Duchess Kate had the fewest work events of all the ‘full time royals’ in 2017

The royal family attends a Christmas Day church service in Britain

As we discussed, the end of the year always brings a trilogy of stories about the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. Sometimes there’s a variation in the order, but three stories always occur around New Year’s every year, for the past… what? Five or six years. We hear about how much the Duchess of Cambridge spent on clothes. We hear about how few events William and Kate did throughout the year. And we hear – from sources – about how in the new year, they will be extra keen to work even harder. We already had the story about Kate’s 2017 clothing budget: she spent something like $160,000 on clothes this year. And now we know how few events she did, especially in comparison to other royals.

Although she is one of the senior members of the British royal family we don’t often see much about her in the media, but that doesn’t mean Princess Anne has shied away from her duties. The Princess Royal, 67, has carried out more domestic engagements this year than the Duke of Edinburgh, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and Prince Harry combined.

Low-key Anne, who is rarely covered by the wider press when conducting her engagements, was confirmed as the busiest member of the royal family due to clocking up 455 appearances, according to The Times. These include charity events, dinners, receptions and other engagements around the country this year – not to mention another 85 events overseas.

The royal who undertook the fewest UK duties this year was the pregnant Kate Middleton, 35, for the third year running. She undertook 63 official engagements at home and 42 abroad. Her husband, Prince William, attended 117 events at home and 54 abroad. Prince Harry, who is set to marry Suits actress Meghan Markle on 19 May 2018, made 139 domestic appearances and 70 overseas this year.

Anne is well known for her charity work and is patron of over 200 organisations. The second child of Queen Elizabeth II is also highly regarded for her equestrian talents, having won two silver medals in 1975 and one gold medal in 1971 at the European Eventing Championships.

The latest figures are based on an analysis of the court circular by 85-year-old Tim O’Donovan, a retired insurance broker from Berkshire who has compiled an annual account of royal engagements for The Times for 37 years. On Anne being the hardest working royal, he told the publication: “She is always rushing around the country. I’m just amazed when I look through the court circular at what she does in a day. The amount she crams in is extraordinary. She can be up in Scotland then down to a dinner in London that evening.”

[From The International Business Times]

Good for the Princess Royal. Anne always gets sh-t done and she’s always been really no-nonsense about it. Which is why, I suspect, Anne and her kids can do no wrong when it comes to the royal courtiers and the Queen and Prince Philip – both the Queen and Philip adore Anne and I feel like Anne is their rock. Anne’s adult kids – Zara and Peter – are two of the Queen’s favorite grandkids too. As for Kate’s sad numbers… like, girl barely broke 100. She couldn’t even be bothered to average ONE hour of work every three days this year. I’m hoping the presence of Meghan Markle is just the incentive to make Kate really and truly keen in 2018. We’ll see, peeps. I suspect that over the weekend, we’ll get our annual Will And Kate Are So Keen article too.

Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, at Sandringham Church for the royal family's traditional Christmas Day service

The British Royal family arrive at Sandringham to celebrate Christmas Day

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Pacific Coast News and WENN.

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

334 Responses to “Duchess Kate had the fewest work events of all the ‘full time royals’ in 2017”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Astrid says:

    Someone in another post said something to the effect that royals stopping by for a 30 minute visit or waving is hardly “work”, which makes 100 hours of “work” sound even worse!

    • llamas says:

      Yeah. If you calculate how many hours she spent “working” it is barely above a 40 hour work week. For the year.

      And she averaged about $1500 on clothing per engagement.

      • PIa says:

        Rather than quantity of events, I think it is also important to look at the number of press-covered events. I mean, that is important from an optics point. Anne does all these events, they barely get press coverage. I wonder if the palace notes that (i.e. number of press articles stemming from an event, number of reporters present).

        I’m reminded of a tree falling in a forest with no one to hear lol.

      • notasugarhere says:

        It isn’t important that the events be covered by the press. It is better in many ways if they aren’t. The royals are supposed to show up to bread-and-butter events, work the crowd, listen to the people, and move on to the next engagement.

      • SoulSPA says:

        Public engagements should be covered. The more, the better. If it weren’t for coverage, how would people know what and how much and how good they work?

      • LAK says:

        On the one hand the publicity these people bring is priceless, but people who meet Anne at her bread and butter events are so damned thrilled at meeting her that it matters not a jot that her events aren’t in the national press.

        Those bread and butter events are the ones that keep the monarchy going. That is their base.

        The sparkles and champagne events that WHK do might look good to an international audience, but that isn’t the monarchy’s base.

        And ironically, the sparkles and champagne events are the ones that irritate the public because they give impression that is all the royals do and are simply partying at the expense of the public.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Big events, yes, like a charity premiere. But not the majority of the bread-and-butter, which should be covered by local news but not be front page on the tabloids. The people who are there, experiencing time with the royal who (pretends) to care – those are the ones who need to know. And they do, because they experienced it first hand.

      • Lorelai says:

        @Pia I see what you’re saying, but Anne’s visit makes a difference to the actual people she visits, press coverage or not, you know?

        ETA: LAK & NOTA beat me to it. Same sentiment, though.

        @LAK, I hadn’t even thought about it that way, but yeah, if all the general public sees is the “glitter,” it will make people more resentful of the BRF.

      • K (now K2!) says:

        Pia it’s not all about optics, or fundraising. It can be about morale for frontline workers, especially those engaged in less than glamorous areas. Anne notoriously knows what her charities do, and what their missions and methodologies are. Lots of buffet lunches go on for these charities which are not about media and profile – just about staff appreciation and respect. And she attends some of them. Despite the fact that they have got to be incredibly boring.

        I’m a republican, but Anne’s like the Queen: works hard, does a good job, probably serves us a lot better than some elected officials would.

    • minx says:

      It’s so ridiculous. They can try to pretty it up, but cutting ribbons and making appearances isn’t work.

    • Hazel says:

      I think even going to church on Christmas counts as an official event. Plus shaking hands when you get off a plane or train, ditto the reverse when you leave. Even Anne wouldn’t look so fab if you really examine the numbers. It’s padding your list of accomplishments for your annual performance review. I’ve seen this often enough at work!

      • Des says:

        I was at an event with Anne this year and I can confirm she did more than just show up. Stayed through the entire event, met EVERY single guest (about 200 by my count) and spent at least 30 seconds talking to each, and then left right when the event was due to end. I was in total awe.

      • Lorelai says:

        It is preposterous that walking to church on Christmas morning counts as an engagement for any of them. Slightly less ridiculous than Kate’s giving birth to George counted as one for her 🙄

      • Maria says:

        What? Seriously? Kate’s giving birth counts as an engagement?

      • Veronica says:

        I just read that every single event at Invictus that Harry attended counted as a separate work event which is how he got to 70 events. Absurd, and a real attempt at fooling the public.
        I think Charlotte’s Christening even counted as a work event for kate and Wills.

      • Jessica says:

        Not giving birth; they photocall after giving birth counts as an engagement. It technically counts for the child as well.

    • Lorelai says:

      @Astrid: and that really is all Kate does. You can tell she’s barely listening whenever anyone is talking to her, and she gives like two speeches a year. I highly doubt she follows up privately with anyone she meets. It seems like she’s forgotten all about them by the time she gets into her car home.

    • Stassi says:

      She a mother of young children and she’s pregnant. She gets very sick during her pregnancies. She shouldn’t be working.

      • minx says:

        She’s not sick now. Her children are well cared for. She needs to do more, they both do.
        I’m not British but if I were I would be furious about this neverending “royal” dog-and-pony show.

      • Wisca says:

        I agree. Let her true HARD-CORE work begin when her youngest is five.

      • notasugarhere says:

        She barely worked before the first pregnancy, so what was the excuse then? If she and her husband want to support themselves, including all housing, upgrades, clothing, and security – they can do what they want. As long as they’re paid government representatives, they are required to work.

      • Tina says:

        Do you really think Kate is going to do hard core work, of any kind, at any stage? Her entire life up to this point would suggest otherwise.

      • Veronica says:

        Then she shouldn’t be supported by the British public if she doesn’t want to work. I had three children, went back to work full time when my baby was 4 months old. And I didn’t have nannies, and housekeepers and cooks. Please. Do a few events a week, kate, and earn those millions spent on your lazy butt.

      • Lorelai says:

        Please— as if she’s being asked to do the overnight shift at McDonald’s! Let’s all remember what her “work” entails.

      • J.Mo says:

        I agree with Stassi. I love my vocation and still think work is over-rated. I went back to work when my last was six months old but I would rather stay home and take care of my family most of the time. What’s with this glamorized vision of working parents? I can’t fault someone for preferring a moderate schedule.

      • Tina says:

        Kate doesn’t have a moderate schedule. Camilla has a moderate schedule. Kate has a minimal schedule. And we fault her, for the umpteenth time, because money belonging to the British people pays for her very luxurious life.

      • Imqrious2 says:

        I’ve long read on various sites that Charles, IN NO WAY wants W aand K upstaging him in ANY way. He was jealous enough of Diana; he doesn’t want a repeat. The only way he will let W and K stepup more is when PW is installed as Prince of Wales. Until then, bare minimum so PC & Camilla “shine”

      • LAK says:

        Imqrious2: That is one of many lies made up by the public to explain away WK’s refusal to step up to public duties. As long ago as 2012, Philip said he wanted to retire then. But the young generation refused to step up so he had to keep going. His retirement forced them to work, but even then, just marginal increase. William and Harry turned down Charles’s offer to take over the Prince’s trust.

        At the start of his new job at EAAA in 2015, William gave an interview in which he said he was happy for the older relatives to continue royal duties because he wasn’t going to do it. He went as far as saying he would be a part-time King when it was his turn.

        During last summer’s newsweek interview, Harry said that they had no intention of working like the older generation and by the time it was William’s turn, they would be carrying out minimal duties.

        Charles was jealous of Diana’s popularity because he had been feted all his life. It had never occurred to him that people were applauding his position rather than him. It was a spoilt brat reaction to suddenly being unpopular and probably also realising that his public standing was manufactured unlike his wife’s public standing. It’s a pity the public can’t allow him to show human shortcomings and continue to berate him for it as if they would have done better under the circumstances.

        His sons are different. And he has taken steps to sideline his siblings and their families which means he wants his sons to take up the slack.

        He seems to approach them the same way his mother approaches family ie ostrich strategy and hope it all works out in the end. He is very publicly supportive of their endevours except of course WK have no public endevours thus you don’t see that support, but we see it on numerous occasions with Harry. As recently as his radio editing programme.

        And it says everything about William that he gave an interview which is best summed up as #whateverworkmeans AND he sanctioned an article that said working parents are bad parents.

      • Tina says:

        Rubbish. Charles has tried to involve William, tried to give him the Prince’s Trust. William didn’t want to know. And the days when William and Kate might outshine Charles and Camilla are long gone. Especially William on his own – he just went to Finland. No one cared.

      • Call_me_al says:

        I agree. Her kids are her job. Every woman should have the right to decide how to find motherhood work – external work balance, including Kate. She has two young children and one on the way. Anyone with a brain knows how much work that is.

      • Tina says:

        For the zillionth time, she is not like other mothers. She has at least one nanny, a housekeeper, and many other staff. She has time and resources to have her hair done regularly and professional-level grooming. All of this is paid for by the British people. It is not very much to ask that she spend a very small proportion of her time giving back.

      • FLORC says:

        Al No one is saying she shouldn’t prioritise her children. You’ve missed the point of the argument entirely if that’s your take away. And that defense is insulting to working mothers. Incredibly insulting. She has dozens of staff members dedicated to households and teams of top people in their chosen career paths dedicated to the children. She leaves them at a moment’s notice for vacations, personal time for personal upkeep at the salons. None of this is horrible. What is horrible is that she does this. Accepts help. Pays nothing. And refuses to work citing her children. They are there when she’s called to work and when it’s not tennis or celeb related. Only then.

        What makes its really awful if how they do passively use the argument working parents are bad parents. Meanwhile, we forget William was absent for mich of George’s 1st months. Not showing up for his inuncredited cert program. The vacations when the children were infants. Etc, etc… But Work? No. They have kids. They should not have to work when taxes cover their cost.

        Can you imagine a couple on welfare claiming they need more money and refuse to work because they want to be full time parents?

      • Mathilde says:

        They are preparing their children for a completely different kind of role than we are ours and there are plenty of examples from the royal family of distant parents, who are barely there. Besides, who knows what their schedule is, what we see is just what we see, no more, no less. I am sure they do other things that we do not see and that their schedule is pretty full in the end. There could also be a plan in place for who works how much and with what. All events are not equally taxing and do not come with the same amount of media scrutiny. All royals also do not attract the same amount of media attention. I very much doubt any royal just does whatever, without any master plan.

        Regarding what counts as a an event, the post clearly stated: “The latest figures are based on an analysis of the court circular by 85-year-old Tim O’Donovan, a retired insurance broker from Berkshire who has compiled an annual account of royal engagements for The Times for 37 years.” It is in other words not what the royals count as engagements, but what Tim O’Donovan does that gives these figures.

      • Tina says:

        @Mathilde: it has always been made clear that the royals set their own schedules. There is no “master plan.” All of them do “other things” as well as the official events (which include literally every instance of engagement with the public). And it is not media scrutiny that dictates whether an event is taxing. Princess Anne travels much further than the other royals for events and does not complain. You seem to be suggesting that a parent like Sophie is a worse parent than Kate because she does 300-odd events a year instead of 100-odd events a year. I don’t think that is the case.

        And there is no magic to what Tim O’Donovan does. He simply counts the events for each royal in the Court Circular. He does not interpret them beyond that.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Mathilde, all of the other royal parents in the BRF manage to do more. All of the other parents from other royal families do more while preparing their children for this weird existence, including those at the highest levels. That just doesn’t work as a justification for W&K’s laziness. An excuse, but never a justification.

      • FLORC says:

        I would like to add this
        If William and Kate ever believes this life was too taxing. If they ever had so much disdain of the workload or duty to the public. If they ever felt their children would suffer from them honoring and respecting their positions. There is nothing stopping them from taking a step back. Nothing. It would mean they give up much of their lifestyle. Less press protection. Less heli use. Also, less duty.

        If their life is such a burden. If it holds them back from being good parents. No one would stop them from stepping out. But they won’t. Having their cake and eating it situation.

        1 more thing. WK are not prepping their children for their royal future duties. They hide them away. Estelle is being prepped. George and Charlotte reportedly spend more time on tennis courts than being slowly and safely acclimated to the public.

      • Mathilde says:

        I’d rather give them the benefit of the doubt on this and would like to see some source on there being no master plan. It seems very ill run if that is the case. Regarding spending time with children, the royal family is notoriously dysfunctional already, it is good that Kate is home with the children as long as possible. I do not think that Sophie is a bad parent – I do not know either that she is a good one – but there is far less interest and scrutiny on her than Kate, and her apperances are therefore maybe not as taxing. A future King and Queen consort are also in a completely different position and have many other things to learn and spend their time on than just cutting ribbons. Do we know if and when they are doing those things? As far as I can see it is just a matter of opinion, we do not really know very much.

      • FLORC says:

        It sounds like until your chosen news sources echo what we are saying here it won’t be accepted. So, it is what it is.

        We do know what they do. This isnt an unknown variable. The calendars are known. The cancellations are known. The time spent with patronage or cutting ribbons is known. Etc, etc…

        And a question to you. What makes you believe that because Kate’s pr machine cites her wanting to be a stay at home mother that she’s actually at home with her children? The evidence is all over that she is caught shopping with her RPOs, fresh manicures and hair dye, vacations, tanning, private gym workouts, tennis lessons, sport spectating. I’m not saying these are things she shouldn’t do. I’m saying she does these things over work where she claims nothing is more important than time with her children. Who seem equally comfortable with their dedicated staff.
        Kate and William have been known to spend much of their days away from their children as infants and toddlers. It’s only when work is suggested the stay at home parents argument is mentioned. This is known. Documented. Since George. It’s not about a stay at home mother. It’s about using the children as an excuse.

      • Tina says:

        And just to add to FLORC’s comment: we know that the following things are true because of how litigious WKH are. If something untrue was published, they would be straight round to their lawyers. We know that (a) the royals set their own schedules and none of them tell the others what to do; (b) Charles attempted to pass the Prince’s Trust on to William and was rebuffed; (c) the only patronages of Philip’s and the Queen’s that Kate deigned to accept were the tennis ones and the one foisted upon her at lunch; and (d) William began (with great fanfare) but did not necessarily finish a bespoke course on land management at Cambridge. No one will talk about it and a student newspaper that published a satirical article about it was rather abruptly silenced. William’s attitude to work and his future roles, in particular, is clear.

      • FLORC says:

        Something interesting about that Cambridge cert program. Which was true. It was supported, but the news of it was buried with fluff articles at the time.

        Time William spent away from his family was being talked about. Rhat he was going to be so dedicated he would live o campus to reduce commute time and cost. Also, that he would attempt to visit his wife and child on the weekends. To add to details it was reported and supported Kate moved back in with her parents while William was away.

        Then it was found out William was living off campus grounds in a private residence. He was not showing up to much of his courses. And his weekend visits to his family weren’t as much a priority as jetting off for guys trips. These trips are often said to have young female company.

        Given how damning that narrative is and was William did not go after the press. And William gpes after unflattering articles at the drop of a hat if he can. If he can’t because the articles are truthful.. they get buried in fluff.

      • LAK says:

        Mathilde: i don’t know how much more official you require a source to be when each palace ie Buckingham Palace, Clarence House, St James’s Palace, Kensington Palace repeatedly reply to any scheduling enquiries whether from the public or reporters that each royal sets their own schedule. In Kate’s case, all palaces have added that she is happy with the pace of her schedule as is.

        This question is put directly to the palace bi-annually and they return very publicly with that answer.

        Now either they are lying and Kate (and other royals) are held back by courtiers or some other unknown OR they are telling the truth and we have to accept that.

        Regarding the ‘masterplan’ or lack thereof, on several occasions, Charles, Diana, Andrew AND Edward have very publicly said there is no manual and you have to create your own role.

        This lack of a masterplan is demonstrated in the lack of inheritable tasks from generation to generation AND the fact that they have all gone their way in creating roles for themselves.

        The POW title has substance *because* Charles created a role for himself. Looking back at history, different POWs gave different meanings to their title, from political to military to party prince.

        The Cambridge title remains as worthless as William’s lack of effort. The previous Cambridge titleholders were variously known for their spendthriftiness, their debts and eventually their charity work. So far the current titleholders are one for three.

      • Mathilde says:

        “caught shopping with her RPOs, fresh manicures and hair dye, vacations, tanning, private gym workouts, tennis lessons, sport spectating”

        Yes, I do most of these things my self, it’s just normal maintenance work that most of us do and I’d be worried if we didn’t. I’m still not prepared to vilify a person for being home with her children.

      • notasugarhere says:

        She isn’t being vilified. So much projection.

        Every penny they spend comes out of taxpayers pockets. They insist they cannot work more because that would mean being away from the children, and as they’ve made clear, they think working parents are evil.

        Then they spend boatloads of time away from the kids on separate ski vacation, her at the salon 3 times a week, etc. thereby exposing the lie.

        That’s what people are pointing out. They have all of that help at home so they can work. They keep all of the help at home, don’t work, and have no problem spending plenty of time away from the kids when it means vacations and shopping – but never for work.

    • Veronica says:

      And I read elsewhere that Harry’s 70 overseas engagements were that high because they counted each Invictus game event he attended an an entire event!!
      Way to get those big numbers, Harry!!
      And Kate?? I don’t think she will ever work. I have given up.

      • notasugarhere says:

        And thank goodness they did. For the first time they’re starting to officially acknowledge how much work he puts in to Invictus, when before it wasn’t counted in the CC *at all*. If other royals get to count shaking hands for 5 minutes at an airport as an engagement, every single thing Harry does with Invictus should be counted too.

    • Princessk says:

      I don’t know why people are saying that shaking hands for 30 minutes is not work. The royals are targets every time they go out, whether it is the nasty media or others that have bad intents. Many people obviously do not understand the toll it takes on being constantly in the public eye and goldfish bowl. It is easier for Anne to do so many engagements because fewer people turn up and the media are not interested in what she does. I bet if she was more popular or photogenic she would not do so many engagements because the spotlight would be too intense.

      Any time Kate steps out, she is thoroughly dissected for what she says, looks like and wears, and Meghan is going to suffer the same scrutiny. No way will they be able to carry out the same number of duties as Anne, who probably needs minimal security. Organising security at public events for any of the FabFour is probably a logistical nightmare.

      Also one has to look at the quality of these engagements not the quantity, and then the difference in the numbers makes more sense. I personally cannot imagine being overwhelmed by meeting Anne under any circumstances. They would never send her to comfort people at something like Grenfell or the Manchester Arena catastrophe’s would they?

      • Tina says:

        @Princessk, security for all of the royals is intense. Anne has visited my workplace (which admittedly is in east London) and there were sniffer dogs the day before and a fairly intense presence on the day. There’s some interest in what Kate does because she does so little, but if she were to do more engagements and rewear outfits more, that would die down. There’s certainly very little interest in what William does on his own (his tour to Finland was virtually ignored) and that argument certainly doesn’t hold up with respect to him.

        And I don’t think that’s fair to say about Princess Anne. It is for the senior members of the royal family to do the visits after national tragedies. She’s shown a significant amount of compassion. Anne has been patron of Save the Children for many years and regularly visits their sites in places like Bangladesh. She also visits their charity shops to buoy up the staff and drum up business – she’s visiting one in Bristol on 9 January. She’ll never be misty-eyed but she does a significant amount of good.

      • Princessk says:

        @Tina…I take your points, I am not an Anne fan but she does work hard.

  2. Tina says:

    The only year Sophie dropped below 150 engagements since becoming a full time royal was the year when James was a newborn.

    • Morning Coffee says:

      And can we just mention that Kate is barely pregnant. She wasn’t pregnant all year. She doesn’t even show yet for God’s sake.

      • lunde says:

        She must be at least 5 months pregnant by now (maybe more) as she was on sick leave from the start of September and too ill to attend George’s first day at school and cancelled many engagements. Her due date is in April and I would guess early April as I would think she would want at least 4-6 weeks before Harrys wedding in mid-May

      • FLORC says:

        Kate had a long torso and always carries small and low. It shows less. With her last 2 it wasn’t until into her with and 9th months she showed more. Even then it was like she swallowed a basketball.
        The coat also hides a lot.

      • Lorelai says:

        And the HG only lasts for a very short time with her. It is absolutely no excuse for these numbers.

      • FLORC says:

        Ugh HG…
        Kate’s perfectly normal Morning Sickness appears to last only from the late 1st trimester to the early 2nd trimester. And while it appeared to be a rough go with George, carrying Charlotte went very smoothly.
        She’s never appeared thin. Always healthy progression in her pregnancies. Base that on her activity level and weight gain.

        With this pregnancy she cleared her schedule weeks ago for the whole year and then some. She cited Morning Sickness. Adding that even if she feels 100% fine she’s still not working for her charities she was so keen about.

    • Lorelai says:

      @Tina: and didn’t Sophie have an incredibly difficult childbirth with James? In any case, she’s made up for it many times over since, so I begrudge Sophie nothing. She’s a damn rock star next to the Cambridges.

      • Tina says:

        @Lorelai, I think it was Louise who had the difficult birth. But I totally agree, Sophie is great and gets the job done.

      • notasugarhere says:

        She had an ectopic pregnancy before Louise. She and Louise both nearly died during that delivery. She became pregnant with James at 42, whether as happy accident or result of IVF that she publicly said she would use if necessary.

      • Maddie says:

        The year after nearly dying during childbirth (2004) Sophie carried out 185 engagements.

  3. my3cents says:

    —-This was in response to a post that has been deleted——
    She has full time nannies, chefs, maids and other staff. No , I cannot give her any discounts here.
    Her work is to attend 1-2 hour events- not an 9 hour workday like us commoners.

    • Cranberry says:

      Maybe she wants to enjoy her children and her pregnancy. If had the choice, many women would choose the same and shouldn’t be made to feel guilty for it.

      • Tina says:

        Not when we pay for her life. We’re cutting benefits to the bone in the name of austerity, food bank use is up exponentially, and we’re paying hundreds of thousands of pounds for the wardrobe of a woman who barely does anything. She should feel guilty.

      • CynicalAnn says:

        Wait, what? Every other female member of the BRF worked during their pregnancy and when their children were little. It’s her JOB. Her entire luxurious existence is paid for by the public and it’s her responsibility to get out there and cut ribbons, shake hands and make small talk.

      • Starryfish says:

        If she wanted to be a full time mom she probably should have married a different rich guy, not one who is supposed to come with a lifetime work appointment attached.

      • Cranberry says:

        The British people pay for her husband. He is the “provider” for his family. It’s always been acceptable for a spouse not to work if a couple had the $ to afford it. I mean, historically and currently, this is still the way many families function. This arrangement is recognized by common law. Just sayin. But I know this is really all about something else. I mean. It doesn’t matter what Kate does or doesn’t do. She’s still going to be resented.

      • Nic919 says:

        She can still enjoy her kids after taking a hour or so every few days. This is insulting to mothers everywhere. They aren’t strapped 24/7 to their kids and she most certainly isn’t either. She certainly takes that amount of time to get her hair done and go shopping.

      • happy girl says:

        @Cranberry 1000% AGREE. I do not care what anyone says, argues or shames. This is the most precious time in her life….(almost) three young babies who need enormous amounts of time with mommy. Screw all the help they have, there is nobody above mommy. Just because Her Majesty (whom I adore) was a cold, detached mother, doesn’t mean Kate should pawn her children off, too. There is no one or any job more important than mothering your babies. Just leave her be. There will be decades to come to champion causes.

        She’s doing enough at the moment IMHO.

      • Tina says:

        It has never been acceptable in the British royal family for mothers not to work, not since before WWII. I do agree that William and Harry should be taking more of the criticism, but no one here is going particularly easy on them.

      • llamas says:

        She spent about 50 hours doing charity work. She could up that to 200 hours and still have a ton of time with her kids. The queen worked hard when her children were young. Thats not abnormal. My parents worked full time – mom went back to work 6 weeks after i was born. She still spent a lot of time with me and we have always shared a close bond. You don’t have to be a SAHM to be caring and there for your kids. That is a load of cr-p and an insult to the hardworking mothers everywhere.

        Im sick and tired of the put downs to mothers who work so that people can justify KM’s laziness. Knock it off, folks.

      • Cranberry says:

        Maybe someone forgot to show her how to punch her time card after the wedding.

        It is acceptable everywhere in patriarchal societies including GB. The only reason it’s used as a tool to attack Kate is because of the deep seeded resentment the British people have towards the Monarchy. Let’s just all be honest about that. Kate is not some terrible monster, and she’s no different from many “regular” women married to wealth. She’s just another undeserving royal.

      • Tina says:

        @Cranberry, spare me the cod psychology. The Queen Mother, Margaret and HM were expected to work, Anne and the Duchess of Kent were expected to work, Diana and Fergie were expected to work, and Sophie was expected to work. If you are a “working royal,” you are expected to work. The difference between Kate and other regular women married to wealth is that her money comes from the British people. I don’t give a toss what other mothers do, because I don’t pay for their lives.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Cranberry, Kate didn’t marry wealth. Every penny they spend, all the houses they live in, all the dozens of staff they employ come as a result of their position. She chased the wrong man for a decade if she wanted a life of leisure like Pippa.

      • magnoliarose says:

        I can’t believe you think this is ok.
        It blows my mind that her children are used as an excuse when she doesn’t have to lift a finger to do anything all day. Two hours a day is not too much.
        Yesterday everyone was worried about taxes and money now it is ok.
        As for the husband excuse, the lesser spare worked more than the heir since everyone loves to point out how much further down he is all the time. How unimportant he is but something tells me he doesn’t think so and something else tells me he will be rewarded for it by HM and Grandad. He shouldn’t outshine his brother but if he doesn’t work then he is wrong, but if he does it is dissected until it can be twisted into an insult.
        The more perks you receive should coincide with the hours of work and number of commitments. Not the other way around.

      • Nic919 says:

        Stay at home mothers aren’t tied to their children 24/7 and many of them manage to do charity events along with the housework. Kate has a kid in school and at least one nanny as well as housekeeping staff and cooks. She is not a regular stay at home mother and it is obtuse to pretend otherwise. Even if we ignore the requirement that she is expected to be a working royal, she still manages to take plenty of time to shop and get her hair done. Most stay at home moms wouldn’t have the time for it and couldn’t afford it. Most stay at home moms don’t have a full time nanny either. There is nothing you can say to justify her extreme laziness.

      • minx says:

        Ditto to what everyone else has said. If she wanted a life of pampered leisure she should have married someone like Pippa’s husband and no one would care what she does with her time or how much she spends.

      • FLORC says:

        That argument is faulty.
        Kate is more than welcome to enjoy her children and pregnancy. I truly hope she is and does.
        This however… It’s like you accept a paycheck for a job you don’t do. And much could be avoided if she and her staff talk herself up as so keen. She’s not. She never was. She takes the public servant perks, but acts like a private citizen.

      • LAK says:

        The QueenMother (pampered Edwardian lady) : “Work is the rent we pay for our privilege.”

        Queen Mary (super pampered Victorian lady) : “We love hospitals. We are never tired!”

        Kate Middleton (pampered modern woman) : some excuses given for her lack of a work ethic since the girlfriend days.
        1. She can’t work until she’s an official royal
        2. She can’t work until she’s settled into her marriage
        3. She can’t work whilst pregnant
        4. She can’t work until after maternity leave
        5. She’s pregnant again, she can’t work
        6. Sorry, another maternity leave
        7. She’s can’t work whilst her children are small
        8. She can’t work when they start school, who else will do the school run.
        9. Oops she’s pregnant again. Can’t work
        10. She’s got 2 small kids AND she’s pregnant. How dare you ask her to work
        11. She’s waiting to be the Princess of Wales to work

        Nevermind. She remains keen to work. And that’s the important part.

        Just don’t mention the nannies, mama Carole, household staff including housekeepers, cleaners, gardeners, butlers, valets, cooks, chefs, drivers.

        Not to mention the retinue of office staff that does the actual work so the only requirement from Kate is a photo op and not much else because she can’t or won’t extend herself to do more.

      • Cranberry says:

        As I understand, even without the British tax payer’s $, the BRF is one of the wealthiest families on the planet. What # they rank now, I’m not sure, but I know it’s high up there. They have holdings around the world, and even without the tax payer $ they are Extremely wealthy.

        I’m not saying Kate should sit on her ass her whole life just because she married rich. I’m just saying all this “she doesn’t work enough” or “she should be able to work and raise children” and “this is her Job” is just categorical judgement fueled by class anger. I’m not for the Monarchy. It’s obvious that it needs to go especially if it just breeds this toxic environment of judging which women are worthy of their station, if they work enough or if they should feel guilty if they choose to be around their family more than work, etc. Whatever the situation, it can be sliced any which way. If Kate worked a lot more, I guarantee some people will also hold that against her as proof of what a cold, bad mother she must be that she leaves her kids to be raised solely by staff and nannies.

      • minx says:

        Well, here’s my judgment on who is “worthy of their station”–nobody. Just because you were lucky enough to be born or marry into the scam that is “royalty” doesn’t mean you get a free ride. And nobody here is saying Kate has to “leave her kids to be raised solely by staff or nannies.” That’s just not true.

      • LAK says:

        Cranberry: without the taxpayers’ subsidy these people woildn’t be as wealthy as you imagine. As an example, William inherited £10M from his mother. That isn’t enough to buy his own country mansion nevermind the taxes and upkeep.

        The annual taxpayer grants they receive for their private and public lives, given directly and indirectly, is why they give every appearance of being fabulously wealthy. Without it they wouldn’t even make the Sunday times rich list which cuts off at £100M. They definitely afford their current lifestyles.

      • Tina says:

        @Cranberry, Kate chose this life. No one forced her to marry William. She chose this life knowing that these were the expectations. She acknowledged them at the engagement interview. If she wants to withdraw from public life, as the Duchess of Kent has done, she will not receive any funds from the Duchy of Cornwall for her clothing and she will not make public appearances. She has not chosen to do that.

        As for the BRF’s wealth, the Queen is the 329th richest person in the UK, according to the Sunday Times rich list. If you take away the state-owned assets, the royals don’t have that much. And William personally certainly doesn’t have that much.

        And as for all of your class resentment nonsense, no one thinks that Anne was a bad mother because she worked harder than Diana or Sophie. No one is nitpicking how hard Camilla works. There’s a minimum, and Kate isn’t meeting it.

      • Lorelai says:

        I choose to enjoy my children and enjoyed my pregnancies; however, my life is paid for by my husband’s salary, not fellow taxpayers.

        I will NEVER understand how so many people don’t get this distinction.

      • Cranberry says:

        “your class resentment [is] nonsense”
        Wow. Now that’s rich. As an American there are certain things I really admire about GB. Your socialized healthcare for one. British government just voted high speed internet as a right for everyone, while our corrupt administration is doing away with net neutrality. I also admire that in many parts of your country you can speak seriously about socialist ideas and the common wealth without being looked at like an alien or labeled a communist. I know it’s not everywhere, but it’s way more than in US.
        What I don’t envy about British culture is the immense, heightened and even hateful cultural-class anger that doesn’t seem to be constructive imo. I think the monarchy needs to go away, but honestly I truly wonder what people will do with all the anger they can’t direct at the RF once they’re out. My point is that the monarchy might be wrong, but the anger and never ending categorical judgments are not healthy either for a society. It doesn’t create solutions. It just festers more anger.

      • Tina says:

        I was not saying that class resentment is nonsense. I was saying that your statements about people disliking Kate because of class issues are nonsense. There are plenty of class issues in this country, but they don’t have anything to do with Kate or how hard she works. Most people in the UK couldn’t give a toss about Kate (and she’s not a born aristocrat anyway, she’s an example of someone who worked her way up).

        You’re right about one thing though – the UK is an angry society. Part of that has to do with class, but a lot of it has to do with being a lot of people living in a relatively small space in the North Sea. Our drivers are angry, our cyclists are angry, and we drink too much. But it’s got nothing to do with how hard Kate works.

      • magnoliarose says:

        I am American, and my criticisms certainly have nothing to do with classicism. Like I said before I grew up with far far more than Kate, one side of my family has been that way going back the Old Countries. The other just regular working class to Upper Middle with a few a touch more. Heavier on the middle and some downright poor.
        Wealth or class is not an excuse to behave as if one if better than others or one deserves breaks just because they were born.

        For the life of me, I don’t understand why anyone makes excuses for wealthy people. I understand the resentment even if it isn’t fair sometimes because it makes more sense. Which is all the more reason to be a decent, productive person and not feed into stereotypes.

        In the world of wealth, the Middleton’s exaggerate and they don’t have enough to raise three lazy children even if they mistakenly think that is what affluent people do with their own. They don’t. Ann and Charles are more in line with duty and expectation and that work builds character.
        In my house at 16, you had a week to get some applications and be on the way to having a job during the summers. It didn’t matter what but it had to be something. One of my brothers tried to buck the rule, so he was forced to work as a dishwasher and at a fast food chain. Two jobs for an entire summer. No hanging out with friends or anything but work jobs he hated. He got no reward or a cookie. It was an example of what people have to do to survive. He had to live off it and contribute to his expenses. If he was sick, he had to work. If he tried to sleep in my dad poured water on him or stared at him until he got up. If he had the attitude, he was forced to walk home.
        Lesson learned.
        If you are born with breaks, you don’t deserve anymore unless you earn them.

      • Lobbit says:

        Yeah, it’s an unpopular sentiment around here, but I agree. I don’t begrudge any woman for wanting to be home with their kids.

      • Tina says:

        I’m glad you are so benevolent when it comes to other people’s money. I wish that your country was as generous when it comes to other children’s health care (CHIP). Oh excuse me, they extended it for a whole three months. How generous.

      • Liberty says:

        LAK, thank you.

        I note that people seem to forget her endless hours of shopping and hair appointments, which equate to far, far more weekly hours than her work events. As I recall, she has even abbreviated or cancelled some work events, then was photographed shopping during those hours. She also spends endless hours decorating, then, redecorating.

        Her work avoidance has nothing to do with motherhood. I don’t think that typical stay at home moms are able to subtract that much time from their children for shopping and hair. Time that could be used in great part for: work.

        I will be told by her fans that she has to shop for $160,000 worth of fashion and have a hundred hair appointments because: she is a royal.

        To which I say, ok, so then, she’s NOT just a typical stay at home mother, she is a royal, accepting the relaxing perks of the job of being a royal woman and doing precious little work in return. Because yes, being royal is a job, hence the work wardrobe allowance from Charles.

        She wants to stay at home with the kiddos, fine. For that, Johnnie Boden and The White Company could set her up with a functional wardrobe for far, far less. Her current wardrobe is an expensive outdated blur, barely reflective of the designers even when not chopped and rehemmed in her bedroom, so let’s just save the cash, since we are just home making toast soldiers as a doting typical average common stay at home mom with five nannies, a live-in mother, and housekeepers.

      • FLORC says:

        No matter what our views are this is why there’s some criticism.
        She or her staff have been going on for years she’s so excited to work. She needs expensive transport to work. She needs to renovate another household. On and on. And in the end she doesn’t do much more than celeb appearances and photo ops. She took a role where she takes the perks and refuses the cost. Even the minimum. While her pr office keeps talking her up. It’s a conflict.

        There’s also this… she’s a woman in the spotlight with influence. She does nothing with it. That’s my personal gripe. Her apathy.

      • Lorelai says:

        @Cranberry, your insistence on the “class resentment” or “class anger” argument is incredibly odd. I get the impression that many of us here on CB are members of what you would consider ‘higher’ classes and have been lucky enough to be SAHMs, and our issue with Kate has absolutely nothing to do with that. The difference, again, is that we’re not being publicly funded by taxpayers.

        Even those among us who struggle financially still have every right to have an opinion about Kate’s lousy work ethic without it being dismissed as some sort of jealousy or resentment. We simply recognize that she is being paid (handsomely!) for a job she refuses to do. Year after year.

        Liberty: Johnnie Boden 😂

        LAK/others/ Honestly, why do you think the Queen continues to allow this? I get that she is famously non-confrontational, but she’s not a stupid woman and must realize that the future of the BRF could rest on William’s success as a monarch. Plus, she’s 91. Is her lifelong legacy not worth pissing off her grandson — possibly to the point of estrangement— at this point? I don’t understand how this is tolerated year after year. As Kate’s wardrobe budget goes UP!

      • SoulSPA says:

        @Lorelai as per your question about TQ continuing to allow this. Whereas I am in no way privy to their situation, my reading is like this: Diana’s legacy in terms of spite and toxicity shown off repeatedly in public and master manipulation with long lasting consequences like the one you’re talking about. Charles maintained silence no matter what had happened. But Diana was the only one who spoke up and for as long as there are no official opinions from the firm to counterbalance what Diana had said, I am afraid that all we have are some truths and most likely some lies from Diana. Very damaging lies. Very damaging Panorama interview as well leading to the divorce. And liaisons with questionable men to which the boys were exposed.
        William and Harry suffered as children during their parents’ marriage, divorce, and after her death. They *know* a lot more than the public can read also in between the lines. Given the fact that all they knew work wise were the good examples of their parents and other senior members of the BRF, I put down their master entitlement, lack of ethic and petulance to knowing or considering very damaging stuff about the BRF. And not working is the way to show their middle fingers to the royal blood family. Especially from William the Ordinary (middle class) and Harry the Innocent.
        TQ and Charles cannot do more now and have other important issues to take care of.
        ETA and Kate’s wardrobe is what we see. Think of what we don’t see in terms of staff, luxury food, leisure and secret vacations. Both for W and H.

      • flan says:

        @Cranberry, you don’t find class anger constructive.

        I don’t find it constructive that lots of young people can no longer afford a higher education in England, lots of old people don’t have enough money to properly heat in winter, people sleep rough etc etc.

        To make judgments about class anger and not about the root of that anger is hypocritical.

      • Redgrl says:

        @Liberty – excellent comment. Love the “expensive outdated blur” and toast soldiers!

        @soulspa – I think you are on to something re William & Harry’s petulance & entitlement… Not to mention the stories of Diana crying on William’s shoulder when he was way too young to be exposed to that. I’m sure some of her gripes (some legitimate and some likely her own spoiled complaints) fuelled his resentment.

      • magnoliarose says:

        @SoulSpa and Redgrl

        I have never doubted they have some emotional scars from not just losing their mother but also her emotional instability. Harry said something about it sort of and was crucified for it, but I believe there are some psychological problems such as depression and anxiety.
        However, they don’t have lives that require a daily grind, and they most likely have had help.
        Their choices say a lot about their minds and priorities.
        I think Billy B Normal has a victim complex and has inherited his mother’s petulance and moodiness. I think his laziness and marrying someone who isn’t up for the job was part of this. He can also blame her for whatever his shortcomings are, and I can see him doing this.
        Harry on the hand is more likable and has her charming people skills, but he chose a wife that was way out of left field, but there are similarities with his mother. Friendly, smiley and more contemporary pop culture and glamorous than the traditional aristocratic woman.
        I have a feeling he and Meghan will be a little separate.
        They both need to step it up and fulfill their obligations.

        Those are my armchair psych assessments with some Miss Cleo predictions sprinkled over the top.

    • Trump Hater says:

      She doesn’t care. So she won’t feel any shame. She didn’t feel any shame or embarrassment when Wills treated her as essentially his plaything while they were “dating”, publicly humiliating her and dumping her multiple times. If she had any dignity and pride in herself, she would’ve felt embarrassment then. But as we have seen, she’s content wth living off of luxury paid for by others- she didn’t “waity” only to be like a commoner and work and feel guilty when she doesn’t work as much as she gets paid to do.

      • Scarlett says:

        Trump Hater, she is also on record as saying ( at her engagement interview ) that she doesn’t care what people think. So yes, no shame or care.

      • notok says:

        In what way did he humilate her? They had a public breakup for seven weeks in 2007. According to the press he shouted i am free when he was drunk after clubbing. He went back to her on his knees begging for her to take him back according to the same press. According to the tabloids they had two brief breakups before 2007 not publicy but on the down low. One time he ended it and one time she ended it. After 2007 they are solid (as far as we know). That’s not humilating. And don’t come with stories about he went after other women like isabella because she denied it.

      • LAK says:

        Notok: firstly they broke up every year they dated. 2007 was the most famous breakup.

        Secondly, he didn’t say he was free after getting drunk. He jumped on top of a bar at the club, and announced he was free several times THEN proceeded to get drunk – by pure coincidence i had a cousin who was there that night!!

        And whilst he was broken up with Kate, he was dating other women, including during that 2007 break. The *woman who dated him during that 2007 didn’t want to take it further and so he went back to Kate with his tail between his legs.
        *we know who she is, but as she is a private citizen, no need to publicly name her on a public forum.

        Meanwhile Kate went on a media tour ‘show him what he is missing’ tiny dresses and stalking him through the various clubs he attended. We all lived through that period so don’t pretend otherwise.

      • notok says:

        @LAK I wrote a whole comment but it didn’t appear and i don’t want to type it all again. But in short. So i said they are rumored to have broken up 3 times and you say four times. But what we know for sure one time in 2007.

        So i said he said he was free what does it matter if it was before or after he was drunk.

        First of all there is no evidence he dated anyone in those seven weeks. If you are alluding to isabella it’s not true. She was in a relationship with her now husband and she also denied ever dating or being romantically involved with him. Second he was single so if he dated anyone in that time period so what. He could date who he wanted. Fact is he went back to kate begging on his knees for her to take him back.

        Kate went clubbing after she was newly single just like any other women after a break up. She didn’t stalk him. She just went clubbing at the same clubs she always went. What did you want her to do .. stay at home and not enjoy her life.

        Anyway it’s old gossip/news. It’s now almost eleven years after their breakup in 2007 and almost three children later…….

      • LAK says:

        Notok: i’m not talking about Isabella. Like i said, lady is private, and so i won’t name her publicly. We all know he has never dated Isabella though he tried repeatedly.

        And the multiple breakups were not rumoured and were more than 3 or 4 times. The 2007 breakup was the most infamous one because it was thought to be the final end to their relationship. And Kate definitely stalked him through the clubs and doing her very best ‘see what you are missing’ impression by dressing in a way that was unusual for her, going to all the clubs he was rumoured to be or managed by his friends and flirting very publicly with his friends infront of the paps at said clubs so her picture was in the tabloids afterwards. Not to mention the multiple invitations to hello magazine to interview and showcase her as the best princess William could hope for if not for the breakup. And before you question it, Hello has an exclusive deal with the Middletons, so those articles and covers were not coincidence especially of a private citizen.

        It’s funny to me that the supposedly private Kate wouldn’t go quietly and nade a spectacle of herself when it looked like she was chucked for good, but the publicly vilified Chelsy took her break up with dignity and kept herself as far away from the mefia.

        I took issue with your sentence construction regarding the ‘i’m free’ incident because as you wrote it, it implied he said it AFTER he got drunk as if it was a consequence of his drinking. Infact people who were there like my cousin said he was sober and in celebratory mood when he said it at the beginning of the night and afterwards got very drunk. And it’s memorable because he was all over the club in celebratory mood. No hiding in VIP rooms, privacy please type behaviour. He wanted to celebrate and he did. He was very public about it.

      • notok says:

        @LAK Let’s agree to disagree. I stand with my comment above.

        I don’t agree with you. I don’t agree he dated anyone but what i said even if he did he was single. Kate could also have dated or have one night stands with anyone she wanted because she was single.

        She went clubbing so what a terrible thing to do. A newly single woman goes clubbing and is flirting at clubs where she always went clubbing.

        Do you really think Hello wouldn’t cover her after the break up. Media is still covering chelsea 7 years after her break up with harry. And you have no way of knowing if they had a deal or not. Nobody knows that except for hello and kate.

        What i said what does it matter if he said it before or after he was drunk fact remains he went back to her on his knees begging her to take him back.

        This will be the last time i react to this because simply we don’t know for sure. I don’t know and you don’t know. The only people who know are william and kate.

        What i said above it is old gossip/news and it is almost 11 years after their breakup in 2007 and almost three children later.

      • LAK says:

        Notok: I *do* know. These people don’t live in a ratified ivory tower. They live in my neighbourhood and in my county. They don’t hide even if the media has been forced to keep a lid on their private lives.

        You choose to disbelieve and that’s ok.

        I’ll be the one sipping the ‘I told you’ tea when the fist truthful biogs starts coming out.

        I’m sure you were equally as blinkered and suckered in by the fairytale PR of the Charles and Diana marriage even though they were not private about their liaisons and we all knew about it.

        Also, it’s rather funny that you think Hello just randomly decided to cover a broken up Kate as if it was all hapstance. I wonder why they ignored Chelsy. Where are Chesly and Cressida’s covers showing Harry what he is missing and how they should be his best princess. Where are Chelsy and cressida out partying at pap heavy spots or places Harry is known to frequent or hanging out with his mates and making sure the flirtatious pictures are in the tabloids for months. Where are they?

      • Princessk says:

        Why are people always talking about the tax that goes towards the royals. The RF is a special case and if people are measuring them up in terms of returns on taxes then they clearly have no sense of tradition, history and culture. I never think of the RF in terms of tax, why does everything have to be reduced to money. The RF are not responsible for lack of housing, schools or hospitals or people going to food banks, quite the reverse actually. Why can’t people get this into their heads!

      • FLORC says:

        Snarky blogs maybe. Actual press? Of they do not treat kate as the 2md coming they get limited access to inside info and the children. Much like it was noted interested press had to sign a contract to only speak glowingly of the Cambridges or they would have no 1st or any access to the children that were hidden away. Kate being the primary photographer meant they had full control over the photos. Only tjose that played ball would get access.

        Also, basics… if you’re doing your job… who cares. Ann gets mocked for appearance. Charles gets mocked. Even the queen. Kate spent almost a full decade knowing the game. Being appearance centered. Knowing tabloids and angles. And if she’s too self conscious to step to cameras, which there’s zero evidence of, she can hold private meetings. Or work for her patronage privately. Thst her patronage have publicly tried to drop her because she couldn’t manage 1 30 minite visit a year is where the bad press starts.
        She’s lazy. She got called out.

      • Tina says:

        @Princessk, it is not tax money that goes to the royals (apart from the £100 million+ per year that their security costs us). But it is money that belongs to us, from the Crown Estate and the Duchies. If we did not spend 25% of the income from the Crown Estate on the Sovereign Grant, for example, that money would go straight back into the Treasury for the government to spend. Now they might not spend it on hospitals, etc, that’s true. But it is galling, as a person who lives in this country, to see people being supported at government expense living lives of incredible luxury and not even being willing to give back in a more than minimal way. Especially in a time of such austerity and hardship.

  4. Imqrious2 says:

    Eh, with Charlotte starting school (which she won’t miss, as she had to miss George’s first days at Thomas’ Battersea), and the new baby in late March/early April (doesn’t she usually go into hiding the last two months so no one sees her huge?), I doubt we’ll see much of Kate till fall. Only exceptions will be that planned postponed Scandinavia trip (two countries I believe?) for a couple of days, and H & M’s wedding.

    • milla says:

      Don’t say that. She has issues with weight, so of course she doesn’t wanna be seen after birth.

      • lunde says:

        Well it is certain that she will be seen in mid-May when Harry gets married

      • notok says:

        @milla You assume she has issues with weight…. because she doesn’t have the weight YOU think she should have.

        Let’s let women decide for themselves … it’s her body and her business

        I believe she starts her leave a month before her duedate but i could be wrong.

      • llamas says:


        She is underweight, perpetually. I do not excuse unhealthiness and she looks unhealthy. I had an ED and it irks me when people say its okay to be unhealthy because body positivity. Her bones do not naturally stick out. Lets not advocate for emaciation. That type of thinking can be dangerous, trust me on this.

        Edit: if you look at pictures before the wedding she was at her natural weight. Suddenly, wedding, and her bones are sticking out. That is extreme weight loss. Im naturally thin but when i got sick i dropped a ton of weight and my bones stuck out. Everybody’s natural weight is different so you being her size is different than her dropping a ton of weight. I was very thorough on my weight research way back when. I do know what I’m talking about.

      • notok says:

        @Ilamas But you are not her doctor. You are assuming. You don’t know. So let bodyshaming out of it.

      • caitlin says:

        notok you need to read llama’s comment again, because there’s no shaming or assuming going on there that i can see. pictures speak for themselves and if you look back at kate’s appearance through the years, she has changed dramatically from healthy, athletic and slim to emaciated after the engagement. she continues to maintain an unnaturally thin (for her – again based on her previous, normal weight) physique except when she’s pregnant.

      • Enough Already says:

        Armchair medical diagnoses harm actual sufferers. We have no idea if Kate has an ed. Physical appearance is not diagnostic, people. What you consider gaunt someone else might see as lean or athletic. What you consider fat might be seen as full or curvy or even normal to someone else. The Starbucks psychiatry and body policing helps no one.

  5. Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

    While her engagement number go down the cost of her public wardrobe goes up and up. The bribe of designer clothes to work isn’t happening, she’s lazy and always will be.

  6. Sparkly says:

    I don’t care if she’s pregnant (and she wasn’t all year), that’s shameful.

    • Alix says:

      Pregnancy and motherhood never kept Diana home, just sayin’.

      • Jayna says:

        Diana complained about feeling ill and being forced to get out of the car to greet fans by Charles and keep engagements when she wanted to stay home, because she felt so tired. She complained about how sick she was and they didn’t care and put her through long days on trips. She fainted once and Charles was furious with her. She was bulimic, though. She worked harder. But there were many times she hated the RF for the expectations they put on her.

      • anon says:

        if i were rich and pregnant, i’d avoid going out in crowds and meeting strangers, wouldn’t you? imagine catching colds, fever etc, when you are out and about meeting people you know nothing about.

      • Maria says:

        @anon. By all means, avoid all contact with the peasants. Do everything you can to avoid having anything to do with them. You never know what the scumballs are carrying, germs, diseases, and all theses other horrible conditions that come with being ordinary people.

      • minx says:

        Pregnant women can get flu shots. This isn’t the Middle Ages, she won’t contact bubonic plague by shaking the hands of (horrors!) non-royals.

  7. Talie says:

    None of this is work. Honestly, it sounds fun…if my job was just traveling and shaking hands, I’d do like a 1,000 events a year.

    • SoulSPA says:

      Please don’t forget having millions and not worrying about food, healthcare, job security, heating, holidays and multiple staff caring for one. Sounds fun!

    • Snazzy says:

      Honestly, me too. I would also love to representing charities and give them visibility – there are so many amazing organisations out there staffed with people doing good work. If I could help them raise their profile, I’d do so in a heartbeat. I don’t understand the laziness. But then I guess that’s why I’m not royal.

    • Bettyrose says:

      IKR? And those 1000 events/year wouldn’t even prevent you from having regular salon and spa visits as each event lasts minutes. Hard work royal style is still a dream life by most standards.

    • homeslice says:

      A to the men! She may be a nice person, but she and her husband are lazy. Harry and MM will be too. They have to ultimate guilt trip to hold over their father’s head and they will use it. The ironic this is, I think Diana would be ashamed of them. Say what you want, but she was a work horse. That is why you probably never heard grousing about her wardrobe.

      • L84Tea says:

        Eh…actually, the press even gave Diana crap about her clothes and how much was spent. I used to spend my entire summers in NJ with my grandparents and my grandmother used to save all her Star Magazines all year long so I’d have a big stack to pour through all summer (see, I’ve been an avid royal gossiper since childhood!), and I very distinctly remember issues saying things like “Charles Furious Over $10,000 Diana Spent On Silk Blouses!” and stuff like that. I remember it vividly. I guess that means people are going to fuss over the cost of clothes whether the wearer is a work horse or not!

    • Redgrl says:

      Just think of all good that could be done if Kate or William had verve and enthusiasm and a strong work ethic? It’s galling to compare their sloth to wanting to have “normal” family time when the average family are both working 40+ hours/week, shuttling kids to after school & sports activities and often caring for ageing parents – without nannies or chefs thank you very much. I still want to know what if any credit Harry gets for Invictus and how that affects his numbers…

      • notok says:

        @redglr I believe they counted every sport event at invictus games as a single engagement. AP has just released their list of days working and william has worked 85 days (also parttime job until september not included). Harry has worked 77 days.

    • magnoliarose says:

      I don’t understand it either.
      Besides being with m favorite people, my little ducklings and family I enjoy helping and volunteering. I like being able to donate, but I really love to help. It is gratifying but more than that I like the idea that people don’t feel forgotten or alone. They aren’t invisible, and someone cares and sees them.
      It was drummed into my head from the cradle.
      Austerity left people behind, and there are so many organizations that need help.
      On that level, she could raise millions, but she doesn’t.
      I always wanted to write a healthy but affordable cookbook for people who have to rely on food pantries and social services and have deals with markets for the extra food they can’t access. A charity would be able to do that.

      • Enough Already says:

        Published author here. Let me know if you need or want help, advice or brainstorming assistance. If not I still want to high five you for such an amazing idea! My stepson was a grass roots food justice organizer and I can feel myself channeling his enthusiasm for this lol.

      • Maria says:

        Maybe Pippa can help with the cookbook.

      • magnoliarose says:

        Fits of giggles

        @Enough Already
        I hope you stick around because it will be some time with young children to shepherd but Спасибо for the offer. However, I am impressed. I might pop a ? your way though.
        One of the complaints parents who come into the food pantry or for a meal is that they can’t provide wholesome fresh food for their families.
        I started cooking when I was little, and it is relaxing. I know it seems everyone is claiming domestic skills they don’t have but I honest to goodness love it. It is annoying when something becomes a celebrity trend, or it is used to seem more relatable. Picture Mitt Romney’s laundry moment in 2012. I am no lifestyle blogging type, and you won’t find me doing little craftsy domestic projects, but I can cook and garden.
        We all cook to different degrees, but I liked making meals for my parents when it was just the three of us.

      • Enough Already says:


        You’re on! I’ll start rattling some ideas around for future consideration 🙂
        I understand what you mean about cooking – it is a part of my life irrevocably aligned with love, loss, triumph, grief, healing, identity, personhood and the cultural fabric that I’m cut from. The joy of using energy to transform matter into actual sustenance. A glass of 1er crus to go with the brussels Charlemagne dish I created for my sister – the hoe cakes I taught my husband how to make while we discussed why they were so important to my enslaved South Carolina ancestors…ah!

      • Hmmmm says:

        Fantastic idea, Magnolia Rose!

      • paddingtonjr says:

        @magnoliarose: there’s a group on Facebook that is trying to do this: https://www.facebook.com/FoodbankCookbook/

      • Lorelai says:


        Your mother >> Carole Middleton

    • Veronica says:

      Compared to most jobs, where we get up in the dark, get dressed, shove some toast and tea down our throats as we pack lunches, get kids on the bus or to the babysitter’s, work like a dog for a wage that barely supports a family, get yelled out or overwhelmed with work from the boss, come home in dark, make dinner, clean up, do laundry, collapse into bed to do it again tomorrow – her “job,” along with the rest of the young lazy royals, is a joke. They have nannies, housekeepers, cooks, chauffeurs, secretaries, they have someone come do their hair, put on a dress worth thousands, get in the car, get driven to a place where there are cheering fans pushing gifts on you, you shake some hands, listen to some people talk, smile, nod, be attentive, get back in car, go home to nannies and meal already made.
      Give me a fricking break. Every single one of these do-nothings should be working 500 events a year. Entitled twits.

      • Liberty says:

        This. All this.

      • Wilder says:

        Oh god, yes. Imagine never having to clean a bathroom again! Imagine coming home from a long day of work EVERY SINGLE DAY to a spotlessly clean house! These are the things that make me shake my head at Kate’s laziness. If I had even half her privilege I’d be running from one charitable event to the next with glee.

      • Redgrl says:

        Agree, Veronica!

    • Lorelai says:

      Shaking the hands of people who are completely thrilled to even so much as catch a glimpse of you in person, and who throw at you so many bouquets of flowers you need multiple assistants to help you carry them all.

      Nice “work” if you can get it 🙄

    • Princessk says:

      @Talie…that sounds rather simplistic, you have no idea what its is like to be constantly in the public eye, especially with the terribly intrusive 21st century social media. After a while you would be begging to go back to your old life.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Princessk, LAK has detailed repeatedly the media injuctions in place. We didn’t know H&M spent no more than 2 weeks apart for 18 months because of those injunctions. They were seen but no one was allowed to photograph or report it.

        In their private lives, we don’t see 1 / 10,000th of what they’re doing because they live under a cloak of privacy guaranteed by power, pressure, the threats and games they play with reporters and photographers (see the used and abused Tanna), and 600 million a year in taxpayer money.

      • Lorelai says:

        @PrincessK, I see what you’re saying but Kate knew exactly what marrying William would entail and walked into it with her eyes wide open. She chose it.

  8. Petty Riperton says:

    I like Meghan but if you think she’s going to work more than the future queen consort you are smoking something. Harry been told all his life he has to support his brother because he will have the harder job of being king. Part of that supporting role is to not out shine his brother. That will extend to his wife as well.

    • Tnt says:

      I agree with you 100%. Reality will set in soon enough. Meghan is not in full control.

    • llamas says:

      Harry hit above 200 combined engagements this year. Will had around 170. Harry did better than Will (even if just barely).

      • lunde says:

        William was working at a real job as an air-ambulance pilot (OK 20 hours/week) until the end of July

      • whatever says:


        William had his other job (helicopter pilot) to do. Harry didn’t have that excuse so his numbers really should be higher than that. When are people going to talk about Harry’s laziness? he doesn’t have a young family or a second job like William but he gets none of the flak for doing very little work.

      • llamas says:

        My point was that Harry actually has more engagements counted than the heir. Usually they keep him below Will by not counting invictus and such so that Will looks busier. Just an observation.

      • notasugarhere says:

        William was never a pilot, he was always a co-pilot. His co-workers and their exposes showed how much he really showed up to work (took 4 weeks off at Christmas, barely worked EAAA the first four months of 2017, etc.).

      • Redgrl says:

        William’s “air ambulance copilot” was largely a PR hobby vanity project. He barely worked and when he did he had a sour face on in the photos (which he usually seems to at most events). I said it upthread – how many hours does Harry clock for Invictus? What would his numbers be then? They’d be higher, I’m sure, but hardly the equivalent of a full time job…

      • Bluthfan says:

        I think this is the first time they’ve allowed Harry’s #s to be higher than William’s. Interesting. They still don’t count all of his charity work outside of Royal duties – Invictus and his other non-Royal charity.

      • magnoliarose says:

        I had no idea Celebitchy doubled as a psychic friends network. You just know that by golly Meghan WILL do something wrong, so she is terrible already because the crystal ball says so. Very scientific.
        At least look at the truth and not stretch facts. You don’t have to drag Harry to make his lazy butt brother look better. As you all keep saying he isn’t the heir so why are you all so pearl clutchy about his workload?
        William the Great is the heir. What about all that tax money? The millions on refurbishing their homes and her family’s home. That is ok I guess. But you know it is millions and millions, right? And they don’t work.
        I would like to know the yearly cost of maintaining the Cambridge’s lifestyle. LAK, nota, Sixer et al. If someone knows I would love that figure.

      • notok says:

        AP just released their working days number. William had 85 days (his part time job not included) and Harry 77 days. So stop your excuses for harry.

      • Veronica says:

        Part of Harry’s 70 overseas events were different events at the Invictus games. Each game he attended counted as an event.
        A real disservice to the British public, counting them like that to fool them into thinking he did more than he did.
        @magnolia, Harry is supported by the public, too, so they have every right to know how much he worked. How much was spent on his jetting back and forth to Toronto, his two vacations to Africa (one several weeks long, and no, he didn’t work,) wedding to Jamaica, trip to Norway, private hunting trip?? Let’s include that figure to be fair, ok?

      • flan says:

        @magnoliarose, from how it seemed to me, the commenters weren’t talking about Meghan not wanting to work, but that it wouldn’t look good if she had more engagements than the future queen and they might therefore be kept low.

    • Tina says:

      Sadly I have to agree. And all of the criticism will fall on Meghan.

      • Bettyrose says:

        What’s different is that Meghan won’t be trapped. It seems like they’re truly in love, so she’ll probably stick it out despite the media scrutiny to come, but she’s a far cry from Kate or even Diana who had no other life to return to. Meghan could return to L.A. and use her fame to be anything from a talk show host to lifestyle guru. People reinvent themselves all the time in L.A. There’s no 1000 years of history and tradition to answer to. That fact makes me feel like Meghan is far more empowered to decide her fate than other royal wives have been.

      • Tina says:

        @Bettyrose, you’re absolutely right. That thought has cheered me up enormously. Meghan is not trapped, she can get out any time she likes.

      • SoulSPA says:

        In the event of a divorce Meghan as a former actress will be severely restricted in what she could do. Yes she has skills and exposure and brains but she will not be able to do just anything.

      • Bettyrose says:

        Soulspa, I’m confused. Why would she be any more limited than any other divorcee returning to the job market? I get that she couldn’t disparage the RF for profit, but why would any other avenue be closed off to her in the U.S.?

      • bettyrose says:

        After I wrote that, I remembered that even Fergie did celebrity endorsements in the U.S. after her divorce, and surely Meghan could do better than a few tv ads in our celebrity obsessed culture. The point is moot because I don’t see them ever divorcing, but it’s also healthy for a marriage that no one feels trapped by circumstances.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Fergie has the checkered life she has because she didn’t ask for a settlement and then lived to regret it. Accept a generous settlement and go live quietly elsewhere divorcing out of the BRF is not difficult. Not even required to live in the UK. See Countess Alexandra of Denmark of an example of how this can be done right.

        Fergie and the girls were even going to move full-time to Switzerland when the girls were 10 and 11 with the Queen’s permission, house provided by her ex Paddy McNally. Only a scandal at their future school prevented it. Otherwise, the royals probably saw that as a great solution. Get them out of the UK, to a place where they’d have loads of privacy, and Fergie wouldn’t have been the obvious problem she is now.

    • Bea says:

      Yet Harry outworked Will this year by 38 events.

      • Plantpal says:

        Arne’t those just the public events? What about all the private meetings Harry would have had to have to organize the I.AM games? There would have been a TON of behind the scenes meetings, no?

      • SoulSPA says:

        Plantpal, we don’t know enough about those prep meetings. He could spend days on end in meetings or none or just a few. That’s why public engagement are so important. Those are the only ones we surely know about only because they are public. So the perception is that he’s lazy.

      • Tina says:

        All royal work involves some level of pre-planning. I’ll grant that Invictus probably requires more than most, but nothing William does would involve pre-planning meetings beyond what Anne or Sophie do.

    • SoulSPA says:

      How does H not working mean any support for W?

      • llamas says:

        It makes Will look less lazy if his brother appears “lazier.” Then criticism can fall on Harry and Will can continue to be oh so great and amazing and KEEN.

      • Lobbit says:

        I don’t get the “harry can’t be allowed to outwork will” theory at all. Princess Anne does more than Charles almost every year – no one seems to care about that, so why would it be an issue for Harry and Will? Doesn’t make any sense.

      • Tina says:

        Charles actually outworked Anne overall this year (she did more in the UK). No one seems to have noticed and it doesn’t fit with the headlines. Harry has done slightly more than William this year. It doesn’t really matter. If Harry and/or Meghan outwork W&K by a hundred engagements or more, people will take notice.

      • Addie says:

        The ‘Harry can’t outshine William’ narrative is a smart-ass little number the brothers have dreamed up so that BOTH men do as little as possible. Harry talks the talk and is very convincing about his intentions, but has years of doing next to nothing since leaving the army. William thinks he’s super smart… but can’t cut it with anything he tries: RAF, EAAA, university, school, the Cambridge special course. Both men are complete duds. Shame they weren’t taught responsibility by their precious family instead of just demanding all the goodies.

      • SoulSPA says:

        I’ve never considered “support” like that. For me it’s about getting prepared, reading, meeting people, doing tangible things. Shameless.

  9. Starryfish says:

    No surprises here, she has no interest in “working.” It’s interesting how low William’s numbers are, & he can’t even claim pregnancy as an excuse.

    • Cranberry says:

      I don’t care that she has no interest in working. If I had the choice, I wouldn’t work either. Stop acting like this is something new and uncommon. She married rich. She’s making a family. What’s all the shock about, seriously.

      • Tina says:

        William has about £10m in private wealth. That would last them about 2 years. They’re not rich, the Duchy of Cornwall (which belongs to the British people) is rich.

      • llamas says:

        She. Lives. Off. Of. Other. People’s. Money. THAT is the problem. People that work their butts off to put food on the table give their hard earned money to the royals in return for charity work. Kate doesn’t do the work she is supposed to do. You’re a private citizen – you dont want to work? Go for it. Kate is NOT like you and me. She is not a private citizen. If she doesnt want to work, okay, as long as she stops using the taxpayer’s money. I’m not sure why this is so hard to understand for some people.

      • homeslice says:

        Also, her “work” if she did it, is still a cake walk. How many people would go shake hands every day to live her lifestyle???

      • Redgrl says:

        @cranberry – if Kate didn’t want to work she should’ve married TerriblyModeratelyWealthy James Matthews (TM) instead. She married into a role with responsibilities and a lifestyle funded by the public. She owes that public.

      • magnoliarose says:

        No one is ripping her from her children. Women work, and children survive. If she wanted to be a lady of leisure I have no judgment. I am mostly a stay at home mother, and I love it. I have some help but I enjoy it, and I know a lot of women feel the same and some sadly aren’t able to be at home though they yearn to be with their babies.
        As private citizens, we can do what we want because we pay for our choices. My decisions don’t affect anyone else’s life.
        If it did, I would be ashamed of myself.
        Even 45’s children work FFS. They are grifting hustlers, but they work. Georgina Bloomberg is a professional equestrian and Emma is a mother and very serious philanthropist who once worked for the city. She has an MBA from Harvard that she earned herself. Their father is worth 40 billion or something. But they work. Chelsea Clinton works. W’s daughters work. Megan McCain works. Her mother came from wealth.
        Private income and still they work.
        There is nothing more useless than a lazy rich person who lives an idle life. They are usually dull and deeply silly.
        Is this a model for the little sugar dumplings George and Charlotte?

      • Addie says:

        Why on earth should the BRF be paid to do charity work when everyone else volunteers for free? They should be given a small stipend for attending State functions and that’s it. No reason for anyone but the monarch and heir to live on the state; the others should earn their own money and live off their private incomes.

    • SoulSPA says:

      She didn’t work before marrying Will and did not have children then. Now she has children and staff and works little. She’s not just the wife of a rich man. She has a public role. It is very uncommon. All the rest of women in the BRF work a lot more. Even those who are down the line or whose husbands are down the line of succession. Traditionally in the past and these days. Kate’s an oddity in that sense.

  10. Cranberry says:

    How many of the “full time” royals have two toddlers and are pregnant?

    • SoulSPA says:

      Does it matter? All have plenty of staff including topnotch child care for those with young children.

      • Cranberry says:

        So what. Maybe she wants to be around her kids and enjoy her pregnancy without too much stress.

      • Nic919 says:

        Maybe she should be spending less on clothing paid for by taxpayers if she wants to be at home 24/7. Which she isn’t because she gets her hair done and shops so clearly she can pry herself from her children to do those things. Somehow her spending has increased but her work level has not.

      • magnoliarose says:

        160,000 for a stay at home pregnant mother to buy a wardrobe for a year paid for by the citizens of the UK. Really? Come on Cranberry you know that is problematic.

      • Cranberry says:

        @Nic919, @Magnoliarose

        Sure it’s unfair all the extreme wealth the 1% enjoy. TRF is extremely, extremely rich without tax payer’s $. It’s not about how much her wardrobe costs and whether it came out of tax $ or their own enormous bank account. It’s about the optics. I’m just curious how many here Brits that enjoy judging every little thing Kate does or doesn’t do would actually choose to have the British Monarchy abolished altogether.

      • Tina says:

        It IS actually about how much her wardrobe costs and whether it came out of funds belonging to the British public, yes. In the year when 71 people lost their lives in Grenfell Tower because of preventable cost savings by the government, that £160k could have been put to much better use. And no one here in this thread is judging “every little thing Kate does or doesn’t do.” We are judging whether she does enough work, which is one very big thing. And I used to be a monarchist. I used to think it was, not necessarily a wholly good thing, but something worth preserving. Now? Chuck the lot of them once Betty goes.

    • Tina says:

      Diana worked more when she was pregnant and had children. Sophie worked more when she was pregnant and had children. Anne certainly worked more when she was pregnant and had children. And Kate has nannies.

      • Nic919 says:

        Sophie also almost died while giving birth to Louise and still managed to work more than Kate that year. What is Nanny Maria for and the unnamed second nanny recently hired if not to give them time to do royal work?

      • Tina says:

        @Nic919, exactly.

      • notasugarhere says:

        That was also the year Sophie was still running her outside PR firm, plus being pregnant, and did over 200 engagements that year.

    • CynicalAnn says:

      Wow, Carole, nothing else going on today?

    • swak says:

      I had two toddlers and worked through a miscarriage and a pregnancy. I was a teacher and was on my feet pretty much 8 hours a day and my day didn’t end when I left work. I also attended classes in order to get my masters. So NO EXCUSE.

      • Cranberry says:

        Wow. That’s got me beat. Should I go jump off a bridge since my life is worthless compared to yours? Or perhaps you should have married into the royal family instead. Then you might not be so judgemental.

      • Nic919 says:

        Trolls are normally already under the bridge so there is no need to jump.

      • Enough Already says:

        Cranberry posts often so no, not a troll.

      • magnoliarose says:

        Wow swak. 🙂
        Hats off to the lovely grandmother who likes to cook for her brood of grandchildren. That was such a cute story.
        I am sorry for your loss. That had to be excruciating.

      • swak says:

        @cranberry – I am not trying to out do anyone. Just saying that being pregnant is not an excuse (unless there are medical reasons) to shrug your duties. And honestly I’ll take my life over the BRF life any day. Also, it is her job (not just her husbands) to be out there at events whether she likes it or not.

      • J.Mo says:

        But swak, are you happy about how hard you had to work? You should be proud to have survived but were you actually enjoying your life? I’ve always worked hard along with parenting, but in no way do I wish it upon others.

      • Tina says:

        No one is asking Kate to work hard. She has done around 100 engagements, which for her means around 100 hours of work. For the entire year. We are asking her to, at most, do 200 hours of work. For the year.

      • flan says:

        @Cranberry, SWAK wasn’t talking about you, so don’t know why you suddenly drag yourself into this. You seem to take this rather personally.

        Fact is that lazy people often don’t get respect. And rightfully so.

    • llamas says:

      Sophie almost died giving birth to louise IIRC. Pretty sure she still worked. Every female royal has been a mom of toddlers and they still worked then….

      Her “work” is also showing up to shake hands and support charities; that is usually something regular people do outside of their full time job. She also stays for less than an hour.

  11. Citresse says:

    There’s a documentary about Anne from 1981 called Her Working Life. Anne was pregnant in 1981 with Zara.
    Says it all really.

  12. Maria says:

    I’m sorry but shopping for 160k worth of clothes is a lot of work. And for what? For ungrateful peasants who do nothing but complain!

    • Nic919 says:

      Too true! Finding outfits that look similar to previously worn outfits and that have the right amount of buttons takes a lot of time and effort.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Yes, too bad for all of us silly peasants who have to do things like purchase our work clothes ourselves on our personal time.

  13. Hufflepuff says:

    “Same keen procedure as last year Miss Waity?” Same procedure as always, Jason”

  14. seesittellsit says:

    Her Mama didn’t raise her to work hard – the whole point of the Middleton girls’ upbringing was that if they had to work hard, all Carole’s hard work would have been for naught. Her aim was to be sure they didn’t have to do what she had to do to climb up. I’d be willing to cut Kate some slack for losing 3 months to her customary bout with severe morning sickness in late summer-early fall, but only if the year had been bracketed with years in which she wasn’t pregnant and worked harder.

    The odd thing is, in general polls outside, the Cambridges seem to enjoy about 63% approval amongst the public. I have this idea that those of us on blogs are a self-selected group who don’t necessarily represent the general public, although I’m speaking from American perspective. Perhaps the Brits on the site could give more perspective on why the Cambridges seem to rank above 60% in poll approval ratings. Is it the youth, attractiveness, and the two adorable kids?

    • llamas says:

      Not a brit but polls are not a good representation of general feelings. What goes into them is: sample size, who is willing to be sampled, and who cares enough. They just aren’t very statistically sound so I wouldn’t think too much of th 60% approval ratings. Its probably not very accurate.

    • Tina says:

      Most people here really, honestly don’t care at all about the royals. I think those polls may be affected by the fact that only people who do care will sit to the end of a poll that asked them for their views on each individual member of the royal family. Most people would quit long before it ended.

    • LAK says:

      Whenever people bring up polls, i’m reminded of this clip from a tv comedy show Yes, Minister which explains polls perfectly.


      • Bella Dupont says:

        Amusing clip. However, that clip obviously describes polls carried out by disreputable polling companies. It’s perfectly possible to carry out non-biased polling designed to get a measure of the genuine outlook of a group of people on any particular subject. It’s also the reason why businesses, governments, politicians etc spend millions $$$ internally on them; because they CAN help them draft strategies, policies and narratives.

        I would take a good poll anyday over using the daily fail comments section or even *this* website as the true measure of the general opinion on anything.

      • Tina says:

        @Bella, that’s probably right. This website has far too many educated people to be an accurate reflection of the general population on anything.

      • Bella Dupont says:

        @Tina: Exactly. For the Daily Fail, its the exact opposite reason.

      • Lorelai says:

        @Tina: too true


      • LAK says:

        I don’t disagree that polls can be accurate, but there are many polls that are conducted in a way that leads the person to the conclusion the pollster prefers.

        And considering the so-called accuracy of polls, isn’t it amazing how wrong they’ve turned out to be in the past 5yrs or so? Across the spectrum.

      • Bella Dupont says:


        Sorry for coming back late, I’m busy trying to get as fat as possible before the new year, so time is in very short supply! I want to address this mainly because so many people on the Daily Fail comments section really lean on the narrative that because Meghan is so unpopular on there, she is unpopular across the UK – which is just not true. Sadly, time is rather short, so I’ll just put down the points that I thoink are important:

        – Every industry and profession has its hacks. If you employ hacks, you can persuade them to produce whatever results you need them to (look at Donald Trump and his doctor’s notes for the perfect example). It’s crucial to use a reputable polling company with a reputation for competence, professionalism and ethicality, if you want to be able to comfortably rely on the results. YouGov has a great reputation and produce reliable numbers, so I’m happy to quote them any day.

        – For now, Polling is the best technique we have for estimating the opinions of a large group of people. It’s imprecise but works when you understand how to interpret the outcome. (Assuming standardized polling methods have been employed in the first place).

        – There will always be a margin of error with polling…..how one interprets it can literally be the difference between success and failure.

        – For elections, (especially close ones), accuracy is absolutely crucial and this is where polling is at its most vulnerable. Polling will give you a great picture of what’s happening broadly but will never be 100% accurate. Increasing its accuracy can be extremely difficult and expensive. Meanwhile, a 5% margin of error may be the difference between a correct election prediction and a wrong one.
        The fact is, elections numbers are a fast moving average – fast because there’s so much information being pumped into the political atmosphere in such short spaces of time that people’s minds also change constantly. Polling though, can only give you a snapshot of what opinions are in a very specific point in time. It’s just not a great predictor of future numbers in such a fast moving environment. Politicians always seem to skip over this part of things and it’s one of the main reasons why we’ve had the high profile “failures” with poll numbers recently.

        – For all other types of research into people’s opinions on all sorts of matters, polling still remains an extremely valuable method for collecting information and the most accurate way of approximating those views. Specifically, YouGov is as reliable a polling resource as any other. They will most certainly have a sample size significantly larger than the numbers of people commenting on say the Daily Fail. They will also eliminate the problem of serial commenters who dump their opinions into the pool under multiple profiles, skewing the outcome in the process.

        – So, in essence, I can see no better way approximating how people feel about the BRF, Politicians, etc than to look at their poll numbers (using a reliable resource). Despite its weaknesses, it’s still far better than any other approximator I know of right now.

        As always, I would be delighted to learn of a better way, if you know any. 🙂

      • LAK says:

        Bella: i generally don’t rate daily mail comments because they come from an international audience who interprete the articles differently and comment accordingly.

        It is afterall the most popular newsite in the world therefore whatever the views expressed aren’t limited to the British. They might have similar views even being international, but you can’t tarr the British public with the comments expressed on the DMonline.

      • Bella Dupont says:

        @ LAK: Nope……not trying to tarr Brits at all. I’m trying to do the opposite of what you’re suggesting…..I’m trying to say that the DM comments are not a true reflection of how Brits in general feel about anything. Rather, it’s better to use an independently published, unbiased, UK based poll as a guide.

        @ Llamas:
        To answer your question, yes 63% approval rating for the Cambridgeshire sounds about right. Outside this site, very few people follow the Cambridges closely enough to know the full details of how much they work, how much Catherine spends on clothes etc. they might have a vague idea, but not enough to have a particularly negative view of them.

        Some others might have an idea that there are whispers and suggestions of laziness about them, but again, not the details. To top it off, they always shine in comparison to Charles and Camilla (fair or not). So that might explain the numbers a bit.

  15. cerys says:

    What a surprise! Waity, Whiny and Harry have the lowest numbers despite being super-keen to be full-time royals. Perhaps Charles should only give them duchy handouts when they actually turn up for an event. That might help put their “keenness” into action.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Yes a minimum amount of engagements, of certain duration (no more of her 15 minute visits), per year in exchange for X amount of royal perks and X number of trips to Mustique.

  16. Nicole says:

    No excuse for her laziness. None. I give her a 3 month pass for her first trimester but the rest of the year? Nope.
    I feel the same about paying for trump to GOLF instead of running the country FFS. Not on my dime

    • graymatters says:

      Actually, given the quality of work when Trump does work, I’d much rather he just played golf.

    • magnoliarose says:

      Don’t get me foaming at the mouth and looking wild-eyed. I will frighten my bird who is cuddling at the moment.

      45 oh how I loathe thee.
      I hate him. I hate him, and his panty lined white golf shorted dimpled arse. Spare me the site of him lumbering to his golf cart barely able to catch his breath and then zipping along to the next hole with that ugly beet red simpleton grin on his fat ugly cantaloupe bouffant head. If I could drop kick him with steel-toed boots, I would die knowing I had reached self-actualization.

      With humility but with focused determination I would crawl over broken glass, through fire, in a pit of snakes in the snow and for a week to vote against him, not stopping to eat, drink or sleep but just keep it going with my eye on the prize. That is how much I detest Tangerine.

      If I could stomp on Jr like a maniac, I would do it with glee. Just bam over and over. Kick his birthing hips and stomp some more.

      Rant number 34 for the day just 456 more to go before dinner and I will have lowered my numbers. Yay me!

      • Maria says:

        Way to go Magno!

      • magnoliarose says:

        Heehee. I’d even invite you to get a few kicks and stomps in too as a stress reliever.

      • Veronica says:

        I despise them all, also. Good Lord, I wish that the buckets of KFC and Arby’s he rage eats all of the time do their thing soon!
        There is lots of talk of his Alzheimers/dementia after that NY Times “interview” with the stenographer Mike Schmidt. Trump was incoherent through much of it.
        Please, Universe, deliver us from this blight on the planet. Quickly!!!

      • Msthang says:

        Magno, so tell us how you really feel?

  17. Sherry says:

    After looking at the Daily Mail’s chart listing the Royals and their engagements, it really is kind of shocking to look at the Queen (91!!!), Philip, Charles, Anne, Andrew and Camilla’s numbers in comparison to William, Kate and Harry.

    When your almost 70 year old father is doing three times the work you are, people might rightly assume you’re lazy.

    • anon says:

      that’s what i don’t understand or get. i’d be feeling pretty ashamed if my elderly parents were working hard while i wasn’t. although i wonder if knowing that they have to keep working into their nineties or till they die, is making them work less now. they will be working like the queen for at least 20-30 years after most of us retire.

    • Princessk says:

      There are so many things we don’t know about how they share out duties, and the reasons behind it. So really it is all just speculation. Charles knows that at the age of 70 he still needs to work on his popularity whereas William and Harry don’t. although I do believe that Charles has a wonderful social conscience and believes in what he does.

  18. HoustonGrl says:

    What’s the opposite of keen?

  19. Enough Already says:

    Thirty years from now if the Cambridge children are kind, intelligent, dutiful royals I will forgive Kate for being work shy. Raising happy, emotionally healthy children is more important than everything else.

    • Nic919 says:

      That was never part of the social contract. They need to give back for all their wealth. And you are implying that parents who work raise bad children. That is insulting and untrue. Even regular stay at home moms do more for their community than Kate ever has and they don’t get palaces and jewels. Who tends to help with school activities or church events ? Stay at home moms. Who helps with bake sales to raise money for their kids activities? Kate isn’t doing any of this in lieu of royal work.
      The Middleton kids are all lazy and useless but that nothing to do with Carole working but being given social climber values and not contributing to society. How will George, Charlotte and baby #3 pick up decent values if their mother does nothing? Kids observe by example and currently both parents are quite lazy and don’t take any duty seriously.

      • Jayna says:

        Prince William and Prince Harry had two strong role models, Prince Charles and Princess Diana. So your point doesn’t quite work. Where has their work ethic been?

      • LAK says:

        Jayna: William sanctioned an article that said his working parents were bad parents for working.

        Harry is a good worker……when he works.

        The trouble is that these 2 people lack the self- starting motivation to work. Harry has it when he gets an idea of a project, but if William had it, it was removed by the system that kept giving him everything he wanted whether he deserved it or not.

    • minx says:

      Maybe they will be kind and intelligent children, but to be dutiful they need to see that there is a cost for their lavish lifestyle. It doesn’t come free.

      • Maria says:

        This is what I don’t get. Both Will and Harry and also Kate had hard-working parents. So they would have had good modelling.

    • Bluthfan says:

      You can do that without living off taxpayers’ money.

    • Yup, Me says:

      Why does it have to be one or the other, though? Why can’t she do her job AND raise the children she chose to have?

    • Enough Already says:

      Please don’t put words in my mouth or presume you know how I feel about working mothers. My mom worked and I wouldn’t have had it any other way. My point is that being a supportive wife and outstanding mother are the two things I think Kate might not screw up so I’ll just accept that and lower the bar. The results will be more than acceptable to me if she raises extraordinary children. The rf doesn’t generally raise well-adjusted children at all so that would actually be an accomplishment for the underwhelming Kate. Relax.

  20. JaneDoesWork says:

    Am I the only American here baffled by everyones rush to defend Kate’s laziness on behalf of her children and pregnancy? I live and work in Washington DC and I don’t know a single person who has been able to take so much time away from work due to either of those things. Every single woman I know with children had to work literally up until their due date (one was literally leading a conference call from the hospital after her water broke) to maximize their maternity leave after the baby came. What kind of amazing maternity leave do you all get in the UK that this is normal?! I need to move LOL

    • Cranberry says:

      I’m American, and there’s many women that don’t work or have a regular job. There’s many women that work because they want to, not because they have to and can’t take anytime off even to give labor. US women have every situation and there’s plenty women that live quite comfortably.

      • CynicalAnn says:

        I’m one of those women who is able to stay home. However, if I had married the heir to the throne, and spent $160K a year on the taxpayers’ backs on clothing alone, you could be damn sure I would be out there 20 hours a week cutting ribbons and smiling. They are not private citizens-and both of them have an obligation to do their jobs.

      • Chloe says:

        I’m also American and am a working mom. I work because I have to. I don’t enjoy handing over an entire paycheck to daycare every month, but we still need the money from the other paycheck to help live off of. I worked up until my water broke with my first and intend to work up until I go into labor with my second (I’m 35 weeks now).

    • magnoliarose says:

      I have been fortunate that I have choices, and I am grateful for that, but it doesn’t mean I don’t recognize the sacrifices women make every day. Part of my drive with feminist issues is so women can have as many choices available to decide how we want to live our lives. This includes extended maternity leave, leave for the father or other mother or partner if they are involved. Flexible work hours etc.

      I could not face myself if I were taking money from the public and doing nothing. I find it very offensive just on a human level.
      It is an insult to the people who don’t have choices but are forced to pay for their lifestyle. Wouldn’t you be acutely aware of that and try to make yourself useful and worthy of the honor?
      I don’t dislike Kate, but I don’t understand her either.

  21. notasugarhere says:

    I hope Tim O’Donovan is training a suitable, apolitical replacement. He isn’t going to be around forever.

    • SoulSPA says:

      Who’s Tim and how is he important? Thanks!

      • Tina says:

        He’s a retired insurance guy from Berkshire who tallies royal engagements each year and writes in to the Times. Part of this country’s (IMO) glorious tradition of amateurs taking up important roles.

    • Sharon Lea says:

      I’ve thought the same thing, why is this left to one private citizen? Would love if someone would tally the vacation days too…

  22. Lorelai says:

    Anne is the kind of worker that, IMO, we just will not see again in our generation (if ever).

    • Jayna says:

      I think Prince Charles actually topped her. So you would have to include Prince Charles in that description of the “kind of worker.” Both did a lot this year. He did less at home than her, but doubled her abroad.

      “Charles, 69, undertook the most engagements at home and abroad, according to a keen royal water from U.K. newspaper The Times. While he served 374 engagements in Britain, he was much less busy than his sister Anne, who did 455. However, he conducted 172 engagements abroad to her 85, clocking in a total of 546.”

    • notasugarhere says:

      Anne does a solid job at her engagement, then goes home to her private estate (fixed up and secured with taxpayer money) and makes money off that estate.

      Charles does his engagements, goes home and does The Duchy work, The Prince’s Trust, Dumfries House, writes books, etc.

      Ultimately Charles is doing far more for the nation than Anne, which is how it should be. William should be taking over The Prince’s Trust and Duchy work because he’s the future heir to those positions. It isn’t Harry job to do either of those things, just as it hasn’t been Anne, Andrew, or Edward’s jobs.

  23. Linda says:

    Honestly William, Kate and Harry are all underworked, lazy in reality. I highly doubt Meghan Markle will be any better. I don’t understand why people have such high expectations for her work ethic when she joins the royal family. She won’t be able to outwork them. It wouldn’t be allowed

    • Lady D says:

      Anne’s allowed to outwork them. So are Charles, Sophie, the queen, Andrew, etc. How come they are allowed to outwork W&K, but Meghan won’t be?

      • flan says:

        There might be staff who will enjoy seeing Meghan work more, as it might be the only thing that will get W&K off their asses.

      • Cookiejar says:

        Anna is a blood Royal. It’s not so much of a sin as being seen to have ex-plebs outwork you,

      • notasugarhere says:

        Anne’s work consists of engagements. Charles’s work consists of engagements and everything else that isn’t “counted”. Duchy, Prince’s Trust, Dumfries House, taking over ceremonial duties from HM, taking over land management of Balmoral and Sandringham from his father, etc.

  24. Lindy says:

    As a mom (of an 8yo) who works full time in a demanding job and who’s five months pregnant, I honestly think Kate is just a lazy waste of space and taxpayer money. I love having an identity outside of being a mom (even though being a mom is the most important thing I do). Kate seems like she doesn’t even care to pretend that she’s trying. It’s insulting.

  25. Aerohead21 says:

    Yeah, except why were Harry’s numbers so low? How do we expect Meghan’s numbers to be better than her future husband’s?

  26. Sharon Lea says:

    Couldn’t courtiers break a deal with Kate, and ask 2 days a week be set aside for engagements with 2 engagements per day? I think that would give the public a consistent stream of stories and allow her plenty of family time. Doing a couple the same day, she is already dressed, hair done etc, just have the driver go to another stop.

    • Lobbit says:

      But that’s assuming courtiers and royals care about how little Kate does. I really don’t think they do. I don’t think any of the royals are bothered by it either.

    • Lorelai says:

      @Sharon, I say this with all seriousness: I doubt that would work because that would deprive Kate of being able to buy a new outfit for every event, if she was doubling up on days. That’s how low the bar is with her.

  27. StartupSpouse says:

    Did anyone see Lainey’s post about Liz’s photo array during her Christmas speech? Weren’t W&K missing? But H&M were on the side table… Anyone else read anything into this? Maybe this is a message for them to get off their bums? Perhaps Granny throwing some shade? Nothing worse than granny shade!

    • llamas says:

      I saw that and thought maybe it had to do with the fact that they just got engaged.

    • Tina says:

      I think George and Charlotte took the place of W&K. HM knows who we want to see.

    • Liberty says:

      I know what you mean. I took the positioning of the H&MM photo next to the C&C photo as: 1 basic stage direction, OR
      2 a quite interesting hint, OR
      3 a way of putting divorcee grumbles to bed

    • notok says:

      I think they used those pictures because they had milestone in their lives. Camilla had her 70th birthday, harry and meghan got engaged, charlotte and george are getting a brother of sister.

  28. Sam says:

    The excuses for Kate.I sure hope Meghan would get this much benefit of the doubt next year but looking at the reactions to the engagement pics and in general, i doubt it

  29. Denise says:

    I’m not defending her numbers here but even if things look like “fun” on the outside, it’s still work.

    A lot of time goes into even a one hour appearance, especially when she gets scuntinised so much (when is the last time you saw articles about Anne’s hair / weight / shoes / make up?

    It’s not fun or pampering when you have to get your hair and makeup done for an event, it’s work, and if you’re an introvert, “just” shaking hands, public speaking or meeting hundreds of people isn’t fun, it’s WORK and can take ages to recover from.

    I’m an author and recently did a five city tour (pregnant with my third). One event is a whole day of prep and travel, even if the event is “just” a few hours. Being “on” for hours with strangers is tiring, even if on the outside it looks fun and casual, it’s not. It takes a lot of energy and life force to show up in that way.

    Again, not defending her numbers, she could clearly work a lot more but if you don’t know what that role takes, it’s really easy to dismiss it because it doesn’t look like work at all.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Gosh, the rest of us have to do things like shop for our work clothes, follow work dress codes, groom ourselves properly for work. We have to learn to give speeches well, and act extroverted when we are introverts to the core. And we earn our livings.

      She voluntarily goes for blowouts of her extensions 3 days a week. She shops like there is no tomorrow. She has a $300/hour hairdresser. This is not someone who dislikes the pampering that goes into prepping for work.

      The staff do all the research and prep work, arrange all travel, coordinate everything. All she and her lazy husband have to do is read their notes on the way to the event (which William has admitted proudly he does NOT do), show up and act engaged for 15-30 minutes which is the average of many of their events.

    • CynicalAnn says:

      And yet the rest of the BRF manages it.

    • Lorelai says:

      @Denise I do understand what you’re saying. It’s just that most of us, in Kate’s position, would try to — I hope! — at the very least, try our best to control what we could by reigning in the wardrobe costs, etc.

    • Jessica says:

      What you’re saying is exactly what Michelle Obama has reiterated; getting her hair, nails done and wardrobe put together for a 1 hour event is work. It’s not back-breaking work but it’s still work; I also hate getting my hair done so I would not make it as a royal.

      • hmmm says:

        Primping is ‘work’? Grooming is ‘work’? Bwahahaha! I lay out my clothes for the morning, put on my makeup, blow dry my hair, and make sure my nail polish isn’t chipped. Where’ s my $$$$$ for every, single. workday? This is beyond ludicrous.

        The lengths to which people will defend a bunch of obscenely rich slackers boggles my mind.

      • Princessk says:

        @Jesssica….I totally agree with you. William has let it be known what a nightmare getting Kate’s hair right can be, often making them a bit late at times for engagements. I would hate to always have to look perfect to avoid being torn to shreds by the media.

  30. Lobbit says:

    I’m guessing the uptick in harry and will’s numbers is due to their grandfather’s retirement – they’ve had to take on some of his engagements, no?

    Which makes me wonder: for harry and will to take on more, does that mean other royals have to do less? That is, would senior royals have to pass on some of their engagements to the younger set?

    • Tina says:

      They’re trying to pass things on. Charles tried to pass the Prince’s Trust on to William and Harry, but they didn’t want to know. The Queen and Philip have tried to pass on many patronages, but again, they don’t want to know. The only ones that were attractive to Kate were the All England Club (Wimbledon) and the Lawn Tennis Association (tennis again). And the “uptick” in Harry and William’s numbers is a very tiny tick indeed.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The Prince’s Trust is really the Prince of Wales Trust (complete with Prince of Wales feathers as the logo). William should take that over, but Harry has no obligation to do so nor to do Duchy work, since he is not the future Prince of Wales or future Duke of Cornwall.

  31. Hmmmm says:

    I find it fascinating that for once Harry is reported doing more events than William, the future king. That’s interesting to me. They would do anything to make William look better, but I guess not anymore? I think it will be interesting to see how many he does next year with Meghan…The optics will be terrible if they bury the Cambridges in the sand. I wonder what Prince Charles is up too. Hmm…

    • Joannie says:

      He had a job. And he did his shift despite what some on here say.

      • Tina says:

        How on earth would you know that? All available evidence would suggest otherwise.

      • FLORC says:

        Well… Will had a zero hour contract. Meaning he gets paid no matter what. He showed up when he wanted. Made his own hours. And cleared his schedule as he pleases. So to say he worked every shift and did his job isn’t incorrect. It’s just not what you’d think.

      • LAK says:

        Joannie: Do you believe the entire UK media would accuse / smear an heir to the throne with the ‘workshy’ label and write many think pieces about his poor work ethic and his non attendance at his work for giggles?

        Do you realise the kind of trouble that would bring down on the UK media for spreading such an untruth about the heir in this age of Levenson? Not to mention he can sue, shut down these media houses – an Irish paper was forced to shut down for publishing Jate’s nuddygate photos, there is also the dictat sent to all media to write only positive stories about Kate post-wedding. The man isn’t shy about using legal threats to get what he wants, can you imagine what he and the Palace would do if the media told such a huge lie about him?

        So serious was the accusation that William sanctioned an article in which he defended his poor record on the grounds that working parents are bad parents and used his own parents as the example of bad working parents.

        Then endured an interview with the BBC’ Nicholas Witchell, a man he hates with a passion, to deflect from the workshy label. He can barely contain his disdain in the interview and he visibly bristles at having to justify NOT WORKING.

      • notasugarhere says:

        On top of all that, his own insider was installed at EAAA soon after. That put a stop to the leaks from his frustrated co-workers about his dilettante behavior and attitude.

    • Veronica says:

      Harry’s numbers were higher because every event at Invictus was counted as a work event. Like, if he went to one event, then another, that counted as two work events. Seems to be a way to try to trick the British public.

      • Jessica says:

        Every royal’s events are counted that way; for example he went to wheelchair tennis and then went to basketball (those are 2 different engagements and should be counted as such).

      • hmmm says:

        That’s just ludicrous and meant to deceive. It should never be normalised no matter how lame the justification that this is how the royals count their ‘work’. He walked from site A to site B and that makes 2 engagements? Ridiculous, contemptuous and low.

        Harry is as lazy and hedonistic and willing to deceive as the Cambs. And Meghan will be too.

      • MerryGirl says:

        By this logic, shouldn’t you be criticizing Kate & William as well? For example, when Kate attends 2 tennis matches in the same Wimbledon series, it’s counted in the court circular as 2 events. Giving birth and attending her children’s christenings are counted as work events as well. No calling her out for tricking the British public there? I’m so tired of this pulling Harry down to justify W&M’s appalling appearances. What about the years when Harry’s work at Invictus were not counted at all so that the heir’s numbers looked better. Jeeze, please.

  32. Bee says:

    Pretty sure Kate and William will put down Harry and Meghan’s wedding as a work function and include it in their numbers.

  33. Sara says:

    But doesn’t Kate suffer from seriously advanced morning sickness when she’s pregnant? I doubt the RF wants her yarfing all over these public engagements.

    • notasugarhere says:

      She never has any problem driving herself, shopping, flying off on exotic vacations, taking the kids out with the nanny, or crashing William’s NYC trip where he was going to see Jecca as part of it. It is only when it is work she doesn’t want to do that, gee, she is “too sick”.

    • notok says:

      @notasugarhere Really? She is driving herself, shopping etc after her hg eases up. In most cases hg eases up after first trimester. If you are unlucky it can last your whole pregnancy. You are not her doctor so why are you posting like you know her medical history.

      She crashed william’s ny trip when she was pregnant with charlotte? LOL So they took a trip to NY but kate went uninvited and she crashed it. Really? LOL He was going to see jecca as part of his ny trip? What a fantasy LOL. And why are you always bringing up Jecca. She is a married woman with a baby son. Leave her out of it.

      • notasugarhere says:

        No problems at all driving herself past two other hospitals to get to the one where Tanna was waiting. Many true HG sufferers cannot stand to be in a moving vehicle of any kind much less drive themselves. Continues to claim to be too sick to work, but has no problems going on vacation to exotic locales during the same time periods.

        When you look at the time frame of when she cancels work each time against what she does privately during those times? It is clear she’s feeling just fine to do what she wants, but oh so sick when it comes to work. Ditto canceling other overseas trips, but magically better for the trip during which he was going to see Jecca.

        Left his girlfriend to meet HM alone for the first time because Jecca’s brother’s wedding was more important than his own cousin’s wedding. Missed his daughter’s first Easter because of Jecca’s wedding. The one charity and concern he actually seems to care about? Jecca’s Tusk Trust.

        Jecca is someone he clearly puts above everyone else as evidence by his behavior, whether or not they have ever been romantically involved.

      • Sara says:

        @notasugarhere If she does all those, they are private. She can yarf til the cows come home. My point is, I don’t think the RF wants her at public engagements if there’s the chance she’ll spoil their image by spewing on everything.

      • notasugarhere says:

        So many excuses, so little time.

        Even when she is not expecting, she only spends 15-30 minutes at an engagement. Perfectly able to get to an engagement, rest behind the scenes, and do 15 minutes of work. Without spewing on everything.

        I suspect they’d prefer she get off her a$$ and get to work, instead of her gathering headlines for being workshy.

  34. J.Mo says:

    Y’all make being lazy seem like such a bad thing -only a bit tongue in cheek. I don’t understand all the proud stories of how difficult life and mornings and parenthood are. Yeah yeah, the tax payers fund her lifestyle, but I’m super introverted and work very hard, and it’s over-rated. I’ve worked a long time to take advantage of a snow day or a cold and I’m going to. Granted, I pay for my benefits with my salary, but I don’t begrudge anyone their fortunes, or if I do, I make sure my words count. Is everyone so angry and powerless that they need to vent about Kate and the rest where it has little to no effect? It reminds me of when I was put in “the smart class” in elementary school and the families whose kids weren’t selected held a grudge about their public school dollars until we graduated ten years later.

    • LAK says:

      Good for you that you work hard for your life. Now imagine having to hand over some of your hard earned cash to a random stranger so they can party, vacation and shop to no benefit to you at all. Literally just hand over the cash and don’t you dare ask for any justification for handing it over.

      Kate knew this was expected of her. She even mentions it in her engagement interview. And every year sends out an article saying that THIS year is the one she is going to start working.

      And then nothing. A few flashy high profile events and people think she is working, but these end of year numbers always slap reality into the blinkered rose bespectacled fans because they can’t argue against the numbers.

    • Tina says:

      I think that many of us here were in the “smart class,” judging by the standards of spelling and grammar. Many people here object to Kate’s laziness, not because we are envious of her (I wouldn’t want to be a royal at all) but because it is a blatant and obvious waste of state money in a country that badly needs it. It is similar to Mnuchin’s use of a government plane to see the eclipse. It is appalling.

    • minx says:

      You say “yeah, yeah, the taxpayers fund her lifestyle” as if it’s no big deal. She is taking money and not doing her job, simple as that.

    • Ponytail says:

      Angry and powerless? Yes, I would say that is EXACTLY how a lot of the British public feel, when they see someone who gets a paid allowance and doesn’t do the work that goes with that allowance, when all around, services are being cut, libraries closed, hospitals being run into the ground, families using food banks… yup, I feel pretty f-ing angry and powerless.

  35. Alexandria says:

    I’m William’s generation but I think it’s just that his royal lot are spoiled! I’ve always told my husband I would spend 4digits on a clothing only if I am Victoria Beckham (yes I do believe apart from Duchy money, the Beckhams are richer). Even at the point of earning more than my husband I couldn’t spend 3 digits on a handbag. Imagine my shame if I was funded by the public yikes. Good luck with the next generation of royals UK. Here we do have an overpaid head of state who is elected but anyway still overpaid, so I empathise slightly.

    Oh and to those who feel Celebitches are ‘resentful’ of Kate and William, urhm it’s because they haven’t proven us wrong about their numbers.

  36. thaliasghost says:

    I’m sorry, but attending a charity dinner is NOT work. Work can be a number of things, it’s taking work home and barely having a minute because there are way too many things to be done you can’t humanly do in 8 hours. Work is being anxious if you are 2 minutes late because you might be fired but always working an hour longer. Work is being constantly worried you misstepped saying something or doing something wrong. Sorry, but these people have, excuse my French, sugar blown up their asses, every door opened for them, not fearing anyone…these people are a joke.

  37. Bahare says:

    As an American (meaning I am not paying for their lifestyle) I wonder why the Cambridges and particularly Will look so sour and put upon when they make an appearance at any public and photographed event? QE who is over 90yrs old looks like every baby she greets is the cutest and that she is listening.I can’t imagine how disappointed she is .

    • Msthang says:

      Bahare, she has been acting her whole life, , it’s what she does, it’s her job to at least pretend to care. Chopper resented the job from the get go, I don’t think Ginger boy resented it, he just never liked doing it, he is just a much better actor than Chopper.

  38. Princessk says:

    Something has just occurred to me. During the famous church walk on Xmas day, Kate pictured above here is clutching a beautiful green posy of red and white flowers. In a video I saw one of the bodyguards trying to relieve her of the flowers, as she had several bunches, and I saw Kate making sure that she held on to the particular bunch she is holding in the picture, she clearly did not want to hand it over to the bodyguard. Now this bunch coordinates perfectly with what she is wearing, this I cannot believe was a coincidence, somebody was planted in the crowd to hand her this particular bunch as it would look good in the photos.

    Clearly Kate this was all planned as she was aware that Meghan would be competition. Anyway it failed because Meghan, dressed in earthy browns, had her photo on all of the front pages of newspapers. But I found this little trick very interesting.

    • Mathilde says:

      I doubt very much anyone was planted, those are pretty normal Christmas flower colours.

    • FLORC says:

      This is not uncommon in bouquets. Maybe planted. Maybe a flower cart was selling winter or Christmas various bundles.
      What we don’t often see at these walks is Kate, queen, whomever will get handed lots of flowers. They will hand off the bouquets to assistants and hold onto the most flattering for the photos.

      Kate likely held those because of that reason.

  39. carolind says:

    As we are all separate individuals, we are all responsible for our own work i.e. it makes no difference what your husband does, each person should be supporting herself/himself.
    Fair enough have a short break out if your children are at an age when they require full-time attention but this does not apply to Kate as she has staff. Royal family women have always worked; even when ordinary women had too much to do with looking after the home in time gone by to go “out” to work, royal women did. It was part of their position and because they lived a life of great privilege, they saw the public to give something back. Kate is frankly a disgrace.

    By the way another source says it is Charles, not Anne, who did the most engagements. He will also have more ‘behind the scenes work – paperwork , managing etc.