I think we’re probably going to through another keen/maternity leave cycle once again with the Duchess of Cambridge. To be absolutely clear, I’ve always believed that Kate can and should take time away from a public schedule after giving birth. She’s entitled to a maternity leave, regardless of how little work she does beforehand. What has always bugged me about the “maternity leave” discussion with Kate is that apparently we’re never, ever supposed to mention that Kate simply does not like to work, that she’d rather just stay home and have babies and get her hair done and go shopping. We’re not supposed to say that all of the talk about Kate’s being “keen” to work is just dumb filler PR in between her pregnancies and maternity leaves. I blame Poor Jason, who will hopefully be fired pretty soon. So, it’s almost on cue at this point: of course some royal biographer or historian has to come forward and remind us that Kate will probably not take on any public engagements until the fall.
While Kate Middleton may have attended the wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle over the weekend, reports are now stating that the public may not see the Duchess of Cambridge again until October. As we’ve come to expect, the reason behind this public hiatus all has to do with tradition. According to royal biographer, Duncan Larcombe, “It is traditional for new royal mums to take a six-month break from official engagements.”
As Larcombe stated, despite the fact that Middleton gave birth less than a month prior, the Duchess justifiably chose to attend Meghan and Harry’s nuptials, as that was a (very important and historic) family event. However, it is now expected that she will not be at many other events in the near future. The biographer explained, “The wedding doesn’t count because it was a ‘family affair’ but other than that, she will pick and choose her engagements.”
This royal maternity leave of sorts was likely also the reason that Kate was not present at Prince Charles’ 70th Birthday Patronage Celebration. “If she wanted, Kate could disappear into the background until October,” Larcombe added. Although, despite the fact Middleton now has the freedom to choose which events she will attend, Larcombe did note that we will likely see the Duchess again in June, as she is expected to make an appearance at the Queen’s official birthday celebration, the Trooping of the Colour.
This is what I assumed anyway – that we wouldn’t see much of Kate until the fall. As soon as I did the math on her pregnancy, I figured out that Kate would probably just take the whole summer “off” for her maternity leave. Again, I don’t have a problem with that – but I’m just anticipating all of the “but she’s truly keen to start working again!” PR from Poor Jason throughout the summer.
Now, all that being said, I’m guessing she will be especially keen to be seen at any of the events with Meghan and Harry and the rest of the royal family. I imagine she’ll get mysteriously pap’d at train stations and on shopping excursions just as Meg and Harry start doing public events after their honeymoon. I also think this whole cycle will start again because Kate totally wants another baby.
Photos courtesy of Pacific Coast News.
Sure, she should get maternity leave. But really, how hard would it really be for her to show up once in a great while to smile and wave?
I’m the first to say work shy. But… no royals really work in August. And we still will see her at the royal must-attend events, just not any tours or ribbon cuttings.
So it’s really like 3 months maternity minus family events (weddings, baptism, trooping, etc) plus regularly scheduled August break. Even in US, 3 months isnt unheard of when the US has the saddest policies.
Yes she doesn’t like to work. So? It’s not like she’s taking 5 years. Just a few months. Maternity leave is maternity leave, no shade.
Since when is it a Royal tradition? Diana and Fergie didn’t take 6 months. Who else has had a baby that’s comparable? It’s not like Zara has public engagements. Sophie took 6 months but she was very unwell after the birth of Louise (as was the baby).
I think she deserves the time to bond with her small infant. Also, to bond the two older kids with the new baby. She also nurses, which is tiring. Even with all the help she has, from all accounts, she is a very hands-on mom. I’m sure with the older two being off for summer soon, she’ll want to spend the time with them all; wouldn’t surprise me if they decamp for Anmer for the summer after TotC (with Will coming up on weekends), although, with Pip pregnant, and living in the city, Kate may stay put this year and just go to the country/parents’ home on long weekends).
Anyway… while yes, an engagement or two a week wouldn’t kill her, if she has the ability to build a solid family foundation for her kids (and considering how incredibly dysfunctional the current RF is), I say more power to her for changing the mental health dynamic of the dynasty.
Yes to all of the above… especially the last part. There’s so much dysfunction in that family – at least the younger Royals will grow up in a healthy environment.
Suki
The dysfunction is never going away. It’s inherent. The entitlement. Elitism. The expectations. The only full way kate or William could guarantee their children be free from that dysfunction is to release them from it. Give up all of it. No perks. No expectations. And that will never happen.
What will happen is they will be attentive parents when wished. Nannies and schooling will always be there. And the looming pressure of a future they are born into will be the cost. Factor in both tabloids catching them at their most embarrassing and press giving them blanket protection… it’s a fantasy to think Kate’s extra maternity time or refusing duties to spend an hour in the car to and from preschool can save them.
But that schedule is pretty normal for her. busy-ish late winter/spring (some years busier than others, and I guess it depends how you define “busy” lol), and then we see her at Trooping the Colour, maybe a short overseas tour and a random event or two, but she basically goes dark from Trooping until September or October, when she starts to ramp up her events for the end of the year numbers.
So basically – we may see her at very few events from May until October, but that’s pretty typical anyway.
Anyway I’m with you Kaiser – I don’t blame her for a maternity leave and wanting time to rest and recover and spend time with the new baby and all that. That’s important and she should do it. But I wish people would stop pretending that she would totally be working if only she wasn’t on maternity leave, and also that when she does work, it’s at the same level of other senior royals. It’s not. She could go back to work at the same pace she did last year and we would still only see her a few times a month.
She’s a mother of 3 young children. No matter how much help, 3 young kids is exhausting. Let the woman rest.
The country is not going to fall apart just because one of their duchess is taking time off or only working a few events. I rather the kids get as much mommy time as possible so we don’t have to read about they messy royalty when they are adults.
Oh c’mon, what exactly is Duchess Kate Middleton resting so long from? Its not like she does a 9-5/5 days a week job. I did a travel nursing stint in the US and I was super surprised to learn that their nurses that work 13-14 12hr shifts/month all year round get just 12 weeks of mat leave if/when they have a baby, just 12 weeks off and then you back to work. What is it that duchess Kate does to warrant a 6 month mat leave? See, the thing with Kate is the tired excuses from her PR/fans about how she needs this long mat leave and how strongly TQ approves of Kate’s extended leaves of absences from work and how Kate is so KEEN to get back to work, ya know, hit the ground running soon after, and then never even works any more than her regular schedule which pretty much is work as little as possible while you spend as much as possible!! Very sad!
Well she is a mom to 3 young kids, I’d say that warrants her leave
I agree!
You really shouldn’t quote the US maternity leave policies cause they have one of the worst maternity leave policies in the world. Parents should definitely have more than 12 weeks of PAID leave.
Kate has 3 kids, their family is not waiting on her pay check. UK is not going to crumble because kate didn’t do more events. Charities will not get shut down because of the lack of her presence. So why can’t she take a longer maternity leave and spend time with her children?
The US leave policy is archaic and I say that as an American. It’s crininal that we don’t have 6 months minimum like most sane countries. Babies need time to bond, breast feed and be at home because their bodies cannot take germs and they lack vaccinations. Just because ameica prefers to force parents to shove their kids in daycare at 2.5 months doesn’t mean it makes a lick of sense.
Just because maternity leave is a bad joke in the US, not every woman should have to suffer the same. We have up to 12 month or 14 month if both parents take time of. Payed by the state not the company.
Parents -Dad and Mom should get leave when they have children.
My thing has always been what Kate chooses as work. She’s so busy when it comes to the more serious stuff but how many Ben Ainslie visits will we get, and will she show up to Wimbledon?
She apologizes to a tennis player for not being able to be there but makes it clear she shouldn’t be expected to show up for the Irish Guards
And I never said Kate should take 2 weeks off, I just gave the US as an example. Here in Canada its a year off of PAID mat leave. I get it, some countries have better mat leave polices while the US has crappy ones, I get that. But my probs is not debating which country has the best mat leave policies, its with Duchess Kate Middleton and that she works very very little of not at all, yet she takes these lengthy mat leaves as if she such a hard worker. ALL royals work very,very little compared to the average person however, Duchess Kate Middleton is NOT the only female of child bearing age, there are many others who have and raise their kids and still work more than Duchess Kate Middleton. I just find the excuses for her outrageous given that she works almost next to nothing but takes these lengthy mat leaves and then I hear how TQ approves of Kate’s terrible work ethic. Being lazy is fine, I’ve come to expect almost nothing from this duchess because evidently her definition of a good work ethic is very different from the rest of the world, but please quit with the “she will keenly get back to work, hit the ground running once she gets back from whatever”!!
i think kate just wants to have babies and do nothing apart from that
@Masamf
“There are many others who have and raise their kids and still work more than Duchess Kate Middleton.”
And I bet the vast majority of those people would jump at the chance to have a long leave. Just because other people have it harder, or have to work more doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t take the chance to have a long comfortable leave. Just because there are people who have less fortunate situations doesn’t mean that she shouldn’t take what is allotted to her. It’s not a good idea to look at how difficult someone’s job is and use that to determine how much leave they get. In most cases it’s apples to oranges. Either way – she’s allowed the leave, and she SHOULD take it if that’s what she wants. Just like how it’s okay if someone doesn’t want to take the full amount.
Also – we’re now offered up to 18 months leave in Canada, though the amount paid out is basically the same over a longer period.
@Erinn, you probably just read a small part of my post thus your focusing on that. I already said, I don’t think Kate should take a couple of weeks off. I also said that there are other royal family members that worked more than Kate while raising young kids, so scutes that Kate should just sit there being non productive in every way just because she has young kids are laughable. Also, so Kate Middleton is entitled to take lengthy vacations on the tax payers penny just because she is Kate? Ridiculous.
masamf, that is the logical that gets lost in all of this. All of the other royal women, in this and other royal families, have had small kids and worked more than Kate. Regardless of place in succession, etc. Adding in William’s allusions to working parents (the ones paying the royal bills) being bad parents and these two are just plain lazy.
@Sherlock so funny and so true. Also statutory maternity leave in the UK is something like 52 weeks so if Kate is back by October, this would still be less than the year. The amount of paid maternity leave is less but you can still take up to 52 weeks – most of my family and friends have. The leave in the US truly shocks me – I was watching Brooklyn 99 and one of the characters comes back 6 weeks after having a baby. I was pretty surprised that this is so normal it’s even on TV.
Agreed. For those living outside of the US, 6 months is a short maternity leave. One might even say she is ‘keen’ to get back to work… If we didn’t know better.
When I had my second son, my job gave me eight weeks paid, and that was being generous. Not just TV, real life over here in the states.
@Shannon, that’s what I meant by giving the US example. Many moms in the US get just a few weeks of mat leave and then get back to work. But that doesn’t mean that they grab some zoo animal and bring it home to raise their kids while they go back to work, nor does it mean that their little ones need them much less than duchess Kate Middleton’s kids need her. They all are new moms with new babies and raising very young siblings, yet they work, and raise their families at the same time. The excuses that Kate needs to take a lengthy break from doing almost nothing just to sit on her lazy arse for an entire year are outrageous.
That is generous, Shannon! None of my leaves were ever paid. We’re considered lucky they save our spot for us for a few weeks.
I have a white-collar job at a medium-sized company in the US, and I got six weeks paid and an option to take another six weeks unpaid, which is considered average in the corporate world. However, it is not average compared to other working situations.
The Family Leave Act, which was only signed in the 90s, guarantees 12 weeks off. However, it only applies to companies with more than 50 employees AND there is no requirement for a company of any size that the leave be paid. If you work for a small company, you can use up any sick leave time you have, and that’s it. I know lots of women who go back to work when their babies are just a week or two old.
It’s illegal in the United States to fire a woman because of pregnancy and childbirth, but it’s not illegal to make childbirth and caring for a newborn a financial and logistical nightmare. From the puritanical nutwings at Plymouth Rock onward, there is very much a cult of self-sufficiency. The attitude is that if you don’t have the support or finances to work with a baby at home, you should choose not to have a child.
That’s pretty sexist to suggest that women who go back to work have messed up their kids. First Kate would never be expected to work a 9 to 5 job so it’s not like she is away from them more than about an hour when she does an engagement. Second, what about their father? William does stuff like go to an ex’s wedding during Easter and we are supposed to think that’s normal parenting?
The real reason why royals have been messed up is because they have non stop wealth and privilege and they have a massive sense of entitlement. Kate showing up to a few engagements here and there is not going to mess them up. If William and Harry are messed up it’s because their parents had a messy and public divorce.
It is one thing to give time to physically recover from birth, but after the first few months there is no legitimate reason for her to not attend for an hour here and there at engagements. She will certainly take more time away from her kids to go shopping and get her hair done. It’s just that her priorities have never been work and the kids are used as an excuse. And the bar is lowered because of her laziness. There is no six month rule for women who have given birth in the royal family. That is just invented to make Kate look less lazy.
There’s such a regressive narrative around Kate. She’s fragile and can’t win and is amazing for wearing heels. And of course, apparently she’s done her job by having children.
Yes, now we have another protocol. Royal women don’t work for six months.
I agree with you nic919 – I don’t begrudge a working mother taking her full mat leave (in Canada it’s a year), but these are for the most part women working 40+ hours a week (plus travel time), which is a significant chunk of time. I fully believe that Kate should be able to do an event or two a week without seriously impacting her ability to parent. She just doesn’t want to work, which is fine (I guess); I’m annoyed she uses mat leave as a justification rather than just come out and say “I want all of the privileges and none of the responsibility of royal life”.
I don’t think anyone is criticising the mothers or children when a mother has to go back to work, I understood it as a criticism of the system that makes them feel they have to. That’s just not a reality for much of the world, as it should be ideally I think is the message.
I 100% agree that if you don’t have the financial resources to care for a child, you shouldn’t have one. My husband and I don’t have children largely for this reason.
“That’s pretty sexist to suggest that women who go back to work have messed up their kids.” And William made it clear in the last year or two, when the Throne Idle comments about him kept coming, that he thinks Diana was a bad mother for working, working parents are bad parents, etc.
I would get that if she didn’t have multiple nannies (Maria is just the “head one”), a personal assistant, and other staff that helps cook and clean for her. Kate does very little for these kids as far as personal care goes. It’s really just down time for her. The idea that she is some hands on mother who does everything for small kids like most Moms is a lie. I wouldn’t even insult the average Mom by stating that. We just saw pictures of her taking the nanny to the park with her. The Park! She can’t handle her two kids alone without a nanny.
Thank you! I actually am home with my kids (three of them, but the eldest is in school, so that’s eight hours I’m not doing any interaction or care). I don’t really care that she’s taking time off – god knows America could use actual maternity leave – but she’s not really taking time off from anything. She has nannies, drivers, assistants, cleaners, cooks… that’s not how 97% of us experience the postpartum period.
And that’s not the only nanny!!
I think the Nanny is in the park for extra security (she is trained in it), along with one PO.
Regardless, seems Kate is the one pushing the carriage, as well as keeping Char on path in that instance, not the Nanny.
To be fair to Kate also, my friend is a nanny and the parents never go to the park with her and the kids. Nanny’s become part of the family in a way and she might have just been invited along
Kate does have a female protection officer with her at all times. You’re never going to see Kate walking around Kensington Gardens on her own. I didn’t realise US maternity leave was so harsh! Mothers shouldn’t feel the need to go back to work a few weeks/few months after giving birth.
As you said….She has security, as she should. At least one is female, from what I’ve read.
I think parental leave should be a year, but I can appreciate there a optics at play when you’re a royal and live partly on the public dime. Plus, her work does not appear to be particularly taxing. Regardless, I wouldn’t give it a second thought if she took a year’s parental leave regardless of her prior work habits. I definitely don’t think it’s unusual to invest 6 months. Taking it easy for 6 months postpartum is a good idea for both mother and baby. Good for her.
Kate lives wholly on the public dime, not partly.
I totally agree with this post. I find it so interesting when people act like being a mother to three children isn’t work! I don’t have kids but I would way rather do royal duties than hang out with children based on what I have seen of my friends’ children. Granted, she has a lot of help, but she is still the only one who can breastfeed etc and the reports are that she is a hands on Mom. Being around children is exhausting.
Also, keep in mind that while 6 months is a long time to Americans, my understanding is that most women in Britain are entitled to a year.
I’m not begrudging her maternity leave – i am tired of all the continued promises of work and keenness lies all these years in between them. They have several nannies, surely she can spare an hour or two for an appearance several times a week.
This is where I am on it. She should absolutely enjoy her maternity leave, but I don’t think popping in at a charity once a week is asking too much. I have kids and I remember what it’s like in those early weeks after birth. I would have been thrilled to get out of the house and get dressed up for a change of pace!
Yes. To know that your kids are well taken care of, and you can get out and about? Sounds good to me.
Maybe she doesn’t want to do those things? I imagine they can be extremely boring and tedious. She doesn’t get paid to do any of these things.
Her entire lifestyle is payment for doing those things. That’s the duty part of being a royal.
We all have to do boring and tedious things we don’t want to do.
@Georgie is this comment a joke?
Kate’s entire lavish, luxurious lifestyle is taxpayer funded in return for her doing these events which you call boring and tedious – so yes she absolutely does get “paid!” It does not matter even a little if Kate “wants” to do them or not; it’s her job. And she is compensated with a life of wealth and privilege that none of us can even begin to imagine.
Not to mention that many of us here would be thrilled to have an international platform and all the time in the world to devote to causes which are important to us. You might find that boring and tedious, but for a lot of people, her job and position is a dream come true.
(@LAK and @NOTA please come save me from a rage stroke!)
Lorelai, Please don’t have a rage stroke.
Just sit back and wonder how far Georgie would go if she gave this same excuse to her employer, refused to do the job they were paid to do and fully expected to retain salary and perks.
@LAK, I’m laughing so thank you! Perfect response.
Also laughing imagining telling my former boss that I wouldn’t do a task because it was boring and I didn’t want to 🙂
Huh. Most of that boring tedium you speak of involves meeting people like you and me.
Bluhare and LAK!! Exquisite answers. Yes yes yes.
I don’t have problems wth this at all. As a mom I completely understand wanting extra time to bond wth your new baby. After all, it is normal and acceptable for her to care more for her kids than her work. I did!
See I don’t think the issue is with the maternity leave. She is absolutely entitled and she should spend time with her young children. The problem is the way the pr gets turned into “she can’t wait to get back to work”. You can already see in these threads that people are starting to debate what’s more important, work or family. The issue isn’t whether work is more important than family, it’s that Kate doesn’t like to work.
omg, I don’t know if I find it funny or depressing to know I’m old enough to appreciate your screen name, solidgolddancer! 😂😂😂
Or maybe she doesn’t like this particular job. I get that she signed up for it, but of course if she doesn’t like doing these events (which I can’t blame her, it’s not my thing either) she’s going to do the bare minimum. That’s just human nature. I get the feeling neither William or Kate particularly like being ‘royal’ but William was born into it and presumably they fell in love so she married into it. I really think people are too hard on both of them. I can’t imagine being born into a job or marrying the person I love and getting a job attached to it. I know they’re wealthy and that’s nice for them, but what’s not so nice is a serious lack of choice in how to live their life.
Shannon she had a decade during which to decide, and she choose to wait and be his wife of last resort. That doesn’t excuse either of them from their laziness.
+1 I hated being away from my baby at all during the first six months especially. I found a babysitting job so I could bring her with me. I think that bonding time is a need for some (not all) babies and moms. Even if I had had a nanny to help out I wouldn’t have left my baby with her if I didn’t seriously have to. It wasn’t anxiety – it was just I adored every second with my daughter and knew it was a fleeting time.
I don’t think women who go to work or like time away from their baby are wrong or weird I’m just saying women are different. I hate judging moms either way. Please let us be individuals and not judged as lazy or heartless or whatever else.
I wonder what excuses she will invent when she’s in menopause and the maternity leave excuse can no longer be used LOL
Sorry to be so superficial… how on earth did her body bounce back so quickly after a third birth? Is it just really powerful spanx? Or is there a six pack hiding underneath that cream colored coat dress? She looks great!!
Discipline. Kate likely avoids sugar, carbs etc and she exercises every day. I would’ve liked to see her in a colorful, flowing dress on Harry’s wedding day.
She still has a sizable bump. It looks like to me that she is giving her body more time to heal and lose weight naturally than she has in the past which is good! Three kids in 4.5 years isn’t easy on the body.
But I am sure she is wearing lots of spanx too. I honestly would hate to be trotting out before the world 4 weeks after giving birth. Kate pretty much faded into the background at the wedding, and I think she was A-OK with that.
She looks very beautiful and youthful with the weight on.
Subsequent kids do make it harder to bounce back each time (takes a bit longer), but she does have that drive, discipline, and genetics playing a big part. I’m sure she’s back to her smoothies and yoga to help her body.
My ex SIL was like that: 5’10”, size 4-6 before giving birth, size 4-6 less than two months after, back in her pre-preg. jeans, flat stomach… b***h lol
I’m sure being relatively tall helps. I’m 5’2″ with a short torso (lucky me) and when I was pregnant, the baby really had no place to go but OUT – people would ask me if I was having twins or ‘you haven’t had him yet?’ (rude) when I was only like 6 or 7 months along. So I got the stretch marks and I don’t think my tummy will ever fully recover lol. I bounced back pretty quickly from my first, but I was 19. My second, not so much (I was 31).
Her body comes back because she has a nanny to watch her kids while she works out, she has a chef to prepre her the perfect nutritional diet and she access to the best treatments, make-up, hair etc.
I don’t care for Sarah Jessica, but years ago after she had her son she was on Oprah and the question came up how she looks so good after giving birth. Paraphrasing here, but she said because I have help and because of that I have the time to do it. Truth! If I could afford a nanny, trainer and chef…well, I can dream!
One of my many cousins is married to a financial bigwig. She has 4 kids and looks the same as she did at 22 thanks to a FT nanny, meal service, and in home gym with a personal trainer who visits several times a week.
I wouldn’t mind the meal service and the trainer!
I know she that extra resources makes it easier to get back into shape… but isn’t it scientifically improbable that the bounce back would happen that soon after birth? The baby is still very brand new! I’m not even talking will and the money to afford all the help… it’s the sheer ability to look that good so soon after baby no matter what is really astonishing!!
And yet having access to those advantages that wealth can buy still doesn’t guarantee success unless the individual has the discipline and dedication to work for it. Otherwise, with all her $$$, Oprah would have been prancing around in bikinis for years. These perks HELP but you can’t give them all the credit.
Tommy: Oprah is not a good example. She’s admitted to being an emotional eater who also does very little exercise.
Whatever amount of type of food she eats, Kate exercises everyday. That keeps her weight down.
Dieting seems to be her thing. Gotta stay thin. I also hope she keeps a few extra pounds on her, it’s flattering.
Oh no! How will the Commonwealth ever survive without…*checks notes*… Duchess Karen! What? Oh sorry, Kate!
Seriously, parade the kids out for the occasional photo op and no one will care.
😂😂😂
Wait, so now the argument is that the monarchy will not fall apart if Kate doesn’t work? It’s no longer about the fact that she’s not doing a job she’s richly compensated for? Okay, good to know.
Three babies must be the most kids any senior royal has had in recent history? I can’t even name one with 4 or more except TQ.
Crown princess Mary and Frederick of Denmark have 4. Queen Rania has 4. Queen Máxima has 4. Princess Madeline has 3So W&k wouldn’t be out of place with the big royal families.
Queen Maxima only has the three girls.
Mette-Marit of Norway has 3 kids, but only 2 royal kids.
I believe W/K are the first of the BRF senior line (and possibly the immediate minor line too) to have more than 2 kids since the Queen.
Queen Mathilde has four. Madeleine is not supported by taxpayers, so however many children she and her husband choose to have – they’re paying for it themselves.
Phillips and Mathilde of Belgium have four kids. And don’t forget that very important royal CP Marie-Chantal of Greece, she has five children. How ever does she do it? Yes, I know the monarchy was abolished in 1967, but still… Speaking of children, Beatrice Borromeo had a second son a few days ago, name, Francesco. The Monaco Serenes are reproducing like crazy, and Charlotte is pregnant.
I think she is fine. Babies are only little once. I have a soft spot for Kate because she just can’t win. Lol. I wouldn’t trade places with her for anything in the world. I actually think she’s enjoying how much coverage Meghan is getting. She can disappear for a while. I honestly didn’t even notice her at the royal wedding!!!! I am a Kate apologist. I can’t help it! That being said her work isn’t hard but it’s very, very public. I mean, imagine if right after her baby she was working 4 days a week. People would throw a fit that she’s ignoring her baby and they would be wondering rudly why she even had another. Also, what I wouldn’t give to see how a day in the life of Kate as a mom would be! I bet she’s a lot more hands on than anyone things. Kids want their mom. Even with my mom over at my house helping me….my toddler just wants mommy! LOL A moms work is never done.
Yes, you are indeed an apologist. Two out of 3 kids are at schools and nobody said a thing about not having the right to bond with her baby. She is just very fortunate because she can do that. But she never wanted to do more, even when she could. That’s the point you are completely missing.
You could have made your point without your first and last sentences.
I had to go look at those sentences. First one, she agreed with the poster. And then said she was missing the point. Not sure why that’s so offensive.
…because the first and especially the last sentence sound quite patronizing?
IMO, it would be one thing if before kids or between kids, Kate worked a lot and then took 6 months maternity leave. But she doesn’t work much ever, really. Whether she is pregnant or recovering or not.
I don’t have a problem with her taking 6 months off myself. No matter how much help, birthing a baby is no joke and it can take many women months to bounce back in ways that are not apparent just from how skinny they are. I do not begrduge Kate the time she needs right now at all. I wish American women were allowed that same time 🙁
I just think that it would be nice if she actually did more when she wasn’t pregnant and stop pretending like her very light schedule is because her kids need her 24/7 and she is doing it all on her own when she has mountains of help. Now that 2/3 kids are in school part time, she is running out of excuses.
But I also think its funny that William took 0 paternity leave, essentially. If he was a woman (Kate lets say) and was back to work so soon, he would be totally crucified.
I could. And you always have the option to scroll down.
I always find these interesting, until you look at her (and their) actual behavior. She is constantly papped away from the kids shopping, getting her hair done, working out with personal trainer. She was the one who said William wasn’t around much for the first 5-6 months of their first son’s life.
They went on a 10 day vacation without their 8 months old son, dumped him on the nanny on her first or second day. Appear to have done the same with their daughter much earlier on (2 months or so) with a trip to Mustique for diving certifications (outed by someone who was at the same resort). They both went on skiing vacations (separate ones) last year, leaving the kids with the nanny.
They never appear to have trouble being away from their kids for fun; only for work.
Ugh. I can’t stand her. Lol. I used to really like her, even going as far as writing on here, that she really wants to work but Charles doesn’t want to be overshadowed. That is soooooo not the case. She simply doesn’t want to work and yes, while I think there may be a bit of healthy competition with the Cambridges now that we have Harry and Meghan that resulted in more appearances and speeches from Kate, the little pap shots at train stations also point to a not so healthy side to that competition. I worry about Meghan and Harry because of those unhealthy layers to Kate and possibly Will.
What’s wrong with being a SAHM? That’s essentially what you’re talking about here right? I’m pretty sure they get all or most of their money from Charles, not the state.
There’s nothing wrong with being a SAHM, but
a) She married into a job. Her role comes with obligations she agreed to when she married William You wouldn’t sign a contract for a new job, then decide you didn’t want to do it after all and still expect to receive the salary for it.
b) We keep being told that she’s oh-so-keen to work and if it weren’t for being pregnant/on maternity leave she’d be working super hard. Which really isn’t the case
” We keep being told that she’s oh-so-keen to work”
Just curious – would people be less annoyed at her if Kate/William’s PR person just came out and said “the Duchess is going to be a SAHM until her youngest is 13.”
If Kate did that then there would be no need for a paid full time nanny (Maria) plus the other nannies not discussed, as well as the 150-200k per year of new designer wardrobe. She wants the full benefits of a working royal without actually being a working royal.
Also Kate was promoted as “hitting the ground running” in 2011 during the engagement. She proceeded to not do much of anything before even being pregnant and now does very little.
@Georgie. Initially, there would definitely be much stronger scrutiny of their expenses and privileges and Kate’s public involvement in fun things like Wimbledon, and questions about what could be expected from Will. Their roles would have to be more defined than a nebulous -They’re getting it together. They’re so keen. Back off and give them a chance- and I think they’re quite eager to avoid that.
If they could cover their own expenses in terms of Kate’s security or work out something to justify the expense, after a year or two I think the criticism would die down.
The bar is so low for Kate. What will her staff do for the next six months? Did they plan ahead? There are ways for Kate to stay involved by using her staff if she planned ahead for the next six months. And when Louis is older, if they’re in London anyway for the kids’ schools, do at least one event a week and send out material about the charities once a week. That’s all it is.
I would actually appreciate it if they came out and said she was going to stay home and raise their kids. No more unmet expectations that way.
@Georgie, yes I would prefer honesty over the continual lying we’ve had across 7 years about her (and William’s) eagerness to work. However if she were to give up royal work, I would expect her to also give up a lot of the perks that she gets from the role.
Because her people won’t call it that. As others have said, the story from day one has been that Kate is going to hit the ground running and that she is so keen to do this or do that. When the only thing she seems to be keen to do is show up to celebrity functions and push-out babies. Please know that I’m not saying anything against the latter but that the messaging does not mirror her actions.
In addition, people begin to say stuff like she has 3 children, she is a stay at home mom, etc., and/or they say why is that a problem—somewhat like you have. On the surface, none of that is a problem. However, it tries to “normalize” a situation (Kate’s situation) that isn’t normal across all or even most women. Most women, particularly poor women, work outside of the home and are away from their children for long stretches of the day. Kate’s public role, her job, is in no way comparable to any of that. Therefore, to say that she works in that sense is laughable. Which, in turn, begs the question: maternity leave from what job? For someone who was going to hit the ground running, her “public service” hours are amongst the lowest of the low.
Finally, Kate has a nanny and other staff members who spend long stretches of time with her children anyway. She also has servants to do the mundane day-to-day things that an average stay at home mom would do. SAHM care is already outsourced. So, given that, why can’t she show up for “work” on occasion? Right? It’s not like she was doing anything substantially more before she had the last baby anyway.
Georgie: the annoyance would still be there but the hypocrisy and lies would finally stop—which would cut-off a major vein of the annoyance.
kate also has her mother who i am sure can manage her grandkids with all the other help she is getting – i get that kate has 3 kids but considering her job of justifying the spending she does she really doesnt do anything much – it seems that the older members still do more work than william and kate
She did hit the ground running — but it was only in the gym. 😉
Charles’s money comes from the Duchy of Cornwall, which belongs to the state.
^This. Plus all the taxpayer funded security.
Duchy doesnt belong to the state.
The Duchy is held in trust by the heir but it does not belong to him personally. The Duchy does not belong to Charles Windsor. Otherwise Diana would have gotten hundreds of millions in the settlement instead of wiping him out personally of all the funds he had inherited through the years. She had no access to The Duchy lands, investments, real estate properties in the settlement because it doesn’t belong to Charles personally.
What nota said. Plus, the Duchy belongs to the Crown, which is essentially the same thing as the state (it is NOT the same thing as the monarch). Charles is entitled to the revenues from the Duchy, but he is not permitted to sell or transfer its assets (which are mostly land).
The crown is the same as the monarch and head of state.
No, it isn’t. The Crown is a corporation sole which separates the legal personality of the nation state from the private property of the monarch. I normally disdain wikipedia, but this is pretty good (and accurate). Believe the people whose country it is, please: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crown
Where I’m from this would be a fairly measly maternity leave anyway, and Will would (should?) have taken out additional paternity leave as well. Sure, they’re not incredibly hard workers, but that’s not how the right to bond with your child is measured. Besides, even as an anti-monarchist I don’t revere “hard work” as an absolute moral value (come at me!).
And people talking about help and nannies makes me think about all the broken childhoods in the royal family. People have linked George VI’s stammer to neglect by his parents, and Charles certainly seems to have suffered from being dispatched to boarding school far from home at a young age.
+1 Boarding School Syndrome, my ex suffered from this.
And William signed up George for Eton, so they will be doing the same things as their parents.
Kate still has help and nannies. Charles loved his nanny. His trouble was being sent to that particular boarding school.
Charles loved his nanny because she was the closest he had to a mother.
No, Charles had a mother. The nanny was his primary caretaker as it is with many privileged children but Charles had a mother just as Elizabeth and Margaret loved their nanny and had a mother and William and Harry loved their nannies and had a mother. Harry is still very close to Tiggy.
George 6’s stammer was due to being super afraid of his father who prided himself on being a terrible father. There is a famous quote attributed to his parenting motto/ style which went something like,’ I was afraid of my father and he was afraid of his father and by god i’m going to make my children afraid of me.’ And by all accounts lived by it.
He famously bullied and undermined his children at every turn and thrashed them for any infraction. He remained horrible to them long after they were adults. All were afraid of him. George 6 developed a stammer whilst all the kids were deeply insecure as a result.
Queen Mary was equally a cold parent who sided with her bullying husband against the children. Her excuse was that he wasn’t just their father, he was their King and she wouldn’t, couldn’t go against the King.
Sadly for the kids, their nannies were equally horrible. One in particular was a sadist who delighted in abusing them. Especially in public when she would pinch them hard enough to cause pain. Their parents would assume the kids were simply misbehaving and insist nanny punish them.
Charles was sent to the wrong school were the pupils delighted in bullying him. It became a badge of honour to bully him and any pupil who befriended him would be equally bullied. One kid even bragged to newspapers that he deliberately broke Charles’s nose, something he was very proud of. Charles had to spend as much time with his housemaster to avoid the physical beatings and horrid fellow pupils.
The QM wrote to the Queen and to Philip several times to remove him to no avail. She thought he’d do better at Eton whilst they thought he was just soft.
However, Andrew, Edward, Zara and Peter were sent to the same school and thrived. Then again, they are more robust personalities where Charles was a sensitive boy.
I know all these circumstances, but I’m not sure if they contradict what I was saying (and maybe contradiction wasn’t the point of your post!). George V’s parenting style was cruelty combined with neglect, and Mary was by all accounts uncaring. Whatever the details, these childhood experiences will create attachment problems, leading to other issues later on in life. And @Natalie S. I’m not categorically against nannies, just that over-relying on them might not be beneficial if it risks the child feeling abandoned by the parents.
And sure everyone is different – some might do well at boarding school (though sending anyone under the age of 12 seems cruel to me personally). But that doesn’t take away from the fact that parenting requires presence and sensitivity to the child’s individual needs. Parental leave is part of that.
Ada: I *was* contradicting your point because it implies that the problems were due to other problems / people / circumstances instead of downright terrible parenting *by the parents*.
1. Charles went to boarding school very young, but so did his siblings. And to the same school as Charles. By all accounts, his siblings loved it and thrived. He did not. On top of being bullied horrendously. Therefore for Charles, boarding school, especially that particular school, was not the answer at any age. Whereas it was for his siblings and niece/nephew.
2. To describe George & Mary as neglectful parents is the understatement of the year. They were terrible *abusive* parents. Any neglect was in turning a blind eye to the abusive nannies, but they approved the abuse even if they weren’t aware it was happening.
LAK: There are many forms of neglect, some serious. From all accounts I’ve read GV was not only abusive but emotionally neglectful. Bonding is important in childhood development, and even if the king and queen had not been cruel by disposition the general ideas about child rearing at that time were highly damaging. Holding and hugging was seen to foster weakness, when most child psychologists I know would now consider it essential for healthy development.
Boarding schools are part of that tough-love, character-building mentality, and there are some studies indicating their harmful psychological effects. I can go along with your individualizing to some extent, but my basic point was that being an active, present, and affectionate parent is important, not to place duty, work and tradition above all else. The choice is not just personal but cultural — where I’m from it’s becoming frowned upon in some circles if fathers don’t take extended leave, whereas in the US mothers are punished professionally if they do. That doesn’t mean that parents are better people in one place, it just means that social structures make it easier to be a present parent. That’s what we should want for everyone, regardless of socio-economic status or gender.
Ada: That ye old school characterisation of boarding schools is outdated. Very few people send their kids to board because of ‘tough love, character-building’ reasons. Boarding schools have improved their pastoral care exponentially, and in Britain, the schools that cater to the under 11yr olds have the option of pupils returning home every weekend if they choose.
Further, some schools are better suited to certain temperaments just like day schools which is why you don’t just randomly select school without considering your child’s temperament or their interests.
And just like day schools, parents are encouraged to maintain contact and remain involved even if they don’t see their children everyday.
The fork in the road is the issue of child independence because boarding schooled children are mentally more independent much earlier than day schooled kids. They become much more self-sufficient much sooner. That is always devastating for parents who suffer a form of empty nest syndrome alot sooner.
Is boarding school a perfect system? As you say in your comment, it depends on the child. Some will like it and others will hate it, and others will thrive. Same as day school.
@Ada – agreed 100 percent.
I would NEVER EVER send my 7 or 8 year old son away. At 13, my son got into Exeter in New Hampshire because we had a pretty crappy public school system and he is so bright, but we just couldn’t. He still went to an Ivy league college and we are just plebes.
I hope they keep George home as long as possible. He does seem close to his parents, and he seems very, very shy. I think sending him away as a little boy would be horrible for him!
Has Kate been able to determine what she wants from life? Is she living her life or is she living somebody elses dream? Does she like being the center of attraction? Does she like being around people? Is she happy? She is good to her kids. I like that very much. I like how she handles the children. I wish her all the best.
It seems to me like she wants to be a rich SAHM who occasionally does charity work. Something like her sister Pippa’s lifestyle. Mission accomplished.
Um … I’m honestly not seeing what’s wrong with that. I mean, sure, most of us don’t get to do that. But personally, if I had the opportunity, that would be a dream life.
Yes, but Shannon, Kate didn’t choose Pippa’s life. She chose a royal life, which means she must work or the public will get fed up. She eats at the public trough.
Pippa married a rich guy and doesn’t have to answer to taxpayers. She got the MUCH better deal!!
I think Kate determined early on that she wanted to be Queen Consort and not work. When she married, the next thing she wanted was to be a mom and not work. She keeps having children every 2 years or so and could/probably will, have another one. That means she’s effectively spending a decade doing minimum work under the pretense of raising her children.
Do people not remember what Kate was like in the first year of her marriage? It really didn’t seem like she was keen on children. Obviously having kids changes you and changes your perspective on things and I really do think that she is a good wife and mom and really loves babies now, but I never got that impression from her in the first few years of her marriage.
I must admit I didn’t pay any attention to them prior to the engagement/wedding. I was not interested in royals prior to finding this blog.
Busyann – That’s a weird thing to say. Kate was pregnant with George when they were married for about a year and a half. Perfectly normal to not have babies straight away! She always knew she had to give birth to an heir and a “spare”.
@Busyann, not all women are interested in kids at first. My sister, for instance, didn’t care much about kids at all. She had really never held/cared for a child before; even when my brother had kids, my sister barely had much real “hands on” time with them. When she had her own kids…wow.. TOTALLY different, and she is an AMAZING mom! Turned out two very wonderful, secure, smart young men, with huge hearts 😊 (can you tell I’m a proud auntie? 😊).
Anyway, my point is, you can be indifferent to kids until you have your own, and then be in total immersion of “mommy hood”.
I think Kate sees her main job as being a good wife to William, providing heirs and being a good mother to their children. I also believe that they are both taking it easy in the “work” department to focus on their family while their children are young. I believe William wants to give his children the kind of childhood Diana wanted for him and Harry. Once Charles becomes King, I think we’ll see William and Kate step up and take on more responsibilities, especially as their children reach the teenage years.
They’re a young couple and they have young children. I have no problem with them enjoying that time while they can.
Re: the stepping up part of your comment……it’s amazing that you are still optimistic after all this time. No snark.
Nothing in their history indicates any intentions of stepping up. They’ve had to be dragged kicking and screaming, metaphorically speaking, to work. They given interviews where they’ve said they will do less (in summary of several interviews including engagement), Harry has spelled out plainly that a William Monarchy will be less on the work front. Philip had a very bad 2012 year healthwise, was hospitalised 3 times and gave an interview saying he would love them to step up so he could retire, and they did not. William said in 2015 he thought the oldies working whilst he did his thing was perfectly reasonable. Not to mention the infamous ‘working parents are bad parents’ article he sanctioned that same year.
And Kate in particular has been provided with a new excuse every year and or months to explain away her lack of a work ethic since before she joined the family officially. They all seem plausible each time.
At this point, they are mid-30s, coming upto 40s. Nothing has changed on the work front. They do the minimum they are required to do and not much else. Not even for the estates they will inherit.
@LAK – Regardless of their age, they are still relatively newly married with young children. I would not be surprised by a fourth child in two more years.
I’m not saying Kate is keen to start working outside Kensington Palace full-time. I think Kate believes she’s working by raising the next generation of royals.
Charles has stated he wants a pared down RF for the future and maybe William is on board with this. I think ultimately, that pared down family will be William, Kate, their children, Harry and Meghan. I think Harry and Meghan’s children will be expected to find jobs and work. The only one of the Queen’s children who thinks their children are special and should be treated as “blood royals” is Andrew. His pleading for his daughters to remain on the dole seems to be falling on deaf ears.
Sherry, i agree with all that, but i am speaking specifically about William and Kate and their attitude towards work in general and royal duties specifically.
Regardless of Charles’s intentions and plans, WK have made it pretty clear in the past, present, and future (going by their own interviews) that they have no intentions of working.
And that’s why i wonder at your optimism.
Maya Angelou had a saying about believing people when they show you who they are. WK have shown us who they are. For over 15yrs. Yet there is this belief that somehow, they are going to have a come to Jesus moment instantly or soon after becoming POW or HM which will make them suddenly work despite their own history and future intentions pointing to the opposite result.
And it’s pretty clear that regardless of Charles’s plans, these two people don’t mind him at all.
Every penny they have, including the money that pays the salaries of the nannies, cooks, housekeepers, groundkeepers – all comes from the taxpayers. They have a job to do in exchange, and most of the other members of the family firm are elderly and some are infirm.
A photographer (can’t remember who) who was around the royals a lot said he thought Kate would put up with just about anything to be Princess of Wales.
I believe that was Niraj Tanna, who was the Middleton’s go to photog during the dating years, until William made Kate sue him for taking her pic playing tennis. He couldn’t afford to fight it, and was pretty bitter ever since.
James Whitaker AND Taki said the same thing.
Whitaker was also the one who said Kate knows where the cameras are and finds them even more than Diana did.
^ Not sure why that’s a problem? Meghan also finds the cameras at every event. My favourite was the wedding carriage shot from above! Isn’t it their job to smile at the cameras?
Suki: No. Their job is to attend to the people they are meeting. The cameras are only essential for publicity purposes not to highlight the royals personally.
That is why you rarely see photos of many royals not looking directly at cameras even when there is a bank of them.
I’m not being snarky, but maybe somebody should tell MM that? She looks right into the cameras.. multiple times. It’s a bit off-putting and comes off as smugish? She’s an actress, it makes sense, but they’re told to ignore the cameras whilst filming scenes. I guess she’ll have to adjust to the new rules.
Whitaker was pointing it out because of her behavior with paps was often similar to Diana, from egging them on to deliberately using front entrances of clubs to get photographed after re-doing her makeup. In the face of William being anti-pap but also using them for his own purposes (egging them on to follow their car in order to file a complaint, the drunken kiss to get Uncle Gary off the front pages). Another example of their behavior proving their lies to be lies.
I really hope they (William and Kate) don’t have another baby.
But I am looking forward to the sneaky pap shots she will arrange. Looking back the paps really used to get close to her.
Four kids would be a bit much given his “too many people in the world” speech.
Not sure about another baby – by most accounts Willy had to be persuaded to have a 3rd.
ITA that we will start seeing ‘pap’ shots of her out and about with the kids, she won’t want us to forget about her (future Queen consort). We’ll def see her at Trooping in a couple of weeks, she never misses that esp as it will be Meghans first and they will no doubt show off Prince Louis to get some attention. These 2 do have a habit of using their children to draw focus whenever they need positive PR.
And yes, PoorJason is going to be out of a job soon – the wedding PR was a total joke. Now that one of TQs senior aides is over there, hopefully she will slap them all around the head.
Why would you create tension between the two women by saying Kate wants to “show off” Louis? They all have business being there on that balcony. Besides, I don’t recall seeing George before he was a bit older (almost a year old) for that particular event; Char as well. Louis is still too young at 2 mos. I would think, to be there with the noise from the jets and crowds.
I hope the four of them work well together; I don’t really get the “jealously angle” a lot of posters talk about. Kate knows where she will end up (Queen Consort), as does Meghan (Duchess). Popularity is another thing altogether.
Louis isn’t going to be on the balcony.
It’s very sad to see how many people (especially women) think maternity leave is just a big holiday for mothers.
Yes. The maternity leave is perfectly normal for women in Europe, possibly on the short side.
@OLLIE, preach!!!! ‘Must be nice to get 12 weeks of vacation’ is basically how anyone who doesn’t have a baby thinks of it. It’s unpaid for the majority in the USA, you are psychically trying to recover from giving birth, mentally you are a mess, your tiny baby is up eating every 2-3 hours around the clock for months…it’s the furthest thing from a vacation.
The way new mothers are treated in the workplace here in USA pisses me off. Being a mom is killer to your career!!! “Oh you’re a mother? Your priorities are elsewhere, sorry” and in the same breath, “oh you’re a father? Oh you are so responsible, you’re hired!” VOMIT. Men get promotions because they are fathers and women get passed up for promotions because they are mothers!!!! All that being said, I have never felt more confident and strong in my life. I created two humans and have gone through Hell and back….and everyone’s healthy and happy!! I can do anything! It took me a few years to find these empowering feelings and I’ll do anything for them to stick around! Sorry kind of venting! The USA has one of the absolute worst excuse for maternity and paternity leave in the developed countries.
No one has actually said maternity leave is a holiday for mothers. In fact most are saying Kate needs time to recover from giving birth. However, what people are pointing out is that Kate has a full time Nanny, assistant nannies, Carole, housekeeper, cooks and other staff who provide lots of help and can give her the opportunity to step out of the house for an hour or two to shake hands.
Kate is not a regular mom. She doesn’t have to cook or clean and try to fit that in between breastfeeding, sleep, deal on her own with the other children. And stepping out for an hour a few times a week won’t destroy any bonding with her baby.
I’m a mother and I have personally had it said to my face.
Kate wouldn’t be just stepping out for an hour. She would be expected to be perfectly groomed and dressed, plus not every engagement is within walking distance of KP.
It’s not like she can throw her hair in a ponytail and pop out in her sweats for a quick round of handshakes.
Her hairdresser comes to her house to style her hair and do makeup. Then a driver picks her up while security clears the way. Once she’s at the engagement, she is escorted through the facility, does photo ops and a few activities and she’s out in less than an hour. Babies and young children nap, you know, or have playtime. They’ll hardly notice she’s gone.
There are so many rich/wealthy career women who have nannies, personal trainers, cleaners, healthy prepared meals, hands-on grandparents, etc. But they all deserve a long maternity break. Not sure why you think having help means that women shouldn’t take well-needed maternity rest.
Women who aren’t Kate don’t live in palaces and receive support from the taxpayers. They can take all the maternity leave they want because they earned it. Kate wouldn’t qualify for paid maternity leave in most countries because she has never actually worked. Everyone is trying to twist the comments about Kate and her laziness into attacks on women in general or stay at home moms, or mothers. They are not. No one outside of the royal family lives the life Kate does with all the material wealth she receives and all the staff hired to help her. Women on welfare get shunned and receive very little help. Stay at home moms often have to make do with less and certainly don’t have two nannies, staff etc. Career women who have taken time off to be with their baby have worked significant hours and pay for the help themselves and not through the taxpayer. This has nothing to do with regular women who have nannies, or housekeepers. This has only ever been about Kate and her lack of desire to work that she is expected to do as future Princess of Wales and Queen Consort. To claim that her children will be dysfunctional because she leaves them for an hour or so once or twice a week is utterly absurd.
And you need to be honest that Kate is rearing children who will —and already DO —face challenges that almost no other child on the planet ever will. How do you prepare toddlers to walk out and face a literal wall of photographers and strangers screaming their names? Who will eventually scream all kinds of terrible things at them in hopes of getting a reaction that will produce a money-making picture?
I don’t think that’s a reality any of us can truly wrap our heads around, much claim any first hand experience with.
Jackie Kennedy was arguably —with the possible exception of Diana —the most intensely scrutinized woman of the 20th century. She, too, had wealth and fame and glamour. And yet she is famously quoted as saying that no matter what your acheivements in life, none of it matters if you fail with the parenting of your children. And she was right.
I’m glad to see the Cambridges are making their children their priority. Depending on how long Charles lives, William and Kate will have those crowns on their heads until their last breaths. I understand them wanting to enjoy the relative freedom this period in their lives affords them and their family. It won’t last forever.
Assuming she’s breastfeeding (although I wouldn’t know for sure), the ‘help’ you mention won’t actually be much help. And surprise, maybe she actually likes being with her kids. My mom watches my son while I’m at work and, while it’s great and super-helpful, there are definitely times when I miss him. If I won the lottery (which, Kate basically sorta did), I’d turn in my notice so fast it’d make your head spin, and I don’t even dislike my job. Especially when he was younger (he’s almost 11 thinking he’s 18 so now, he actually kind of grates on my nerves LOL) I bet when her kids get to his age, she’ll be out and about more. But when my sons were very little, it did pain me to be away from them.
All of the other royal women have done these things, had small kids, and worked much more before, during, and after than KM. But her fans must insist that she is somehow incapable of doing better. W&K play you folks like a violin.
@notasugarhere and @Nic919 Warning: long – I feel strongly about this, on principle, and think the specifics of Kate are clouding the issue.
Parental leave needs to be taken seriously. That’s the point. Regardless of class, status, abilities, and work ethic. Sure, you physically can do work things, sure it wouldn’t kill you or destroy your child’s psyche. But where do you draw the line? My friends who get a year and a half of paid leave per houehold don’t take the occasional call, or pop into the office to boost morale. Because they are on leave! The fact that others might and have done is irrelevant – that’s a slippery slope that could end in someone saying that because a CEO is back in the boardroom four days after giving birth that all mothers should.
Having nannies or not is irrelevant also – each parent needs to make individual choices about how to use their leave. Some parents might need lots of date nights to keep their bond as partners strong. Others might need fun breaks to have more patience with their child after a sleepless night. Not everyone has the economic luxury of help, but everyone should be afforded the luxury of work-free time with their infant to spend as they see fit.
We need to uphold and promote these rights, not decide that they don’t apply for certain parents because of their exceptional circumstances. Shouldn’t we wish that everyone have it easier than some have it slightly harder? Humane state policies are the real fight, not whether or not some lady waves enough.
I don’t see people attacking parental leave. They are pointing out the lather, rinse, repeat lazy behavior of W&K. In the UK you have to work full-time to earn your taxpayer-funded maternity leave. When exactly has she done that?
All of the other royal couples have faced having kids and working. They’ve all managed it, but excuse after excuse keeps being made for these two.
Everything they have comes as a result of their taxpayer-funded jobs. Other families in the UK just lost any taxpayer benefits for having more than 2 kids, but these two have 3 and continue to live on the dole.
As others have written on this thread. These two are not “normal” everyday people, and trying to defend their behavior by comparing them to everybody else’s EARNED leave is incredibly disingenuous. Apples to oranges.
duplicate
I have specifically never attacked maternity leave for women who have jobs and made that clear in several of my comments. In Canada women can have up to 18 months now and that is a great idea. But leave is for women who have worked real jobs in order to qualify for it. Kate has never worked a real job her life. And then there are the stay at home moms who also work quite hard, but again they don’t have staff and nannies when they do it. This is why I find it so offensive to compare Kate to regular women.
Maternity leave is not a joke for normal working mothers. It’s just a joke for Kate.
Well said.
What will happen if Duchess Meghan gets pregnant and is out doing events until her water breaks and this is back on the work schedule after she has a baby? That’s when all of this keenness will get interesting. Will the new Duchess follow the old Duchess for fear of overshadowing? Or will she actually work?
And for all of those saying to give Duchess Kate a break. Really, I don’t begrudge Moms. But she has one of the easiest jobs known to man. She can get out there and wave for how much the public pays for her lifestyle.
This is why I can’t stand talk of welfare reform or drug tests for people on food stamps. Because the biggest drains on society are the rich at the expense of the poor.
Meghan won’t be granted anywhere near the leniency Kate is if she takes more than a couple of weeks off.
There is no Remember Diana chorus for Meghan.
Meghan should take as long as she needs. I don’t think anyone would begrudge her taking extended time off after having their first child. It depends if she wants to get back to work shortly after giving birth or not.
ITA, Beluga. Some people practically begrudge her the very air she breathes because they think she’s too [fill in the blank] to exist in that rarefied atmosphere of the BRF. As others have said, she will always have to work harder and be more earnest than any other “working” royal in every endeavor she undertakes, and no maternity leave or vacation will pass without criticism.
+1 but Olenna also don’t forget that if she goes back to work early it’ll be because she’s a narcissist who doesn’t care about her child and can’t bear to be away from the limelight 😉
@Beluga, yes, I can see that happening. And, don’t bother calling anyone on their hypocrisy. They’ll just project and deny, or attack with their juvenile snark.
The cost of supporting the royals is directly affecting UK taxpayers. Women who aren’t Kate won’t get any government benefits for a third child because the government can’t afford it. The millions per year spent on the BRF could go far in helping the rest of the UK.
The press were already briefed by KP at the time Kate gave birth that she would be off until the Autumn and that she would make the odd public appearances here & there, so this is not a new revelation. That is Kate’s choice and no one has the right to tell a mother how long she ought to take on maternity leave regardless of the type of job she has or hard you think she works. Maternity laws also varies from country to country.
Also I’m confused to what constitutes a pap walk. Is Kate not allowed to step outside her house or go for a walk with her kids? Meghan has also been photographed numerous times at the gym & going shopping. Is Meghan also calling the paps or is this snarkiness only reserved for Kate? The royals are public figures so of course when they are out in public there will be occasions where they will get papped.
I’ve also noticed that when W&K hide their kids many on here accuse them of being control freaks, but when they bring their kids out in public they are accused of using them for publicity. People need to make up their damn minds!
To be fair, it’s likely both Kate and Meghan are doing it. Both William and Harry push back quite strongly against pap pictures being published so when they do show up, I think usually it’s likely they are allowed by the royals.
The picture of Kate shopping on her blogging day was a real candid shot. I think pictures of Kate and William at the train station or having a date are usually staged. That picture of Meghan going to Whole Foods was staged.
Theres an interesting interview with journalists on BBC 4 the media show called the royal family and critical journalism that’s st I available to listen online if anyone is interested
For the duration of the courtship, any pictures that were papped were planned or approved after the fact. We know this because part of a threatening letter sent to the IPSO was leaked in 2016 that shut down any and all papped pictures of them, and of Meghan specifically.
The wording of the letter made the UK media responsible for worldwide coverage. The IPSO had to acquiesce because parliament is still trying to curb press freedom and the last thing they want is for the royals to throw their weight behind parliamentary efforts on that front.
Botswana is one country that bowed to that type of pressure.
That’s why is wasn’t coincidence that the media outed Pa Markle last week. It was revenge for one more such letter in the same week parliament was having another attempt to curb press freedom.
LAK with the details!
Thank you! It’s so strange. People should find a criticism and stick with it. Instead, they flip-flop/go back and forth, whenever they want to change the narrative… lol.
Thanks for that piece of info, LAK. I think the commenter was pointing out the hypocrisy, though. In the past, I don’t think Meghan was accused of staging pap shots and pap walks. From what I’ve read, people thought she was genuinely being harassed by the paps, which obviously wasn’t true.
It can be both. She can be harassed and strategically use them seeing as they’re going to be there anyway. There was enough interest in her that I don’t think she slipped hints to photographers, just that she sometimes didn’t try too hard to evade them.
That’s what Kate did when she was at Jigsaw but it didn’t mean she always wanted her picture taken. Pippa had those Percy pap walks but didn’t want her picture taken when jogging in the morning.
Oh people here were constantly talking about how she set up her pap strolls when she and Harry started dating.
I don’t know if Meghan set up pap strolls before she started dating Harry, but the letter to IPSO was received around the same time as Harry’s public statement asking the media to stop harrassing MM, her mother and especially to stop with the racist articles. A public AND private action.
Soon after that, all unapproved papped pics stopped. Media started giving platforms to the relatives instead as a way around it.
Of the approved pap pics, i truly enjoyed the one taken close to the *DM offices. Talk about trolling them!!!
*unavoidable without careful planning as DM HQ is a skip and a hop from KP.
There were tons of people accusing Meghan of staging the Whole Foods shopping photos at the time they were released. Anyone who was following this blog in the last six months cannot have missed the discussion.
Nic919: That wholefoods is in the same building as the DM HQ. She literally went shopping in tabloid journalism central!!!
FYI: there are several supermarkets along that street. Harry is most often seen at the one furthest away from the wholefoods. I can’t remember a time he has ever been papped entering the wholefoods even though logistically it’s the shortest distance from KP.
I am not saying it wasn’t staged… I just mean that it was certainly brought up on the blog that it was staged. She didn’t escape being called out on that.
They all do pap walks when it suits them you can also see which newspaper and royal journalists are in favour by who’s getting exclusive stories and interviews which is what pisses the press of they are quite happy to intrude into their own lives when it benefits and makes them look good but then complain to ipso when its not on their terms they are entitled to more privacy in the uk then anywhere else you can tell which pics they are because they set a positive narrative kate and william at the rail way station harry doing his own shopping is a case of look they are just like us the harry Meghan getting on the plane to Botswana was a pap walk two it was the second exclusive they gave the sun like shopping for a tree otherwise they would not of made it to press thats why the criticism of Meghan dad pics was so hypocritical
She gave birth and a few hours later she got up and left the hospital. Thus, she is very capable of fitting a few appearances between now and October.
Her older children are in pre-school or full -time school, plus she has a live in nanny and other help. Yes, she should take maternity leave, but take it and considering her lack of work before maternity leave fit in some appearances other than family functions.
Letters from the Duchess on behalf of one her Charities is further evidence of her total disregard of her role.
The Duchess of Cambridge is lazy now and will be a lazy Queen.
Those letters are practically xeroxed year to year for each charity.
Diana suffered from postpartum depression, and it would be a shame if we allowed another royal wife to fall into this black hole just to feed our public appetite. A lot of criticisms thrown at new mothers is because people don’t have a good understanding of maternal health. It doesn’t matter if Kate (or Diana) has a million and one house help. Maternity leave is also about giving a mother enough space & time for her emotional & physical recovery, as well as bonding with her baby. Motherhood affects women in different ways, and royal women are not immune to this.
We need to step back away from this idea that a modern woman has to snap back into shape & return to work almost immediately after giving birth to prove that she is superwoman. If a woman returns to work before she is fully ready then this can be even more detrimental to her mental & physical health.
+1 I’m not sure if it is true, but it was quietly said that the DoC was suffering from postnatal depression with George & Charlotte. She’s taken a healthy interest in post-pregnancy mental health, I wouldn’t be surprised if those rumours were true.
I think it was especially true after George, which is what also seemed to coincide with the mental health initiative that WKH started. It wouldn’t surprise me at all.
Tell to all the working mothers who are paying the bills for Katie Keen’s multiple nannies.
British taxpayers contribute to the lifestyle of every royal not just Kate.
This! Why aren’t they called out too if people feel so strongly about taxpayers footing the bill?
Because. The. Other. Royals. Work. Far more than Kate Middleton ever has, either before marriage or before kids. Many of them are pensioners, a couple of them with serious health issues (Duke of Kent, Princess Alexandra). And W&K take the most perks of any of them, with the 50 room Palace apartment, 10 bedroom country home, millions in taxpayer spent securing the Middleton’s private home.
To refer back to a popular example. Sophie and Edward were not supposed to be working royals. They were doing “some” royal engagements on the side those first few years, but only of their own free will in their spare time. Sophie did more engagements the year she was pregnant with Louise (and both nearly died during delivery) and the year after, all while still running her outside company. And she was married to a man who is no where near the throne.
KM isn’t being asked to do anything that other royals haven’t done. She’s being called on to do the same. As written here often, the bar for her has been lowered so far as to be subterranean.
There is nothing wrong with being a stay at home mom. The problem with Kate is that she puts up the pretense of wanting to be a oh so normal working mom. When really all she wants is to be a stay at home mom. I would have no problem with Kate if she owned up to her true desires instead of phoning it in and then using her pregnancy as a way to manipulate how much is expected of her.
I’m a SAHM and I have a feeling my life is not very similar to the Duchess Kate. Sure, she should have her time off, but please, it’s ridiculous to compare her to us common folk just trying to get through the day with our kids and responsibilities with little to no help.
I don’t think she puts up a pretense, tbh. She hardly does Royal engagements – no pretense there. I think by now, everyone knows she wants to be at home with her babies. She would’ve been so much better off marrying a wealthy man who isn’t in the spotlight.
In the afterglow of this beautiful wedding I’m going to be hopeful. I hope Kate enjoys her maternity leave and then, perhaps spurned on by Meghan’s activities during that leave, she comes back and fulfills her role better than before. Maybe having her fill of three small kids will make her a little more eager to get out and about. She seemed to make a decent number of appearances before her maternity leave, maybe she’s feeling more confident and enjoying it more. There, I’m being positive.
Hear, hear, Minx! 👍🏻
Agree.
kate has been married for 7 years – if she hasnt worked out her schedule by now then she will never do that. she is basically a very lazy woman and that is that. i expected more from her – i thought that both her and william would be doing more engagements than the older royals but it hasnt happened yet
As I said, in the spirit of all the wedding happiness I am being hopeful.
Kate’s whole life is one big maternity leave, so…
This the U.K.’s maternity leave Leave policy…
Statutory Maternity Leave is 52 weeks. It’s made up of:
Ordinary Maternity Leave – first 26 weeks
Additional Maternity Leave – last 26 weeks
Kate can take her time off…and I can CONTINUE to be SICK thinking of the folks in the USA having to go back to work after a couple of weeks or so…and I KNOW of a LOT of women who HAD to do just that!
Speaking of women who go back to work because they are afraid they might lose their jobs, the gold standard for me remains Rashida Dati, then Justice minister of France, who returned to work 5days after the C-section birth of her child. Complete with a pap stroll to show her boss, Sarkozy, she was back to work.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/01/13/article-0-02F9BC09000005DC-293_468x736.jpg
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4163205/French-minister-Rachida-Dati-returns-to-work-five-days-after-giving-birth.html
JAYSUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rachida was (and still is) an incompetent lazy egomaniac who made it sound like women taking their while materny leave were a dead weight for society and productivity. What she did was very dangerous for women’s rights.
That’s why I don’t like it when privileged women very publicly cut short their maternity leave
Coz: i know she’s polarising, but that back to work after only 5 days post C-section is still MVP for me. How the hell did she do it!?!
When has Kate Middleton ever worked the year full-time to earn her maternity leave? The answer is never.
They live off the taxpayers, slurp up the most perks, and refuse to work. How can anyone continue to defend them?
I have no problem with her maternity leave but don’t think it can be compared in any way to a private citizen’s leave. No private citizen has multiple nannies and household staff paid for by their employer.
Kate lives in her own bubble..
paid for by taxpayers
Kate can’t just pop out for one of her engagements. There’s planning and security issues to deal with. Long after everyone on here is retired or dead Kate and William will have to carry on just like the Queen. Ragging on her has become a sport on these threads.
She has a whole office of people who take care of setting up and planning her engagements. This blog is called Celebitchy, if you haven’t noticed. People are already ragging on Meghan, can you believe t? Saying she looks like Wallis Simpson. smh
She does slightly resemble WS in her face structure imo. Is that bad? smh
Ha! If there’s anyone she looks like in the face, it’s Stacey Dash or Pippa! Throwing Wallis and that whole abdication with an American divorcee stuff in there’s shade and you know it. Pot, meet kettle.
Nah, not Stacey Dash! But I do see the resemblance with Pippa.
She looks nothing like Wallis lool.
Granted, both Wallis and Meghan are women, and they have faces, so there’s that.
It is Pippa who looks like Wallis, especially if you can find a rare picture of both of them smiling.
I just wish to repeat the issue is NOT William and Kate having children NOR is the issue maternity or paternity leave NOR is it about being a SAHM NOR is it about bonding. The issue is that both of them (and all of the royals) could not compare their working life and the need to provide for their family to what ordinary folks have to go through, in their PR. Every appearance is planned by normal people like us, who make them (all royals including newly minted Markle) look good. And if it’s sooooo difficult to keep working past 60 for your public funding or you are legitimately mentally unprepared or impaired (anxiety issues are real), step down and get rid of your institution and do your own thing.
It’s unbelievable that some are saying it’s human nature to dislike aspects of your job. It is but doesn’t stop many from being professional and doing it right. Kate did not choose to fall in love with William. William did not choose to be born royal. These are facts but both also have to grow up and see what they are living in, what car they are riding in, which schools their kids are in, who is doing their laundry and cooking after they come back from work, what they are wearing, what they are eating, which hotels they’re staying in, what events they are invited to, which hospital is looking after them etc. Do you have what they have?
Prince Philip, 96
Queen Elizabeth, 92
Prince Charles, 69
Camilla, 70
Princess Alexandra, 81
Duke of Gloucester, 73
Duchess of Gloucester, 71
Duke of Kent, 82
Tell me again why two healthy people in their mid-thirties cannot work more for the family firm?
I would really love an answer to this question, I don’t mind Kate taking time off to bond with her child, but does she think the monarchy will always be there for her? As a royal what does she want to accomplish? What does she want to do? Why doesn’t she seem to care about charities and the public who fund her lifestyles? Why do William and Kate seem lazy? Why does William seem like he doesn’t want to be King even though it seems like a blessing to me. I understand family is important and raising a great family is amazing but honestly it is any wonder why Kate doesn’t get as much respect as she should in her country? Also last question, what do leaders/royals/ foreign leaders ect… think of the Cambridge’s? Do they respect them esp when they tour their country’s?
I still think Willie will dump the crown on Harry as soon as Phil and Liz are gone.
As long as it happens after Charles passes away, William inherits all the private property without paying a penny in tax and walks away an extremely wealthy private citizen. Another way the Windsors dodge the taxman. Any private property that is willed by one monarch to the next monarch is untaxed. Can’t see Carole agreeing to have her grandchildren removed from the line of succession though, as they are the ultimate in Goldsmith ambition made real.
Well Nota, I have always said maybe William was never meant to be King.
@Aurelia, would the Commonwealth and the UK love that?
When the Queen is gone (Philip is only a consort) the crown automatically goes to Charles NOT William. After Charles goes it then goes to William and George after William goes. William can only give up the crown once he gets it and only on his own account. His children then come before Harry.
His children only come before Harry if he doesn’t remove himself before their 18th birthdays. And if the politicians want Throne Idle and his line out, he’s out. See Uncle David.
Yes, the crown automatically passes from HM to Charles (if he is still alive). All private property Charles inherits from HM is tax free. If the monarchy ends with Charles, that tax free pass from monarch to monarch disappears.
@Nota, you really think Harry will become King in the future?
Notasugarhere, no. If William abdicated the crown would go to George. If he was under 18, the most likely thing would be that a regent would be appointed until George was of age.
No, if William ever became king then abdicated, his line would go with him as long as they are under 18. The benefits of the unwritten constitution as has been detailed on here before. The government was going to skip the Duke of York and go with a younger brother when they threw Edward/David out.
The government can do whatever they want, including dumping William and his line. The UK wouldn’t put up with the mess of dealing with a manchild who refused to take on the role while forcing his child in to it. If William walked, it would be all-or-nothing, his line included.
No, I don’t think Harry is going to be king.
I don’t have a problem with Kate or any other new mom taking leave but I’m really tired of the “Kate’s keen to work” old BS. The “royal women take 6 months off” is new BS. While I think leave is fine, I’m not buying the idea that proper bonding requires her to be home with the baby 24/7. While Kate’s “on leave” she’s not available 24/7 to the baby nor are “ordinary hands-on” moms who do things like clean the house, grocery shop, go to church, engage in their regular charitable activities, have a night out with dad, etc. all while “on leave.”
I don’t think there’s much point in comparing leave policies in different places because Kate isn’t the typical mom of 3 anywhere. Most women who are covered by maternity leave policies don’t have the ability to go back to work on a piecemeal schedule of their own choosing. The needs of most workplaces simply can’t accommodate that. So they either are on leave or they aren’t. A typical woman working part-time outside the home before the birth say, 4 days a week, 4 hrs a day, can’t decide to return to work on her own schedule 2 hrs on Monday and Thursday one week, no hours the next week, 1 1/2 hrs the following Wed, nothing the following two weeks, then 2 hrs on a Tues. But Kate could decide to do that. She simply chooses not to.
I agree there is pressure on Kate to look put-together when she’s working. So there is some prep time for events. But few mothers who return to professional jobs outside the home can show up for work in sweats and a ponytail! And most of them don’t have a chauffeur to take them door to door to & from work, don’t have a trusted live-in nanny for the baby, don’t have assistants to help with dressing/picking up dry-cleaning/doing laundry, nor do they have a hairdresser who will come to the home to blow-dry their hair before work.
My test of whether Kate could do occasional events without doing irrevocable damage to Prince Louis is whether she goes to Wimbledon this year. Yes, she’s a patron but she’s a patron of many organizations and we won’t see her at their events this summer and sometimes don’t see her at their events the entire yr. I expect we WILL see her at Wimbledon, I seriously doubt she’ll be wearing sweats, & I expect the youngest prince will not be scarred for life by her brief absence from home!
She had no problem going to Wimbledon for full days when CC was 6 weeks old, and that was before she got to count it as “work”.
I completely support a woman taking a year’s maternity leave. My problem with her is that she’s been on maternity leave her entire life.
You win!
It would be overly cynical of me to suggest that this brand new piece of royal protocol means she’s going to show up to an easy event after 5 1/2 months and receive gushing praise from the press, wouldn’t it.
While I shade Kate for her do-little attitude other times, I don’t care if she took an year off after having her third baby in 4/5 years.
I know she has access to the best help money can get, but the one think I have to say she is really closely bonded to her children. I’ve seen some moms in the more well-to-do parts of town with their nannies and children, and they have absolutely zero interaction with their kids, as in a visible lack closeness with the babies that anyone could pick up on. For all her faults, Kate does seem to have the good mother part down pat, her kids seem very comfortable and at ease with her as well, they don’t look at her and Wills like they are strangers.
One thing I’d like to say, while she doesn’t usually do anything workwise, we don’t know if she mentally recovers fast after childbirth. Especially given the fact she has three kids, and well, Wills doesn’t seem like the nicest of husbands, I wonder if she has other issues at play right now as well.
I guess for now, I’m giving her a pass. Besides with summer around the corner not a lot of the BRF will be doing engagements anyway so doesn’t make a difference if she is out till October.
Fear not, I’m sure she will hardly do much AFTER October though LOL Unless Meghan’s popularity gives her some incentive, but I think the fact that she is the mother to the future King (should the Monarchy last that long), she probably doesn’t care much.
I agree!
So all other royal mothers who manage to have children, have loving relationships with them, and do their royal work are all bad parents? Taking lessons from William’s school of “whatever full-time royal means”?
Maybe it’s just me, but has anyone else forgotten that Kate even exists?
Clearly you haven’t forgotten otherwise you wouldn’t have bothered to click on the title link let alone comment!
Kate’s just boring. Shes had so many chances to do something worthwhile but she hasn’t. Nothing really about her stands out.
It really doesn’t matter if she is boring. I find Queen Mathilde of Belgium to be boring. What matters is whether or not she ever gets off her pampered bum and gets to work.
She’s so boring yet she gets the most comments.
I bet she’ll find time for Wimbledon.
What could explain waity and even willies pre baby delivery flurry of engagements?. Oh that’s right, … Meghan arrived. These narcissists are so transparent and predictable.
Guys, I’m aware Kate didn’t do much after university but waited for a ring but let’s remember she was younger and she probably hoped he’d propose after university which was possible. She really is happy at home, she can step it up. I hate people forget that Kate was the first “commoner” to marry into the BRF and she got lots of media intrusion into her family history. So Meghan is special because of different reason, but Kate was the first. I also hate that here on celebitchy we pretend Kate is dumb. He went to great school and she helped William with his uni. She also excelled at sports. We really love to forget her education and sport activities here. Not to mention, she was papped and was in a difficult spot – she didn’t want to lose William yet her freedom was restrained. Nothing is black or white.
Do you also think that you were wrong about the color of Kate’s dress the first THREE TIMES she wore it and it’s actually yellow?
Or do you think it was dyed yellow even though it looks exactly the same?
If so, you urgently need to google “FANATICISM CURE.”
Prince Andrew’s wife, Sarah Ferguson, was a commoner. So was Prince Edward’s wife, Sophie Rhys Jones. And both of Princess Anne’s husbands, Mark Phillips and Timothy Laurence. That’s three of The Queen’s four children marrying commoners. And in the next generation, Peter Phillips married Autumn Kelly. Kate wasn’t the first.
Sure, she was able to go to good private schools and got into a good university, but she left university about 15 years ago and once she did, her sole purpose in life became keeping hold of William until he proposed. Yes, she probably hoped he’d pop the question earlier, but she did nothing else. She had no other goals. Her whole life revolved around him. The reason she didn’t work wasn’t because of the paps – when she very briefly held the job at Jigsaw, she was offered a discreet exit through the back and chose instead to go out and greet the photographers. She didn’t work because she felt she needed to be at William’s beck and call and be able to come running whenever he called. She had a great start in life and so many opportunities, but what’s happened to her interest in sport or art since? She appears to have dropped them both after finishing university in favour of waiting it out for the ring and hasn’t picked them back up since.
Your last part isn’t true. She’s still evidently very sporty. Not sure about the art!
Well, given Kate’s question about whether Faberge eggs are still made today I’d say the “history” part of her Art History degree was rather weak. These days it seems there is more emphasis on the “art” part as if her degree was in studio art instead– she does watercolors, she sketches, she takes crappy photographs, she drew a house at a crafts event with children & so on. She’s a gifted artist!! I guess the heavy-handed symbolic dressing might be a remnant of her art history training (and adolescence.) Wearing pearl earrings to view Vermeer’s painting? Are you kidding me?
@ Lizabeth This recurrent comment about Fabergé eggs is so silly to me. In the clip she was clearly feeling awkward and babbled. I think we have all said things that don’t fully make sense and that we wish we could rephrase. Besides, her question wasn’t outrageous, as the company still makes variants on the eggs today (as is even said in the clip). Finally, I wonder how people imagine that a degree actually works? You end up knowing a lot about a few areas of specialization, and humanities subjects are usually more about developing analytical skills than learning hard facts. Besides, I doubt that Fabergé would have made it onto her curriculum.
Kate is, by all accounts, neither a great scholar nor a great artist. But I doubt that most people criticizing her are either.
@M, I admit I’m not fully aware of “how a degree works” in the UK. I certainly know how an undergraduate university curriculum works in the US. And I expect the typical student holding an undergraduate degree with a major in art history from a good school would have some grasp of the art of Imperial Russia. I don’t doubt Kate wishes she hadn’t said what she said though.
My main point though was the claims of her great artistic ability–an ability frequently associated with her art HISTORY degree in the media– are way overblown. But Kate & Will contributed to that media hype too, at one point musing about exhibiting her work.
Interesting viewpoint on Meghan and kate
https://www.thedailybeast.com/what-meghan-and-harry-can-teach-william-and-kate
Firstly, everyone without a peerage title is a commoner. Harry stopped being a commoner when he received the peerage title of Duke (of sussex).
That said, if it’s a class thing or even a wealth thing, Kate is not the first to enter the family. Looking at everyone who is middle class or lower or comes from a family without money or connections and attended ordinary schools rather than Kate’s elitist schools and family wealth….
1973 – Mark Philips (married Princess Anne)
1992 – Tim Lawrence (married Princess Anne)
1999 – Sophie Rhys Jones (married Prince Edward)
And that’s not taking into account those that married into the wider family eg Gary Lewis, Autumn Philips, Sophie Winkleman.
The best her defenders can give is, she was okay at sports in middle school? It was silly enough when that was put in her official bio. To continue to use it as an excuse now?
She chose to do nothing but be idle and wait for a man to finally cave and marry her. She was offered multiple jobs where the employers would protect her from paps and she turned them all down. Because all she wanted to do was wait, vacation, groom, and wait wait wait for William to finally marry her.
I don’t know if anyone will even read this since I’m comment 800 on this post, but here goes. Kate’s shopping is always brought up in a negative term. Like she is doing something frivolous. But, shopping and looking good are part of the job. Everything she wears is picked apart. She always looks good. Photography is a huge part of the PR and history for the royals. Those images will endure and there have been some stunning ones of her. She is a mother to a future King. I can’t imagine that pressure. It’s hard to parent a child who doesn’t have their entire future predetermined. To know they will have things said and written about them that are just unkind for no reason. She wants to stay home with them, lucky kids. I also don’t see why her being close to her family is so bad? They are pretty devoted to each other. Isn’t that what family is for? And to all those people putting her down for waiting for William or how they wouldn’t trade their privacy for anything. Well, to that I say, you don’t have to worry about that decision because William didn’t ask you. And I’ve seen women wait for man that didn’t have anything near what William had to offer. Ok, rant over.
Exactly. How dare she go shopping? How dare she have fun while doing it? The pressure is huge and we probably have no clue how hard her life actually is.
Waiting for a decade while William constantly cheated on her, dumped her, took her back, cheated again. She made those choices but no one has to admire her for them.
Gosh, think of all the other professional women in the world who have to shop for professional clothes, groom, get to the dry cleaners, and prepare for work at the end of their 10 hour work day. When they’re picking kids up from day care, making dinner, cleaning the house, and still putting in hours of work a day at home after the work day is over.
Honestly. So many excuses, so little time. She is the one who has chosen to spend 1 million in taxpayer money on clothing in the last 7 years for less than 1000 hours of work total. She chooses to make it about her clothes, not about the work (of which there is precious little).
In summary:
Mat leave is good.
Royal Mat leave from barely working bad.