site in the UK. Honestly a lot of people are fed up with Harry’s new relationship. Hope they never marry.

      • Olenna says:

        @Kitty, I’ve noticed there are regular, frequent commenters on articles the DM publishes about Meghan. I don’t post on the DM but I’m sure you’re familiar with their names, and the majority of their comments are repetitive, defamatory and ill-informed. Yes, ill-informed because the readers claim they know more about Meghan than PH does, and what they do know about her is all bad. These same people also post derogatory, racist comments about her mother. One would hope their opinions do not reflect those of the vast majority in the UK.

      • Kitty says:

        @Olenna, remember the workshy comments about William which majority of people agreed with as well as the public? The BBC then DM wrote an article about it.

      • Olenna says:

        Kitty, maybe I missing your point, but if Meghan proved to be of bad character or morally reprehensible AND was still dating PH, it would not be illogical to think the more respectable news outlets would also find it newsworthy. However, it is clear the DM is scraping the bottom of the barrel for any news about her. How many times can she be photographed going to yoga class and the DM regurgitates the same PH dating info before it becomes absurd that the same readers keep posting the same comments about her and to what end?

  31. LO says:

    Man I wish my job allowed me to live in luxury let me work only 60-80 days out of the year!

    • lunchcoma says:

      Same! And am I wrong that she gets to choose much of this work? I mean, if she cared to, would she have the option of focusing on the arts and spending lots of time at the orchestra and the theater, or visiting animal shelters and petting puppies?

      I’m sure some royal work is quite tedious, but we also see them at Wimbledon and the James Bond premiere – things normal people would consider recreation.

      • LAK says:

        Yes and Yes.

        The lesser royals are doing the super boring bread and butter ribbon cutting that involves things like visiting with ‘the association of master butchers of west glarmorgan’ – i kid about the organisation, but you catch my drift?!

        WHK pick the things that interest them and turn down the boring things. Anne has been known to accept invitations previoysly turned down by William.

      • lunchcoma says:

        That actually does sound like something most people would consider work, LAK!

        I’m American and so don’t have a dog in this fight, but if I were supporting these people, I think I’d be pretty fed up with everyone besides Anne (who’s putting in what looks like a 4 day work week doing things that aren’t terribly exciting), the Queen and Philip (who are long past what people would consider retirement age). Even someone like Andrew, who’s in the middle of the list, seems pretty idle if he’s working less than half the number of days an ordinary person would.

        I don’t think I’d be well-suited to being a royal given my distaste for public speaking, but I’d like to think that I could cobble together recreational events, family obligations like going to church on Christmas, work for a couple causes I supported, and some of the bread and butter appearances into something resembling a regular work schedule.

      • Bitchy says:

        It is those boring butter and bread organisations that keep the country running. Butchers, nurses, policemen and plumbers do all perform more important jobs than the Royals or the financial district (City of London).

  32. Hadtobesaid says:

    I’m glad that CB exists because most of the people here don’t fall for their PR games. The people on People Magazine etc. worship them, ugh.

    • minx says:

      CB readers are smart and discerning. That’s what brought me here. They actually read and know, uh, facts–not fake news.

    • Rae says:

      I’m glad for CB too. It’s nice to get an outlet that you can talk a little sense about WK.

      I love the Queen, I think Charles and Camilla are under appreciated, and I regularly honk for Harry, but by god do I hate the buttering up of WK.

      CB offers a nice break from the fawning.

  33. Harla Jodet says:

    For comparison, most of us work 260 days a year.

    • notasugarhere says:

      And we’re working 8-10 hours a day plus commute time on top of that.

      • Christin says:

        And don’t have a small army of staff and servants. No worries about meals, driving from A to B, clipping the grass or cleaning house (not to mention caring for children).

      • Sigh... says:

        And most don’t get to CHOOSE who we work with, when, where, and/or for how long like The Royals do, either. Let alone only “work” roughly 80+hrs ANNUALLY (= extreme underemployment) and STILL be able to afford/maintain multiple large homes (+ their renovations) and go on several luxury vacations in a year, EVEN THEN the kids’ attendance being optional…

        Ridiculous.

      • Joannie says:

        Not if youre on here bitching! Then youre ripping off your employer. Lol

      • notasugarhere says:

        Joannie, why assume that people live on the same schedule you do, in the same country, or that they’re posting from work? Just another way you try-and-fail to discredit logical critics. We’ll continue to post about W&K who ARE ripping off their employers at every turn.

    • Tourmaline says:

      And a lot of us manage to be parents without servants during that time too. And yes William and all working parent (or actually working mom, isn’t it?) bashers—manage to be GOOD parents.

  34. Kate says:

    Man I would LOVE to go to nonprofits and theatre arts centers and museums and health facilities and libraries and schools to meet with people and ask how I could help them. She has an awesome job and is too shallow to even know it. Either that or she’s miserable with her choices…wasn’t ten years enough to show you all the red flags, Duch?

    • Giddy says:

      You are absolutely right! What a dream job that would be. I guess it’s like being on the board of a huge charitable foundation and getting to give out grants. W&K have the power to shine a light on deserving organizations and increase their donations just by their presence, but they are just too exhausted/busy/bored to do so. They are both self-centered beyond belief.

  35. Maria says:

    Ok. I am going to TRY to defend Kate just this once.
    She has a baby and goes on mat leave for a year. That brings us to around June of this year.
    So then since she has options she has to decide to go back to work full-time, part-time, or be a stay at home mom. So she asks Willy because she is not very good at makingdecisions, and he says, I know we’ll both work part-time, and that will be the equivalent of me working full-time and you staying at home full-time. Because, face it, someone has to pick up Georgie from nursery school, and feeding Charlotte her lunch, as well as getting a head start on teaching the kids constitutional history.

    So if you look at the numbers that way, you will see the logic.

    • suze says:

      A years maternity leave for the poor sausage with a bevy of household help and a nanny? How very generous of you!

      Not that I am complaining it could have been – and has been in the past – much worse!

    • notasugarhere says:

      You only qualify for full-time maternity leave in the UK if you have worked full-time the year prior. Name one year she’s done that. W&K’s pay is the 50 room palace, 10 bedroom country mansion, $4 million allowance. Neither works anywhere near full-time in exchange.

      They have multiple nannies. Two housekeepers. Three dozen office staff.

      63 days, 20-40 minutes per engagement. She works less that two solid weeks a year.

      Sophie Wessex, married to HM’s youngest child? Way way way down the list of succession? She worked more than KM the year she was expecting Louise, and the “maternity leave” year she nearly died giving birth to Louise.

      There is no excuse for W&K’s laziness, but it is always interesting to see people try to justify it.

      • Kitty says:

        @Nota its not a 50 room palace. Its 22 rooms.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Go look through the history of Apartment 1A. What some people call “boxing rooms” others call offices or spare bedrooms.

      • NatalieS says:

        Nota, I still can’t believe the press didn’t have a peep to say about the number of rooms being so blatantly lied about. We have decades of references to the real number from when Margaret lived there. It was considered part of how ridiculously difficult and high-maintenance Margaret could be for want to live in such a large place.

  36. suze says:

    My bar is set so low for these two that I was actually impressed that the numbers were that high!

  37. Kitty says:

    That’s it. I’ve made up my mind and its that they will NEVER be King and Queen in the future and that for some reason it will be Harry who will be King after Charles. Also I predict a lot of Commonwealth countries will leave Once The Queen passes creating a domino effect.

    • Bitchy says:

      The Queen doesn’t really keep together the Commonwealth. That is a myth. Matter of fact: the Commonwealth has a president and they meet to discuss political, military and economic matters every 2(?) years. It is beneficial to them to form that Commonwealth “union” and that is why they stay. Not because of that Queen.
      The Queen only performs ceremonial duties like opening the meeting and that could be easily done by somebody else.

      • Kitty says:

        A lot of them will leave the UK and they are staying out of respect of The Queen who has done well with her role as monarch.

    • Maria says:

      Kitty,
      Only death or abdication will keep William from the almighty throne. The whole monarchy thing could blow up but that wouldn’t make Harry king either. I personally prefer the way the Europeans do it, they abdicate at 75, but that’s not the way it is done in Britain. They are anointed by God at their coronation for as long as they live.

      • Kitty says:

        @Maria, that’s not the only way to keep William from the throne. Parliament with all the votes from the Commonwealth countries parliament wanted Harry as well as the UK then Parliament can change the act of succession. Anything is possible.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        Abdication is only a “tradition” in some of the European monarchies. The monarchs of Sweden, Norway and Denmark don’t abdicate. The current Norwegian monarchy is fairly young (after being a part of Denmark for centuries and later Sweden for about a century) and they haven’t had an abdication yet. As far as I can remember only Queen Christina has abdicated among the Swedish monarchs (in the 1600s). There has never been a voluntary abdication in Denmark (Christian II was forced off the throne and died after 27 years of imprisonment in the 1500s).

  38. Svea says:

    I don’t get why no one considers the fact that she has produced and is raising the heir and the spare as part of her work load? So she wants to be home with the kids. The kids will be better for it. Anyone Diana relied in all that service because she had no life. And ince she was cut free from Charles there was a whole lot of hanging out with the rich and famous and yachting going on. Kates not doing that.

    • notasugarhere says:

      There are thousands of people in line to the throne. These two were not required to have children and it is not part of their job description. All of the other royals manage to raise children and work hard for the family firm.

      Did you miss her hanging out with Ben Ainslie of yachting fame? Won’t visit her other charities but never misses a change to flirt with Ben and call it work. Or to hang out with celebrities at movie premieres and centre court Wimbledon and call it work.

      Bashing of working parents, just like William, to try to justify W&K’s laziness?

    • lemonbow says:

      I missed your comment when I posted mine. I agree. Having two small children is a lot of responsibility and also it is nice that she wants to spend time with them. If she was working all the time she would be getting heat for always leaving the kids. Though I don’t agree with this, from the perspective of the Royal Obsessed, producing heirs is the best thing she can do.

      • NatalieS says:

        I highly doubt she would “get heat” for leaving the kids to put in about ten hours of work a week.

        The best role for Kate in 2016/2017 and onwards is to birth babies; the modern monarchy.

    • Tourmaline says:

      Hmm yes obviously if someone takes their role and duties seriously they must “have no life” i.e. Diana. Righty-o good reasoning there.

      • Svea says:

        Diana had no “life” because she was in a sham marriage and the people at the palace did not understand or respect her. Service gave her a sense of self and showed her her untapped potential. Not everyone needs this. Once she came into her own, she was clearly up for having fun.

      • Tourmaline says:

        @Svea sure Diana was up for having fun but she continued with her high profile role to do good–even though she was divorced. Shortly before she died she was out raising awareness at Bosnian land mines—fun?

        Just because Kate is so personally satisfied that she doesn’t “need” to work hard or give a damn doesn’t mean that I should congratulate her for it. Being in a good marriage, being respected and understood sure don’t preclude hard work, do they?

    • Kitty says:

      You will forever deny the fact she is not cut out to be a royal and is not good at her role. Stop being ignorant and look at the bigger picture!

    • PHAKSI says:

      I doubt the kids will thank her when they are older and are expected to be out and about on public duties but have no idea how to handle themselves.

    • PHAKSI says:

      I doubt the kids will thank her when they are older and are expected to be out and about on public duties but have no idea how to handle themselves. Sophie is in the same position, being a wife and mother to two, running a home and doing royal duties. And she does it well. Its not impossible to balance the two. Millions of parents do it

    • suze says:

      Home with the kids – that is an honorable and important role to be sure. For many men or women, that would be a full time job. However, whenever this argument is made of Will and Kate people seem to forget the full time brigade of of help in the background.

      To their credit, Will and Kate do not deny the presence of a full time nanny and a full time mother in law. And a household staff. So the scut work of mothering (diapers, potty training and getting up in the middle of the night) is handed off to the nanny. The scutwork of the household (cleaning, dusting, yardwork, laundry, shopping for household essentials and food) is handed off to the staff. The running of the whole shebang (the planning, the directing, the ordering, the managing) is handed off to the mother in law, or if she has been run off the place, to the housekeeper.

      Which leaves Kate with the fun part of mothering – the playing, cooking the fun stuff (but no shopping, prepping or cleaning), walking to school, taking photos, vacationing. So it’s not quite as honorable and difficult as most would have you believe.

    • Millie says:

      Yes. Being a full time mother is an honorable profession. However, in most families, at least ONE parent is working full time. Neither Will or Catherine are working more than a couple weeks ago year, and there in lies the problem. My sister works part time (30 hours per week) so that she can have a more active role in her children’s lives, but my BIL works 50 sometimes 60 hours a week in his family business.

      If W&K want to receive a 4 million pounds allowance and live in luxury, then ONE of them needs to be a full time royal, whether they enjoy the job or not.

    • NatalieS says:

      This argument is so reactionary. Being a stay at home parent -though worryingly, people keep defaulting to stay at home *mother* -is not automatically what’s best for a kid.

      Anyway, wealthy SAHMs (hopefully not living off the taxpayer like William and Kate) do charity work.

      Someone should compile a list of everything and everyone thrown under the bus to make excuses for William and Kate.

  39. Laura says:

    It truly disgusts me to realize that there are some people in this world who work hellishly long days for very little pay (in places such as Bangladesh) and nobody cares or applauds their efforts to support themselves and their families.

    And then we have the royals who get paid astronomical sums of money to do very little work, and are applauded/celebrated for their pathetic work ethic. Their “work” isn’t exactly taxing – smile for a picture, shake some hands, give a speech that someone else wrote, etc – yet they receive more in compensation than 99% of people do for jobs that are far more taxing and far more important (such as doctors, teachers, etc).

    I don’t understand why these people are viewed and treated as such special and useful members of our species, when it is so clear that they are anything but. I have the uttermost respect for the nameless, hard working people of this world, who are doing their best to support themselves and their loved ones. Those who will never know what it is like to live I multi-million dollar homes, with servants, expensive clothing, never-ending supply of good food, etc.

    I think it is gross that the royals take their lifestyles for granted and have the nerve to complain about their “work”. They should consider the “work” of others less fortunate than them, and perhaps then they would do more “work” and less complaining.

  40. lemonbow says:

    I don’t particularly like Kate but she is a mother to two small children. I hope I am lucky enough to not have to work until my kids are in preschool.

  41. vava says:

    Not surprising at all. I didn’t know who Kate Middleton was until she became engaged to William. During the engagement interview, she said something that has forever stuck with me. It was something to the effect that she hoped to do whatever small things she could………..talk about an understatement! LOL She has never had the interest in being a fully functioning royal, that is clear to see. If I were the queen, I’d want my earrings back!

    • Christin says:

      One comment she made that stuck with me is that she only cares what William thinks. She said it with conviction.

  42. Cerys says:

    Whiny and Waity never disappoint when it comes to a poor performance in Royal duties. Other royals manage to raise their children and carry out their Royal responsibilities but it appears to be beyond poor Snowflake. Someone who has never held down a job during her adult life was never likely to be able to rise to the occasion once she got married. As for Whiny bleating about balancing Royal duties with working for the air ambulance service, he needs a major reality check. He is very lucky the press handle him with kid gloves. the much-lauded Harry is beginning to step up a bit now but could do more. I really think that William believes he is doing a good job and that the peasants just don’t appreciate his struggles.

  43. Starlight says:

    I am waiting for her to put her husbands country and people first rather than herself, but that isn’t easy if you are a perfectionist in the home and your attire and physic because it’s a full time job.

  44. Jumpingthesnark says:

    Here’s a question. Why doesn’t Harry’s work with invictus/sentebale “count” in these totals? These are charities after all. Is it a real reason or some made up reason to ensure that it never looks like Harry is working more than normal bill? Spare getting thrown under the wheels to make the heir look better?

    • LittlestRoman says:

      Bingo! That’s my guess, anyway. I mean, Charles is married to Camilla, so there might be some residual icky feelings when he ascends the throne, even though she won’t have any power. Certainly, he can’t hold a candle to his mother’s PR image. If Harry were to continually outshine Will/Kate on the PR front, the peasants might revolt. Or maybe not; I’m just a mouthy American, so what do I know?

      Also, maybe volunteer work is considered less of an ‘official duty’ and more of a choice?

  45. ash says:

    wow…. she really is the epitome of what my southern family say…. “iiii’s MARRIED naaaa”
    meaning women who would kick their feet back and not pick up a feather once married to “their” catch, women who may have busted their ass or just need to be validated so they hustled for it then once they got their ring they said to hell with responsibilities…. cant stand these types

    I would have thought she would have stepped up, almost model herself after the first lady, a woman who worked her butt off and with the new (at the time) duties of FLOTUS took a step back only after her husband was president and was taking on that prominent role.

  46. Lyn says:

    Can one of you learned royal watchers tell me why is it that Harry is not allowed to count Invictus and other events?

    Appreciate the info.

    • LAK says:

      They are personal charities. The fact that they have performed spectacularly doesn’t change this.

      All work that falls under the umbrella term ‘royal duties’ represents the Crown. Sentebale and Invictus do not represent the Crown.

      • notasugarhere says:

        It is strange, though, that his attendance at Invictus was listed in the CC. As if all the other behind the scenes work didn’t count, but he was now attending the event itself as a representative of the Queen.

      • TheOtherOne says:

        Or maybe he is finally breaking free and getting credit for his work; no more protecting big bro.

  47. Dolores says:

    I think she thought she was marrying to the tip of the top and never considered that she would have to actually work. She is from “new” money and I genuinely don’t believe her parents ever told her she should get a career and be independent. I understand her wanting to stay at home with her children, as I felt when mine came along, but I had to go back to work each time, and I didn’t have nannies or a staff to make sure everything goes smoothly. She does. She’ll never step up. And I agree with everyone, they both look 10-15 years older and for what? Princess Diana would have been on his butt to get out there. She did a walk through areas with landmines, for Pete’s sake. Can you imagine Kate going to war torn and poverty stricken areas in jeans and tennis shoes and holding children that need aid? If his mother was alive I doubt he would have married her, to tell the truth.

    • lower-case deb says:

      i always thought so too…. as if Diana will let Carole within clawing distance of William. i think Diana will see how the mother controls the daughter. i don’t particularly picture Diana as someone who will roll over easily to Carole’s demands, no matter how alpha-mother Carole seems to be.

    • Kitty says:

      Didn’t he marry her because no one else wanted to marry him?

      • TheOtherOne says:

        Yes. Based on what has been said about him he is a hard sell for anyone with a brain, confidence or their own money. Seriously, what does he as AN INDIVIDUAL really bring to the table?

      • Kitty says:

        Nothing really! He doesn’t even want to be King or do any responsibilities in his position.
        Off topic; but how tall is Kate really?

      • Starlight says:

        Determination putting herself in his social circles to the point of desperation ensuring no competition could get near him I am not sure if that is a good basis for a long term relationship

    • Andrea says:

      From my experience, “new” money people or nouveau riche are the absolute worst! They typically feel entitled to everything and don’t expect to do much work anymore…especially those who marry into it. I lose respect for any man/woman who marries into it for increased status/money.

  48. HeyThere! says:

    Her ‘job’ as a working royal is my dream job!!! Dress up, give back and put a face to a good cause! I’d damn near do it for free if anyone would let me! LOL Let alone, getting to have her lifestyle that is based around being a public servent/working royal. I’m not paying her as a US citizen, by I would be annoyed if I was doing the grunt work for her lavish lifestyle.

  49. Teri says:

    He didn’t hire her, he married her. It appears she prefers not to be a working mother.

    • paddyjr says:

      Yes, but she gets paid for being his wife/working member of the BRF. If she doesn’t want to be a working mother, that’s fine. But why should the taxpayers compensate her for that choice?

    • suze says:

      He did hire her. That is exactly what he did. She not only married the man but she was hired on to the firm at the same time.

      She knew the gig.

    • NatalieS says:

      Then William should compensate the UK taxpayer for the cost of Kate’s security detail. Private person, private costs.

  50. Shinthya says:

    This is the worst article ever, you are clearly bored and without a topic to write, regardless of the position Kate plays at the Royal family, she is a woman. Being pregnant is one of the most underestimated conditions ever! You are tired all the time, blotched, heavy and with various mood swings, and that is if you are lucky. How on earth do you dare compare! Ask your mother or whomever you can ask on what is like to give life. Then you will only have an idea.

    • hmmm says:

      I guess she’s been pregnant for about 6 years now as she has barely worked during that time.

    • HappyMom says:

      Um, I am the mother of 4. And Kate is totally ridiculous and a waste of space. Being pregnant and having small children does not preclude you from working. NO one is expecting her out there digging ditches. But she absolutely should be able to do a lot more as a representative of the RF. All the other royal ladies have managed this-she absolutely could.

      • Maria says:

        Honestly though, she has an education. Doesn’t she get bored?

      • Dolores says:

        Yup! Having children does not necessarily make you an invalid who can’t work. She is a healthy young woman with a lot of back up. I had two kids and was right back at work, pumping breast milk at my desk no less, strong as ever, keeping up, no matter how tired I felt from the late nights with two children age 2 and newborn. We’re not little petals of delicate flowers. If she has medical issues then the royal family would easily excuse her. Do t see what the problem is with her getting back to work and doing a great job helping others. Unless… she could give a f*ck about helping others…

  51. seesittellsit says:

    Carole didn’t bring Kate up to work hard, the way Carole had to. Carole brought Kate up to marry brilliantly and enjoy a wealthy, sheltered, easy life. William was the top of the social pyramid, irresistible to Carole – but she forgot that she’d brought up a daughter unused to hard work, the one real disadvantage to getting to the top of that particular pyramid. Kate is a throwback, despite the veneer of education and sexual modernity: the only thing she is really suited to being is a rich, sheltered, slack young matron.

  52. Kitty says:

    Off topic but does anyone know why William is a cheapskate even though he has millions of his own? I’ve read on here and other places William doesn’t buy Kate gifts and that the Catier Watch Kate bought herself and William only gave Kate Teddy Bears as a push present upon the birth of his son and daughter. What’s up with that!?!?!

    • TheOtherOne says:

      My guess – cause he can be. That simple. Everything has been given to him and based on his personality and his actions what is his is his only. You can not make some generous or caring.

      • Kitty says:

        Not even towards his wife? If I was Kate I would be peeved. Harry does seem like the type of man who will spoil his wife!

      • TheOtherOne says:

        Especially towards his wife. I mean I know they’ve been married going on 6 years but In the 16 years of so they have been together she never demanded more, so I highly doubt he is going to express all this gratitude to her and shower her with gifts. He knows she is not going anywhere.

      • Kitty says:

        Also he doesn’t seem like a good husband.

  53. Vox says:

    I am dying to know what Harry’s numbers would be if he were allowed to count all his volunteer work.

    • msthang says:

      Kitty, I think Chopper is deplorable to her and if he is civil to her it’s only when the cameras are are on, and sometimes that is even questionable !!