Us Weekly: Duchess Kate & William are not planning on having a fourth kid… yet

Costume Institute Gala  in NYC

Us Weekly put Princess Charlotte of Cambridge on this week’s cover. It’s all about her birthday, which was a week ago, and how she’s coping with not being the baby of the family anymore. Personally, I was already getting the vibe that Charlotte is a pretty easy-going child. George is the one I’m curious about: how is HE coping now that he’s got two little siblings? But I guess that’s a conversation for another day. Us Weekly also wonders if Prince William and Kate will have a fourth child. Some highlights from the cover story:

Whether Will & Kate will have another kid: “They are absolutely thrilled with having three [children],” a royal source says exclusively. “They are soaking up every minute they can. Their dream was always to have three kids. Kate knew she wanted a third not long after having Charlotte, but this time around they seem very content….[but] never say never!”

They made a big fuss for Charlotte’s birthday: “They like to make a fuss on the kids’ birthdays. There is always cake, her favorite dinner and a lot of presents.”

Charlotte loves her little bro: “Charlotte is really enjoying having a younger brother to play with. She’s taking her big sister duties very seriously. She won’t leave baby Louis’ side.” After all, she takes after her older brother. George, 4, is “protective,” says the insider. “Charlotte is just like him. They have a great bond, and a similar connection is growing between Charlotte and Louis.”

Charlotte is fast: “She’s very confident. She’s not afraid of a grazed knee and it’s not going to stop her from running around. She moves at the speed of light!”

[From Us Weekly]

But what kind of cake?? That’s what I want to know. What kind of cake does a princess get for her third birthday? Please don’t tell me it was a fruitcake. Although I have to say… I think Cake Culture is very different in Great Britain. Some people eat slices of cake with their tea, right? The comparison would be, in America, with coffee breaks and coffee cakes. All I know is that now I can’t stop thinking about cake and what kind of cake a little princess would eat.

As for Will and Kate and the possibility of a fourth kid – I said this before, at the tailend of Kate’s pregnancy and then once she had another no-fuss delivery: I’m getting a vibe that she will want a fourth. Especially when Meghan Markle gets pregnant, suddenly Kate will want another baby.

Royal birth Lindo

Cambridges lindo departure

Photos courtesy of WENN, cover courtesy of Us Weekly.

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

99 Responses to “Us Weekly: Duchess Kate & William are not planning on having a fourth kid… yet”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Honest B says:

    She looks so much like the queen.

  2. Cynical Ann says:

    As a mom of 4 I say: go for it, Kate.

  3. Millenial says:

    I don’t think it would be wise to have a fourth. There are already too many royals. It’s cute when they are kids, but then decades pass and before you know it, the younger people are asking themselves, just who is the Duke of Gloucester, anyways? By the time George has kids, all of these extra children and their children will feel a bit superfluous to the British taxpayers, let alone Harry and Meghan’s children.

    • Lulu says:

      That would be a concern, but there’s a reason they limited who gets official titles and who doesn’t. Harry and Meghan’s children are probably going to be Lord/Lady X, like Sophie and Edward’s children, and depending how long Charles is on the throne for, Louis and Charlotte’s children probably won’t get called that (as Prince/Princess is restricted to the grandchildren of the monarch – the Cambridges’ kids got an exemption). Plus, Charles is undoubtedly ready with the pruning shears for the royals he deems superfluous to the firm (that’s one reason why Andrew is so antsy about Beatrice and Eugenie getting their due as ‘blood princesses’ – it’s quite likely that Charles is going to kick them off the roster as ‘working royals’, which corresponds to getting cut-off from the perks that come with the job). In fact, far from there being ‘already too many royals’, there’s a concern for the ‘Firm’ that there actually won’t be enough working royals when Charles is done – he wants to restrict it basically to himself, his sons and grandchildren, which means that they’ll all have to step up to cover the duties that more minor royals (such as Princess Alexandra) carry out now. Those that don’t get the title of prince/princess will eventually get folded into the aristocracy as have many other of descendants of royalty – there are plenty of titled families with blood ties to the monarch that no average person off the street would recognise and who live off their private wealth instead. So a younger person may well have no clue who the Duke of Gloucester is, but so long as they’re not taxpayer supported, it wouldn’t be an issue. Harry’s descendants will probably be anonymous in a few short generations, which suits the main royals fine, for exactly the reason you listed.

      • Millenial says:

        I guess all this baffles me. I can’t imagine being Charles and booting Beatrice and Eugenie off the roster, knowing full well William may well use that precedent to do the same to Harry’s kids. There’s something oddly cold about it all.

      • Merritt says:

        Sophie and Edward chose to have their children styled as the children of an Earl rather than the royal style they were entitled to under the letters patent. Harry and Meghan’s children will be entitled to an upgrade to HRH when Charles takes the throne.

      • Georgie says:

        I can’t really see Will and Kate agreeing to not let their younger kids or their grandchildren have royal titles can you?

      • violet says:

        @LAK – I’m also confused – I thought Andrew’s daughters were already “off the roster” – they don’t get anything from the Sovereign Grant, do they? They aren’t, strictly speaking, “working” royals (Beatrice seems to live a life of permanent vacation), the way William and Harry and Edward and Sophie are?

        I’m also still a little confused about the status of Harry’s and Meghan’s kids. Edward was an HRH and the son, not the grandson, of the sovereign, but his formal title upon getting married was Earl of Wessex, and that’s why his kids are Lord and Lady? Would they have been HRHs if he’d gotten a dukedom the way Andrew did?

        Harry’s already an HRH, but the grandson, not the son, so is it correct that whether the Queen makes him Earl of something or Duke of something next week, his kids will still be Lords and Ladies rather than HRHs, unless the Queen issues a declaration making them HRHs the way she did William’s?

      • LAK says:

        Violet: several things….

        1. Beatrice and Eugenie are not working royals. They receive nothing from the Sovereign grant and no taxpayer perks. Only IF they represent the Queen, which is so rare these days, do they get compensated for their expenses and taxpayer bodyguards. Any perks they receive are privately funded including bodyguards + KP/ SJP apartments.

        It’s confusing because they are very visible during royal functions which is understandable given their ranking within the family regardless of whether or not they are working royals. And people forget that this is a family regardless that it is a firm.

        The confusion comes about because the public was told that they would grow up to be working royals. An expectation that remains deeply rooted. Not helped by media keeping them so high profile. And of course when they were cut loose, a formal announcement wasn’t made though the family arrangements during the 2012 Jubilee Balcony were the royal equivalent of an announcement as only Charles +Camilla, HM + Philip, WHK were given prominent roles throughout and were showcased on the main boat during the river pageant and on the Balcony.

        2. Regarding the HRH status……
        All children/ grandchildren of the Monarch in the MALE line as well as all the children of the ELDEST SON of the POW are automatically HRH Princes.

        That makes Charles, Andrew, Edward and William’s children automatically HRH Princes.

        Since it’s restricted to the eldest son of POW ie William, that means Harry’s children will not be automatically HRH Prince. They have no right to it. Instead, they will be Lord / Lady. Only the Queen (Monarch) can override this technicality as she did for William’s kids.

        However, when the Queen dies, and everyone receives an upgrade in ranking, Harry’s kids will move up to being grandchildren of a monarch and therefore gain the right to be HRH Princes. At that point, they can assume HRH Prince of Harry’s highest ranked title.

        Regarding Edward’s kids, legally they are HRH Princes like Camilla is legally PssOW, but at the time of his wedding which took place at a low point for the royals coming so soon after the fallout of Diana’s death, it was considered prudent not to declare his children HRH Princes.

        Personally i think his request for an Earldom rather than the expected Dukedom was a genius solution to the problem. The royals played a slight of hand on that one because his kids can claim their rightful titles later plus the Earldom was granted with a caveat that he receives a dukedom later. Currently, his kids use the titles of children of an Earl.

        3. Daughters can only inherit these titles if they are children of a male child / grandchild of the monarch. Assuming that their father fits the criteria that grants him that status.

        Daughters can’t pass on anything to their own kids. That’s why Anne, Margaret and Alexandra’s kids don’t have their titles. Their husbands were offered titles with mixed results with the result that their children can only hold their fathers’ titles.

        In the case of the Queen, her father made a special order to grant her kids HRH Prince titles to get round the barrier to female inheritance rule.

      • nic919 says:

        The Queen also passed letters patent to make Charlotte, Louis and any future kids HRHs because prior to that only George had an automatic HRH.

        Another Cambridge child will be in the direct line and so that will mean someone who will be getting full taxpayer support, whereas Harry’s kids will be on the outside looking in.

      • notasugarhere says:

        nic919, they’d only be working royals if the taxpayers allow it. Position to throne, main line, etc. doesn’t make it automatic.

        As I wrote elsewhere, not all of QM’s four kids were expected to be working royals, so they wouldn’t have been getting compensation with Civil List (now Sovereign Grant). I don’t expect all of W&K’s kids to be on the royal dole, if there is still a monarchy come then.

    • Amelie says:

      I’ve actually been wondering about this. Does the Prince/Princess title only get passed through male heirs? Clearly not if Queen Elizabeth passed it on to all her children. I understand Anne didn’t want to give her children titles. But why don’t Edward and Sophie’s children have Prince/Princess? They are styled as Lady Louise and James, Viscount Severn (whatever that is). Was the decision made so there weren’t so many Prince/Princesses running around?

      • Merritt says:

        Edward and Sophie chose to have their children styled as Lord/Lady instead of the royal titles they otherwise would have had under the letters patent.

      • Honest B says:

        The queen passed on prince/princess to her children because she was the monarch. The rule is male princes and the monarch (irrespective of gender) can pass on the Prince/princess title. Both Charles and Anne were born before Elizabeth became queen so technically they were not Prince/Princess at birth, however being that Elizabeth was the heir to the throne, her father, the King, approved the titles for those kids. However they would have received those titles once Elizabeth had been made queen anyway.

      • LAK says:

        Honest : the gender rule remains ironclad. Females can’t pass on titles even if they are monarchs. Granted we’ve had only 2 Queens Regnant where the theory was tested because they are the only ones that had kids, and in both cases their kids were/would have been known as the children of their fathers’ titles.

        Our current Queen’s father *wrote* a special order that granted her children the right to HRH Prince titles. Nevermind that she was the heir and later monarch. Most people don’t remember that he did that he wrote that rule and assume it came about naturally because of her status, but it was written before she ever had any kids. Charles and Anne were therefore HRH Prince Charles/Anne of Edinburgh at birth and before she became Queen.

        If not for her father’s order, her children would be lord /lady as the children of a Duke (of Edinburgh) rather than HRH Prince.

        A monarch can rewrite the rules /law if they so wish, but so far apart from the line of inheritance that governs the throne, the other idiosyncrasies regarding inheritance by females have not been changed.

        For females, it requires a special order every time. Be it the throne or the peerage.

    • notasugarhere says:

      No matter how large a family they choose to have, or what titles they get, we won’t know who will be working royals until the future. It depends not only on if there is still a monarchy, but what level of public and economic support it has.

      Denmark has already announced only the heir will be a working royal. The three younger kids will be private citizens and earn a living, and they all have royal titles. In Norway, they change things up with “royal highness” vs “highness”. Current heir is His Royal Highness, his sister changed to “Her Highness” when she went out to earn a living. Current heir-to-the heir is HRH Princess Ingrid, her younger brother is HH Prince Magnus.

      QEII became monarch so young, none of her kids were old enough to be working royals. Cousins and cousin’s spouses were brought it to help her cover royal engagements to fill that void.

      Line of succession used to be Charles, Andrew, Edward, Anne. Charles and his spouse were always going to be working royals. Andrew and his ex-wife were working royals. Anne does engagements, but her husband/s doesn’t. By the time Edward and Sophie married in 1999, it was announced they wouldn’t be working royals. That situation changed, but originally they weren’t supposed to be in the mix. If Andrew wasn’t 10 years younger than Anne, we might not have seen Anne (4th in line at the time) as a working royal.

      With three kids already? W&K’s eldest son will be working royal, but the other two might not be. It would be strange to have only the first two kids be working royals and not the third, but the third-and-spouse won’t be needed. Second and spouse might not be needed either, depending on public mood, support, and ages of everyone involved at the time.

      Or the born royals might be working royals, but not their spouses. It gets tricky with having the born-in royal be working royal but not their spouse (like Anne and Mark/Tim). How do you ensure the spouse has a fair shot at continuing their career without constant charges of favoritism?

      Whatever decision is made, it needs to be made early and made public. As LAK alludes, the Yorks are unfairly kept in limbo because no firm announcements were made. They remain in limbo with the Counsellor of State obligation lying in wait. Let’s hope the BRF have learned some lessons.

      • PrincessK says:

        Little Prince Louis will certainly be needed as a working royal to support his brother George, the future Prince of Wales and King of England. Louis will like his brother be encouraged to do stint in the Navy or RAF or something. I believe W&K specifically had this child to lessen the burden on George. Little Charlotte may join one of the forces too, who knows?

      • Veronica T says:

        Harry had better pray the British don’t go the way of Denmark. Can you imagine Lazy harry having to make his own living?? Lol!

      • notasugarhere says:

        That would be a horrifying and ridiculous reason to bring a child into the world in 2018, PrincessK. Simply to keep the royal circus spinning.

        Anne’s spouse was not a working royal, Edward and spouse were never meant to be. Anne likely only became a working royal because Andrew was 10 years younger. Otherwise, we would have seen Charles and Andrew as the only working royals of that generation, Edward and Anne as private citizens.

        If we go by that, W&K’s first two kids might be working royals, but not their third+ child (Edward and Anne’s positions). And that model was even before the rumored slimming down plan.

        For the next 20 years, the working royals will be Charles, Camilla, W&K, H+M. Anne, Andrew, Edward and Sophie will continue possibly for 15-20 years, unless Charles figures out how to get rid of them.

        That set of royals can carry the BRF engagement load until 2038. The six core ones could cover the 3200/year engagement load through organization and working harder, by each doing 500 engagements a year.

        By 2038 a 35 year old PGTips and spouse would work with W&K, H+M for 20 more years – but no other royal siblings would necessarily need be part of the firm. Since we keep getting the sales pitch via PoorJason that the royals want to focus on a few key areas (ie. do fewer engagements)? Even less likely to see anyone other than PGTips as a working royal in the future. The public isn’t going to put up with loads of royals being supported by the taxpayer, and getting even less work out of them in return.

      • perplexed says:

        “That would be a horrifying and ridiculous reason to bring a child into the world in 2018, PrincessK”

        I don’t think it’s horrifying or ridiculous. A lot of people create siblings for their children for whatever reason, and there’s no real or pertinent reason for why any of us actually exist to begin with, but we do anyway. In the case of William and Kate, their kids will be loved, so there’s that. At least these kids aren’t band-aid babies to save a marriage or whatever reason Tori and Dean have come up with for why they keep procreating.

      • notasugarhere says:

        ” I believe W&K specifically had this child to lessen the burden on George.” To bring a child into the world “specifically” to play an extraneous role in this royal drama? IMO perplexed, that would be a terrible reason. Have a child because you want a child, because you love kids, but not for an extraneous royal role.

        W&K didn’t need to have kids for the succession to continue. Regardless, now that heir and spare are here? Any other children may be welcome members of their private family, but are surplus to requirement *when it comes to any potential future royal role*.

      • Addie says:

        William and Harry have already said their idea of modernising the monarchy is to focus on fewer events which translates to doing less work. Their model is the Heads Together bleat-fest where the charities did the work, and the trio swanned in at various points claiming ownership. The engagements will be whittled down and there will be no need for the children to become working royals. I genuinely do not think the monarchy will exist by then, or if it does survive, will be pared down to expenses only and some per diem pay. This current crop of ‘royal’ children need to take their education seriously and make a life for themselves; that’s the bottom line. Yes, they will have family money but the taxpayer does not need to support them in any way.

      • imqrious2 says:

        “How do you ensure the spouse has a fair shot at continuing their career without constant charges of favoritism?”

        ^^^^^Regarding this, Peter Phillips got the commission for the block party around the castle for TQ’s 90th, without there being any competitive bids? He charged them a LOT for the tickets, so he basically screwed the charities.

        https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/775984/queen-peter-phillips-charity-party-cost-double-amount-raised-patrons-fund

    • violet says:

      @LAK – Thank you for taking the time to lay this out so laboriously. JH, what a system! I suppose in a way it’s good that they left the only in the “male line” provision standing, as however un-modern, it restrains the number of automatic HRHs somewhat!

    • Veronica T says:

      They should be asked: can the taxpayers afford another kid? Cause that is the hard truth.

    • Carolind says:

      Duke of Gloucester is a first cousin of the Queen albeit only a few years younger than Charles. He and his wife still do a number of royal duties but he is said to be vacating his 21 room Kensington Palace apartment for Prince Harry.

      His father was a younger brother of George VI. At one time the old Duķe of Gloucester was about the only royal of an age able to do royal duties apart from the actual “royal family”.

    • Aurelia says:

      since when has willie and waity ever given a thought to the british tax payers?

  4. Heat says:

    So, a woman who has just given birth has no thoughts about her next baby (shocking)…a 3-year-old little girl is excited about doting on a new baby in the house (never heard of this type of behaviour before)…and speculation that, when a sister-in-law becomes pregnant, woman #1 will get ‘baby-fever’ again and may possibly want another child (because that never happens.

  5. Skylark says:

    Wow. Cake and presents!

    US weekly’s ‘source’ really got the insider scoop on Charlotte’s birthday party.

  6. minx says:

    US really went out on a limb here with their “exclusive” reporting 🙄

  7. Watercress says:

    Two things: Charlotte looks so much like the Queen and Kate’s skin is atrocious for an English gal.

    Why IS her skin so sallow, dry and haggard? Is she a smoker?

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      Yes she does – TQ was a beauty in her day.

      Yes, Kate is a smoker – her skin is a results of genetics (look at her mother and sister), sun damage, extreme dieting damage and bad makeup. I have seen her in person and her skin looks worse than what you see in the photo’s.

    • Bridget says:

      I know, she looks super haggard here. Almost like she had just given hours beforehand.

    • violet says:

      @Watercress – I always laugh when I hear Kate called an “English Rose” as she just doesn’t have that fabled complexion that Diana, the Queen, and the Queen’s mother had. And I doubt most English girls do, either, we just see the famous ones who do look like that. My father-in-law went to a medical conference in London in the mid-1980s, and Diana came to visit a local research hospital, and my father-in-law was invited by his colleagues there to attend the event. He got pretty close, and told his bedazzled relatives when he got back that she was staggeringly beautiful and aristocratic looking – statuesque and graceful, flawless rose-petal skin, huge blue eyes . . . when you look back at photos of Diana as the young Princess of Wales . . . please, Kate is a wannabe. They don’t make many of those these days! I don’t say a woman should be judged on the package she comes wrapped in, or for looking her age, I just think the media says anything that falls out of its mouth sometimes without regard to reality.

    • PrincessK says:

      @Watercress…..What does the skin of an English gal look like?

      • Olenna says:

        I’d like to know as well. Is there some ethnic or racial standard for English skin? England (or Britain) was invaded, occupied, settled, and has become home to many nationalities from Europe, Asia and Africa. In fact, I don’t believe anyone has a firm idea of what the earliest known inhabitants looked like, despite all the idealized descriptions of the Celts and so-called Picts.

      • LAK says:

        Oleane: Despite the huge influx of non-white immigrants, the country remains predominantly white, 82% at the last census. London and other large cities like Manchester and Birmingham have large non-white populations, but that isn’t replicated across the UK. There are entire counties with only white people or so it seems.

        ‘English Rose’ is a reference to a complexion seen in the white population of the UK which is all white and pink and no blemish as seen in someone like Diana. It’s thought the temperate climate, no strong sunlight and cloudy weather has contributed to this development. It’s on a par with describing the olive skin of people from the Mediterranean. Developed due to their climate.

        It’s not a pejorative against other races nor is it meant to be.

      • Veronica T says:

        I think of an English rose as referred to by those here as brown hair, fair skin with “roses” in her cheeks, and blue eyes. You know – just like the Mideastern Jesus.
        ;)

      • Olenna says:

        Thanks, Lak. I assumed it meant fair (as in light but not necessarily pale) but was never quite sure if it applied to someone with a specific hair color or just someone who had a healthy glow/halo as described by Veronica T–a Mideastern, Anglicized Jesus, ha!

      • LAK says:

        Oleane: hair /eye colour aren’t important. It’s the skin.

        Kate has rough skin due to genetics and lifestyle. If she ever had an English Rose complexion, it’s long gone.

  8. violet says:

    Because, as we all know, Kate and William discussed this with a gossip tabloid, and their closest friends did, too.

    I very much doubt it, personally, given she’s 36, has such a rotten time in the first trimester, and knows she has to step it up with the Queen scaling back and the prospect of becoming Princess of Wales inching closer with every year. But, hey, I’m not an intimate of hers, I could be wrong.

  9. Boudica says:

    I’m surprised Kate might be even considering having another one just yet, considering her body is still adjusting back to normal after being distorted for the latest one. But, if she does, it should be because she and her husband decide they want to have more children as a family. This is the only valid reason, IMO. He has fulfilled his duty as heir to produce the next generation’s king/queen, and a spare. The third child guarantees there will be succession through their loins; there were still plenty of others in the wings ready to step forward should W & K not have been able to produce the goods. But if Kate and her husband do decide they want another child, they should be able to have a shot at it, but please don’t anyone try to make us think it’s for the greater good. It’s because they want more kids, and for no other reason.

  10. Becks says:

    Charlotte loves to play with Louis? they have a strong bond?

    He’s what, three weeks old? Four weeks old? He’s a lump. I say that with love lol. But they’re total lumps at that stage. She’s not playing with him or bonding. She’s probably running up to him, patting his head, and then running away because he’s so incredibly boring. That’s not a criticism of Prince Louis, ha. That’s how infants are.

  11. Lela says:

    I don’t think cake with tea is just a British thing, I think deserts in general are a very European thing. I’m Eastern European and it is very normal to have pastries and cake on a daily basis, weather with tea or just as a snack, it’s considered especially rude to not have cakes or pastries around, especially when you have guests over. Italian culture and French culture is similar as well I think. North Americans seem to be the only weird ones when it comes to restricting cake/pastry eating, living in Canada I can’t tell you how many people think it’s weird that my home is always stocked with delicious European pastries and a cake.

    • Chrissy says:

      So true. My immigrant parents (both here over 50 years now) still always have homemade sweets/ cakes around and often have a coffee and cake in the afternoons as a little respite. And you always get a torte from the German bakery for you birthday. So civilized!

    • imqrious2 says:

      Ha! Same in a Jewish family (esp. from Eastern European roots). It would be a “shonda” (literally “a shame”, but used more so as “this a crime against humanity!! 😱) to not have a piece of cake, a cookie, SOMETHING sweet, to serve/offer (along with a beverage) to a guest who drops by.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Have any of you read Confections of a Closet Master Baker by Gesine Bullock-Prado? She had some wonderful passages in there re. the afternoon ritual of sharing a slice of cake and a coffee with her German grandmother and mother.

    • Egla says:

      If a guest drops by at our house, that person is going to be served something sweet and a juice no matter what. Coffe also if that person wishes. Also there is always a home made cake at home or something. We don;t have a fix moment to eat it like tea time but it doesn’t matter anyway. Here it just evaporates lol.

      As for a fourth I suspect they will have one just because she will want one…or not. Anyway I wish good health on the babies. They are a blessing regardless.

  12. Cupcake says:

    I will be shocked if she does not have 4. Having children is what she is good at, it’s how she has made her mark. Meghan Markle is going to be another people’s queen, but she’ll have 2 kids and that will be it.

  13. Cher says:

    Kate, for her age, always looks old and worn out!!!
    I am always amazed that Kate can give birth and in a few hours after doing so get up and leave the hospital. Yet, attending or performing other royal duties, Kate finds difficult.

  14. Beluga says:

    They’ll have another. Apart from anything else, there’s never so much good will towards them as when they’re expecting/have just had a child.

  15. Kitty says:

    I’m sorry but I don’t think they should have a fourth child considering they are publicly funded. They surely must know once The Queen is gone they won’t have as much goodwill the whole monarchy and the royals. Royalty is holding on because of The Queen.

  16. Harla says:

    These stories always feel a bit “don’t forget about meeee!” feeling to me.

  17. AtlLady says:

    There is no fun to be had in speculating over royal babies. Let’s get to the real fun with Charlotte’s cake. Think back to your own childhood. What was your favorite cake? Did you want ice cream with it? My grandmother used to make a brown sugar spice pound cake baked in a Bundt cake pan with a brown sugar drizzle that was to die for. Not a traditional birthday cake by any means but if it was what I requested, she made it.

    • Harla says:

      Wow, the brown sugar spice pound cake sounds incredible!!! Does your grandmother take requests?? lol My favorite birthday cake is a simple yellow cake with chocolate frosting but only the one’s my mother made, for some reason her’s always tasted better than anyone else’s but my daughters come on a close second.

      • AtlLady says:

        Marla, my grandmother passed away many years ago or she would have been happy to bake one for you. She was a whiz with all sorts of cakes and pies. Her Thanksgiving and Christmas feasts usually had at least 4 different cakes and 6 different pies on the dessert buffet. It is entirely possible that my husband proposed to me just to have lifetime access to her cherry pies – his annual request in lieu of a birthday cake.

  18. Egla says:

    People forget that the royals especially those closer to the Queen are set for life financially. They have money beyond what it is payed to them for their duties. Also William will be Prince of W and he will inherit the Dutchy of his father and he will have a substantial income at his disposal do he doesn’t have to worry about feeding his kids in the future.

    • Veronica T says:

      The Duchy belongs to the people. They don’t advertise that fact.

      • Addie says:

        Yes, it does belong to the people. Every time I see some fool in the comments section of a newspaper say that the Duchy is private property I feel duty-bound to let them (and any other reader) know. Seeding the correct information over and over might just get through to some. One of my little missions in life.

        Still, Egla is correct in that the BRF are rolling in money and will never want for the stuff. Pity so much of it is on the back of their fellow country men and women.

      • Claire says:

        Yes but the RF/Charles makes it very profitable and the public benefit from that. Forget tourism dollars. The RF contributes over $250 million a year in various ways.

  19. A says:

    I don’t think they’ll have a fourth kid. They seem committed to recreating the hallmarks of Kate’s upbringing, after all. I think they always wanted three, that was always their plan. Even after William became reluctant after George and Charlotte. I can’t see William having a fourth or wanting to have a fourth.

  20. Leyton says:

    Did William not make some speech about sustaining wildlife by like limiting the population?

    Ironically this was when Kate was pregnant with their 3rd- the audacity of him really.

    A 4th would just be excessive.

  21. notasugarhere says:

    My, what a surprising number of new pro-Middleton posters lately…