Royal commentator: Duchess Kate’s pregnancies give her an excuse not to work

Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, is accompanied by Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, as she walks onto Centre Court to present the Wimbledon Men's Singles trophy.London, United Kingdom - Sunday July 14th, 2019.

I don’t think I’ve ever said that the Duchess of Cambridge *only* gets pregnant to avoid work. I’ve never said it because I don’t believe it. I think she’s had three babies because she loves babies, she loves her young family, and she loves being a mom. Kate also loves that her children are natural buffers from criticism – if anyone tries to talk sh-t about her or her work ethic, lo and behold, she makes an appearance with the kids. But I also think she loves avoiding work too, and her pregnancies and maternity leaves are great excuses for her to retire to the country and cancel all of her events. I’ve been saying that for years. Other people have been saying that for years. But I guess it’s fine for royal reporters and commentators to finally say it out loud too:

Kate Middleton could try for a fourth child as she “doesn’t enjoy being at the forefront of royal duties”, according to a royal commentator. The Duchess of Cambridge, 37, already has her hands full with Prince George, six, Princess Charlotte, four, and one-year-old Prince Louis, but could add to her royal brood.

Speaking to Fabulous Digital, royal commentator Phil Dampier said: “It wouldn’t surprise me if they had a fourth child. Not only does she love family life in Norfolk, to be honest it gives her an excuse to not be at the forefront of royal duties for a bit longer, which I don’t think she enjoys. I think Kate’s been interacting with the public and doing very well recently, but from what I’m told she’d rather be at home with the children.”

Phil said he was initially surprised that the duke and duchess opted to have more than two children but speculated it was “very much down to her as she came from a family of three”. Now Phil said it wouldn’t shock him if the couple were keen to have another girl, so Princess Charlotte would have a sister. Phil advised: “A fourth one could mean she’d have two girls and two boys. This would mean a sister for Charlotte but also a child who is a similar age to Louis, so that would be a nice dynamic.”

The royal expert said Kate is also friendly with Princess Mary of Denmark, who has four children of her own – two boys and two girls between the ages of 13 and eight. He said: “Not saying she models herself on her, but they get on well and she’s seen how she’s coped with it well.”

[From The Sun]

I think he’s right? I mean, “it gives her an excuse to not be at the forefront of royal duties for a bit longer,” is just a posh way of saying she doesn’t like to work outside of the home. Which would be fine if she was a stay-at-home mom, but seeing as how she’s the Future Queen and all… oh well. Anyway, I’ve been saying for months now that Kate would get pregnant again. I felt that in my bones once the Duchess of Sussex announced her pregnancy – Kate would not want her baby-making thunder to be stolen! Plus, Kate and William both will still want to change the narrative away from “marriage problems” and “affairs” and “Rose Hanbury.” Hell, I could even war-game a scenario where Kate uses William’s (alleged) affair with Rose as an argument to have another baby.

Britain's Prince William and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, visit North Wales

Britain's Prince William and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, visit North Wales

Photos courtesy of WENN, Backgrid, Avalon Red.

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

317 Responses to “Royal commentator: Duchess Kate’s pregnancies give her an excuse not to work”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Digital Unicorn says:

    To be fair she has seemed more relaxed and engaged at her events, gone are the days of her looking like a rabbit in headlights pressing her hands against her crotch (before you flame me for that comment, look back at the photo’s – the evidence is right there). But yeah she has always wanted to be a stay at home trophy wife/mother – like William she is only interested in the status, wealth and privilege that comes with being a royal but not the actual work/duties that come with it.

    William will probably do more but Kate won’t – the ‘effort’ she puts in now is it. There is and won’t be anything more. There never has been any substance to her or anything she does – never will be. She’s all fluff and photo ops.

    And yeah she’ll be pregnant again by the end of the year.

    PS I wonder if KP will come out swinging about this, like they did over the botox story.

    • BeanieBean says:

      Her hands are still there–look at that first photo. Her left hand let go briefly, but her right has remained in place.

    • Nahema says:

      @Digital Unicorn – I agree with all of that. She’s doing better and trying harder but I don’t think a life in the public eye is what she ever wanted. Status and privilege for sure but not the spotlight. Also to be completely fair to her, lots of women are not career women and are most happy in the home. I don’t think that has to be a bad thing but due to the fact that they receive such a lot of money from tax payers, I would love to see all of the younger royals doing considerably more work.

      • notasugarhere says:

        She has no problem being in the spotlight at movie premieres or yachting with Ben Ainslie. It is when she has to show up and act professional at a serious charity that she isn’t interested.

      • Nibbi says:

        It’s just that she seems to have campaigned & hung in there so long & hard to get in there. the whole “Waity Katy” thing… seems she’d have known what her life w him would entail.

      • norah says:

        she has no issues mixing with celebs or fluff engagements but anything that resembles actual hard work she is always MIA. lazy woman – what does she think will happen later on? princess mary is the crown princess of denmark – she doesnt get to stay home and look after her kids she has her duties – why has the british press not called out kate for her laziness when they have no issues with attacking meghan?

      • Montrealaise says:

        Her lavish lifestyle is supported by taxpayers, so not performing royal duties is not an option. Can you imagine if someone told her employer “I won’t be coming in to work because I’d rather be a stay-at-home mom, but I expect you to continue paying me my salary”?

  2. Seraphina says:

    Thanks Captain obvious. I would like that job. Come to think of it Kate’s will do as well. He’s stating the obvious, but it’s hilarious to see someone being vocal about it. And while I understand being a mother is not easy, I have three. Let’s all be real here, Kate has a lot of help. She simply doesn’t like the working part of being a royal. After all these years, it’s very clear.

    • Becks1 says:

      Right. Its not like she was setting the court circular on fire with her engagements before having kids.

      • Maevo says:

        Exactly! Look at all the years pre-engagement and the Angelsey years. She just doesn’t like working. The kids now give her a shield/excuse from that criticism. She was more than happy to be away from her kids for multiple hours at a time when it was for Wimbledon – being at tennis is the most happy and engaged we ever see her! She just doesn’t have causes she cares about innately. She likes her family and her leisure.

      • Anon says:

        Why are you bringing up Wimbledon for? Last year was good times on here when she was roasted for showing up to Wimbledon on her maternity leave. If you have a problem with that, I take it you also have a problem with duchess M showing up for Wimbledon and the movie premiere because she looked positively happy at both being away from her baby.

      • Maevo says:

        I love seeing all the royals, including Kate, at Wimbledon! It’s half the reason I watch! My point is she doesn’t mind making appearances, it seems like she just doesn’t like the charity work stuff very much and prefers her sporty rich person stuff.

      • Wigletwatcher says:

        To speak to working when she wants…
        There was a yacht/sailing event. I think at least george was born. Maybe Charlotte also. The weather was horrible and the event was cancelled, but will and kate insisted on keeping it open. Meaning no public was there. No sailing. Just will and kate getting photos with the celebs of their sport/job.

        Kate gets full time pay and benefits for not even part time work. She’s not existing off of private funds of her own or William’s. And if it can be written to taxes it is. These aren’t hidden facts.

  3. Chica71 says:

    Why doesn’t she simply commit to doing an event in am a couple times a week when kids are in school? Finish by noon and home…Rocket Science?

    • Fallon says:

      I’ve been saying this for years. Once Louis is in nursery, she can request her schedule work around the kids. Her patronages would have happy to have her at any time and would accommodate.

    • notasugarhere says:

      It would be easy for her to fit in several hundred engagements a year if she did that. She doesn’t want to.

    • Nic919 says:

      She could go to EACH once a week when they are at Anmer since it is in Norfolk. She just doesn’t want to.

    • Becks1 says:

      Yup, she could absolutely do this. Do an event or two 3 days a week while the kids are in school. But, she doesn’t.

    • Meg says:

      This is why kate & will and meg & harry split their charity, Kate and will don’t want to work but meg and harry do

    • Spicecake38 says:

      Yep,in all seriousness this would make her more relatable to moms(even though her having a lot of help is something most moms don’t have)Three days a week she could show up in professional attire while dropping off the kids and then go spend 3 hours at a charity,she could actually work and get some good pr-simple.She could be just like us…🙄

      • lizziebee says:

        Diana used to do this…She would be photographed taking the kids to school in the morning and then later on be photographed at a Public Engagement. She would do at least 3 Public Engagements a week. However she WAS the Princess of Wales and Kate is only a Duchess, albeit married to the 2nd in line to the throne. I think she could make more of an effort…

    • Deedee says:

      I suspect that one, she doesn’t want to, and two, it takes hours to do her makeup and her hair blowouts and updos, so it’s not a matter of handing the children over to the nannies for an hour or two while they nap. If she adopted a lower maintenance hairstyle, then should could do more events.

      • notasugarhere says:

        She has the hair done the day before. See her skipping out on the Irish Guards, then showing up for an engagement the next day with new cut and colour. She’d spent the Irish Guards event day at the salon.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        nota, agree with you 100% but how long does it take get to get one’s hair done at the salon? Why can’t Kate book a 9:00 am hair appointment, be out of saloon no later than 1:00 pm then do an engagement from 2-4:00 pm? This is not the invasion of Normandy. The logistics are not difficult.

      • Spicecake38 says:

        This just makes me think about how terribly bad I need my hair done,could I be a duchess for just a day 👑Please!

      • notasugarhere says:

        The guy who was fired after the wiglet outing? She was regularly there for three+ hours with him working on her hair.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        @Bay: giving that Kate get both a dye job done and wiglets added that is not a quick job and does take pretty much most of the day. For me to get a full head dye job and trim take about 3.5 hours with the same hairdresser I have used for years (I have longish thick hair). If its just a blow out then thats a few hours but given how freshly coloured her hair always looks that indicates to me that she gets regular touch ups. Kate also has a hairdresser who comes to her at KP as well as visiting the salon’s. Twitter is a great place to celeb stalking as there was a period there where eagle eyed twitter users spotted her regularly visiting an upscale hair salon (I think it was in Knightsbridge of Kensington).

        As discussed in yesterday’s botox thread, Kate spends a lot of time and money on her appearance.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @DU, I did not realize that Cathy Cambridge had wiglets and/or extensions. I have thin hair so I can get a color, deep condition and blowout in 2.0 to 2.5 hours if my hairdresser in not distracted.

      • Moneypenny says:

        I mean, she doesn’t get a dye job every week, right? Or before every event? Regular maintenance is one thing, styling for work or a basic event should take way less time.

      • Chica71 says:

        She can talk to ANNE! Strpng work ethic givea a pass on bad fashion and promotes sense of gravitas. Duh

      • Abby says:

        @digital unicorn, you don’t need to get your hair cut and colored for every appearance. I would think MAX, every 4 weeks.

    • minx says:

      I would really enjoy getting dressed in beautiful clothes and going places where people are looking forward to seeing you. You meet some people, talk, then you can go home and spend time with your kids who have been well cared for in your absence. Sounds pretty great to me, the best of all possible worlds.

      • Seraphina says:

        @minx, THIS! Meanwhile us normal moms worry about day care and if our children are getting the best care in our absence. All while worrying about dinners and who will take the kids to activities and all the “other duties as assigned” part of motherhood.

      • Green Desert says:

        Agreed with both of you, that would be nice. The valid criticism of her though is that more is expected of her because of her role. But I do think she has been more visible lately.

      • RehanaZehr says:

        I know plenty of stay at home mothers who do this; my mother did this whilst we were young and she has continued. I’ll be doing the same too. So I’m not sure why people here think participating with different charities; volunteering for causes close to your heart; showing up and helping people, is a only a duchess/royal thing. Many SAHM do the same. All the “i’ll take her job” comments are slightly weird because you can do this if you wanted to… Some SAHM also have a nanny, cleaner, housekeeper to help. It’s not unusual for us regular degular people to have help. Yes I know this is called privilege but many people are blessed with the privilege to be able to enjoy their life at home with their kids and also do things for charity. It depends on the person you marry tbh. So if you want this life, there’s nothing stopping you. If anything, this just shows Kate’s ambition and also Meghan’s; they knew what they wanted and they went for it. By being a Meghan fan, you can learn from her, I guess. And if you like Kate and want a similar life (of course on a less grander scale, after all, she is a royal), go for it as well. Nothing is handed to you in life, make the most of your opportunities.

      • A says:

        @RehanaZehr, no offence, but you sound incredibly tone deaf. Telling people who don’t have the same opportunities that you have clearly had in life (having grown up with a SAHM who can afford help) that they should “make the most of their opportunities” and that it all “depends on the person you marry” reflects really poorly on you. Yes, plenty of SAHM might have the chance to do this, but the number of people who have to work to put food on the table far outnumber those women, and shrugging off the disparity and the lives of these people in favour of telling them that there’s “nothing stopping them” from simply getting richer by marrying the right person is terribly rude.

      • Trashaddict says:

        I totally agree, A. Rude, not to mention, totally backward.
        I work 60 hour weeks. I “married the right guy” but it wasn’t to live off him like some parasite.

    • AnnaKist says:

      It’s simple. Cathy and Bill are a pair of lazy buggers. And people are noticing.

    • A says:

      If there are 52 weeks in a year, and she did 1 engagement every day, 5 days a week, that’s 260 engagements. If she did 2, that would be 520 engagements a YEAR, which is quite easily up there with Charles and Anne in terms of numbers.

      And that’s 2 engagements a day, five days a week. If we factor in one hour at each engagement, one hour max to get to each engagement, and maybe 1.5 hrs to get ready (and I’ve being generous, I feel, with these numbers), that’s around 5.5 hrs in an 8 hr work day. That’s still probably part time hours, no?

      • Anance says:

        Agreed. But for the Duchess to look like Kate Middleton takes time, money and effort. All the beauty maintenance she does — skin care, hair dressing, dental, exercise, chef-based special diet, dress sourcing and fittings – easily accrues to 30 hours a week.

        To that add the time to get ready for an engagement – professional hair and makeup, dressing, etc. IMO, at least 4 hours just for a one time look. Imagine reviewing a speech, studying the in-and-outs of the visit, etc. as well.

        Methinks Kate avoids public appearances to cut down on beauty-related work. It’s her choice to always appear perfect.

      • notasugarhere says:

        All that effort yet cannot put in hem weights? It is her choice to focus on her appearance instead of substance.

      • A says:

        @Anance, getting ready for daily engagements does not take four hours, and if it does, then that’s a waste and the person is being scammed. I’d argue that it takes that long for evening events like red carpets or state dinners and what not, but Kate does maybe one or two of those every few months, which would just qualify as overtime for the rest of us.

        If she’s on a special diet, it’s not like she’s the one cooking and meal planning them. It might take her twenty minutes at most to talk to her chef about meal options. The hair dressing, similarly, would be once a week if she’s going to a professional, but daily, it wouldn’t take that long at all. The only ones out of these that might take some time are the dress sourcing and fittings.

        And for all that perfection, she often doesn’t look as good. The Queen does more engagements than she does, and dressing her is a solid effort, and yet she’s managed to hire the correct people who can do the work for her with minimum time and fuss (Angela Kelly). Kate can surely do the same, no?

      • February Pisces says:

        What a lot of royals do if they have to travel outside of London is book as many engagements in that day to get the most out of it. Say if she visited manchester she would do around 6 visits at an hour a piece. If she packed all her engagements into one day a week, leaving her with 6 days off, she would double her numbers on the CC. However she very rarely travels around the uk for engagements, it’s either London or an exotic location abroad. The CC is bollocks anyway, a lot of Harry’s numbers are dumbed down whilst the Cambridge’s are bumped up. All of Harry’s work with invictus games and sentable, his own chairties, are not even counted. But according the the Kate Middleton review, her engagements included getting papped at an airport and going to the lindo Wing to give birth. As for the beauty thing, I think that’s probably the one thing she enjoys, so getting ready isn’t a problems, it’s just doing the work that is.

    • Redgrl says:

      @chica – this. Been saying this for ages too. Few hours a day, couple of days a week. Sad that the bar is so low for her we see this as an improvement!

  4. Marjorie says:

    Kate said in public that she is feeling very “broody,” so I agree she’ll be pregnant again this year. Babies make her happy, and every new issue puts all the other royals more distant in the line of succession, so that makes William happy (or something like happy).

    • Millennial says:

      I doubt they have putting Harry further away in line in mind, but I think your comment speaks true to the competition between them.

      It continues to baffle me that Will in particular doesn’t examine his relationship with Harry (or Charles with Andrew) and realize that dynamic will play out again with his own children. You’d think he’d treat Harry better to set an example.

    • M says:

      No matter how many children Will and Kate have, the truth is that Harry and Meghan will be needed as the older royals begin to retire and pass away. I seriously doubt Will and Kate want to be the only working royals.

      • starryfish29 says:

        If there’s one thing that’s for sure, it’s that W&K don’t want to take on more work, they’ll take as many people as they can to spread it around.

      • notasugarhere says:

        “Will and Kate don’t want to be working royals”

        Fixed that for you.

  5. aquarius64 says:

    Kate is a future queen which means more is expected of her. This is throwing major shade to compare her to Meghan, the wife of the “unimportant” sixth in line to the throne, who wants to work and still does behind the scenes while on maternity leave.

    • Melissa says:

      I agree. I always thought it was silly to compare Will and Kate to Harry and Meghan. The Cambridges should be compared to Charles and Camilla. They are the future. The excuse is always something about raising children, but let’s not pretend like royal work is hard. They spend about an hour or less at an event, and then they are done for the day.

      • Mom2mom says:

        Exactly. How difficult is it to walk around a site and talk to people, maybe cut a ribbon or two? I would trade my work for this kind of work any day.

      • ktoplay says:

        Boring Bill is too busy in Rose’s garden to work.

      • Moneypenny says:

        @Mom2mom I totally agree. I actually find it offensive. We have 2 young daughters. I am a full time lawyer and my husband is a full time CPA. My life would be laughably easy with so much help and only doing 2 hours of “work” daily. Everyone else in the world manages to do this with much less help and much less money.

      • Trashaddict says:

        To be honest, I would find the work difficult, having to be “on” all of the time, even when you don’t feel like it, to dress up to expectations, to make pleasantries, listen to speeches etc. It’s not much work, but it’s probably not very exciting work on some days. That being said, Kate went into this marriage knowing full well the expectations, so no pity party here.

    • Marigold says:

      Let’s be sure to put it in perspective. What any of these people do is hardly work, even Meghan.

      • Sunnee says:

        Let’s put it in perspective: charity work is not only meet and greet. It’s identifying charities and causes to work with, meeting with those community partners, coming up with innovative solutions to get the light to shine on causes charities, and working on ways to get donors’ money and attention to those charities.
        To say that charity/ non profit work is not real work bugs me. Yes, sometimes people just phone it in, but sometimes it takes real work. I’m sure Invictus takes more time from Harry than just showing up. Same can be said for Sentebale.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Again with belittling the work of all other royals to try to excuse Kate’s intrinsic laziness.

        Tell it to 800,000 people who have received job training and started their own businesses because of The Prince’s Trust. It would not be what it is today if Charles hadn’t hit the pavement, constantly schmoozed donors, and made it happen.

      • Anon says:

        It’s not only meet and greets for people who actually “work” in the non-profit sector. Very true, but these people aren’t doing any of the actual work. Their efforts are literally quantified by the number of engagements or meet and greets they do.

      • Nic919 says:

        When your patronage needs to hire Ed Sheeran because you do so little, then you aren’t even doing the bare minimum that other royals do.

      • Algernon says:

        @ Sunnee

        You’re talking about actual, day to day NGO work, which yes, is real work. Will and Kate don’t want to do that work, but they still have to make appearances, which is just showing up to someone else’s fair and cutting a ribbon. That is hardly work. Kate could cut five ribbons a week and still be home for family dinners, she doesn’t because she is unmotivated.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Algernon – I think that’s what makes me laugh. There is so much insistence that “the royals aren’t even doing real work” but if its so easy and just cutting ribbons, why cant Kate even do that? It’s an argument that just ends up making Kate look ever lazier. Its not real work! Kate still wont do it!!!

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Who is Ed Sheeran and what does he do to get hired by Bill & Cathy?

      • Becks1 says:

        @Bay lol I think we talked about this yesterday but in case you missed the follow-up – there was a charity event (I think Nota or DigitalU said it was for EACH) and Kate was supposed to go and at the last minute backed out, so they called in Ed Sheeran for the star power. There’s also a ROSE WHO connection there.

        (ed sheeran is a pretty big pop star right now.)

      • notasugarhere says:

        150+ million records sold.

        Kate ducking out of the first public EACH fundraising gala, Sheeran had to be called in last minute to cover her absence. She was happy to lord it over the turnip toffs at the EACH fundraiser from Rose and Rocksavage at their home, but couldn’t bother to show up for the official public Gala.

        That is how pathetic she is as a patron. Her charities have to turn to other famous people to do Kate’s job.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        @Nota: Lets add that we would not have the opportunity to feast our eyes on Big Dris (Idris Elba) without the Princes Trust. He has been very open and vocal about what the Princes Trust did for him and his life/career, and why he does a lot for it in return.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Becks1, Now I understand. I knew there was a pop singer by that name but did not think posters were referring to that “Ed Sheeran”. Cathy’s behavior toward EACH is one of the many reasons for me believing that the Turnip Toffs took Rose’s side.

        Everyone I have ever come in contact with from Norfolk (several but not many) have always stated how respected and well liked the Cholmondeley’s are when I ask about the alleged affair. My Norfolk friends have also stated that they do not see Bill Cambridge as being Rose’s type.

        @DU, “He has been very open and vocal about what the Princes Trust did for him and his life/career, and why he does a lot for it in return”

        Which is the way it should be and is why people really like/love the Prince Charles and Idris Elba.

        Chucky set up a charity and people who benefited from the charity are “paying it forward” so more people may benefit from the charity. I cannot understand why William as POW would not want to take over the Prince’s Trust to make sure it continues in the future. Them again, David Linley is probably a better choice to head the Prince’s Trust.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        @NOTA: I thought that gala was at Houghton Hall?!? I guess I got my events mixed up but yeah pretty much most of the fund raising events for EACH has been organised by Rose Who and her husband.

        Not a massive fan of Ed’s music but he does a LOT for charities. He did a specific gig in Brighton (I think) that raised £50k alone for an out reach charity that helps sex workers on the street. He has also been known to donate clothing he has worn in video’s and performances to charity auctions. He’s done a lot for EACH since he got involved. He’s a good egg.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @DU, Is Ed originally from Norfolk or does he just live there now after hitting it big? Either way, he sounds like a great guy.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        @Bay: Not sure where he is from originally but he lives in a lovely medieval town called Framlingham in Suffolk and its about 60 miles from Kings Lynn in Norfolk (about a 2 hour drive).

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @DU, If Ed is not originally from Norfolk, I would wager money he is friends with Rose Who? and David Rocksavage.

      • Becks1 says:

        @DU – this I know! the EACH fundraising dinner was held at Houghton Hall in…2016? That’s the one with Kate in the Jenny Packham and Rose in the Valentino dress. But this was a different event – maybe that winter? held in London and it was more of a “gala” event and Kate bailed. It was supposed to be the biggest fundraiser of the year for EACH and Kate…..bailed.

      • Becks1 says:

        Also, isn’t Ed Sheeran the one Eugenie (or Beatrice?) accidently cut with a sword? Like it was a party and the princess was being fun and play-acting knighting someone and the sword slipped. I thought that was Sheeran.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Becks YES the sword incident was with Ed Sheeran — I had forgotten about that and now I’m laughing hysterically! Isn’t there a photo of it floating around somewhere? I want to find it now 😂

        Anyway yes as you said the gala that EACH asked Ed to step in was a different one than the one at Houghton Hall. I think Kate just wrote a letter for the program instead of deigning to attend.

        There was also a story about her donating some sort of basket to an auction but no one wanted to bid on it? I don’t remember the details but someone here will. It was notable because, again, it was an event for one of her patronages that she didn’t show up for and only sent some crappy basket (which some speculated she’d received when she had George and regifted!!).

      • notasugarhere says:

        Someone gave them a gift basket of baby things for their first child. She turned around and donated that to the charity, rather than taking the effort to do something more personal that would have brought in money for the charity.

    • norah says:

      kate and william have been married for 8 years so far – and still havent done the same number of engagements every single year that charles and camilla do. they are lucky that they have so much help and if they really wanted to make a difference they cd have arranged their time tables to accomodate everything but they dont and havent

  6. Melissa says:

    I think Kate mostly wants to be a stay-at-home mom who occasionally does a couple of engagements each month. The hype of the garden was a way to make it appear as if she did a lot a work this year, but more people are calling her and Will out for their low numbers.

    The younger royals should step it up, but it seems like they enjoy doing bigger, flashier projects. The older royals travel more and do more community engagements each week.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      The hype around the garden was in response to Meghan’s well received work.

    • notasugarhere says:

      She’s not doing the work of a stay at home parent, let’s not pretend that. That’s why she has the housekeepers and nannies. So she can shop, go to the hairdresser, work out.

      • RehanaZehr says:

        I already said this up thread but anyway you can be a SAHM and have extra help. There’s no pretending! If SAHM are fine with doing everything, good for them. However, with daily life being hectic for anyone, extra help with a nanny, gardener, housekeeper, etc. just makes life a little easier. Also, employing help isn’t as expensive as some people think. Kate is quite relatable in the non royal sense because she is like many mums who SAH, do charity work/volunteer, and have help. This all comes down to individual circumstances. I was born and raised an hour and a half away from London, her lifestyle is the same as many country mothers, on a less lavish scale.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Quite relatable to women who appear to marry for money, as evidenced by your post upthread.

        Two housekeepers, three nannies, cooks, cleaners, and Kate spending most of her time with the personal trainer, shopping, and at the hair dressers. Not doing the day to day care of the kiddos. All funded by taxpayers.

      • Becks1 says:

        I cant believe someone is trying to claim that multiple nannies and other staff makes someone “relatable.” Maybe in a certain exclusive circle, but not to the general public.

      • Nic919 says:

        Flashing is okay if you are hot..says the new handle who defends being rich, lazy and a social climber.

    • Becks1 says:

      I said that at the time and people yelled at me, lol. There was so much hype around the garden and it made it seem like she was doing a lot more work than she actually was.

      • Seraphina says:

        @Becks, I agreed with you. I was like: a garden and it’s getting THIS much hype???? Good grief. You were spot on with your comments

      • Nic919 says:

        We have been saying this for years but suddenly new handles pop up here and start pretending that what’s been happening since 2011 isn’t happening again.

      • notasugarhere says:

        New pro-Kate handles who want to take down another Kate-critical site.

    • Algernon says:

      There is nothing wrong with wanting to be a SAHM. However, if all you want is to be a SAHM, don’t also sign up to be the queen of England. That is a role that comes with a lot of expectations and responsibility. I have said and will continue to say that Kate overshot the mark. She should have gone for a title, not the crown. If she’s a private citizen, no one would care if she’s lazy and does nothing all day, every day. But as a royal she is expected to justify her life of wild privilege with good works, and she can barely bothered to do that. If the British monarchy fails in our lifetime, it will be because of Will and Kate’s laziness.

      • RehanaZehr says:

        Yes, I actually agree with this. Royals’ do need to show up regularly for engagements. It’s clear Kate wanted a title, but she should have gone for a private title, I think she would have been far happier.

    • Pineapple says:

      RehanaZehr your comments, I hope you understand that your “individual circumstances” make you privileged and extremely lucky. Living an hour or so from London and volunteering and having a gardener. I hope you realize that you are living, what people in this neck of the woods call The American Dream. Please, please, please refrain from thinking this is normal and attainable for most. Please.

  7. Cidy says:

    I think that the media and we think harder about duchess Kate than she does. I dont think “I’m going to have a baby so I dont have to work.” Was a thought, I think she loves children. Does she have the best ever work ethic? Nooooo. But none of these people do! They get paid to show up. Let’s not forget that. The real hard work of all these events is never the work of the royal.

    We have all been saying that she probably has baby fever, she’ll get pregnant again soonish probably. But I truly think it’s because she loves kids and loves her kids, and wants to have a lot of kids.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Sophie did 200+ engagements the year she nearly died having Louise, when Sophie wasn’t even an official working royal.

      There’s acknowledging many aspects of royal work are easier than most jobs, then there’s admitting the truth that Kate is incredibly lazy and always has been. And that it is not acceptable.

      This always amuses me about Kate stans, people belittling the work of all other royals to try to justify her laziness. William and Kate have no problem taking enormous perks for royal work, while refusing to do the work all the others do in exchange for those perks.

      • Anitas says:

        Sophie also badly needed to rehabilitate herself, her scandals were way worse than anything Kate ever did. She knows what she needs to do to keep her status. And the competition of who cut their maternity leave shorter is incredibly damaging to women’s rights. Even if we are talking about royals.

        There’s acknowledging that Kate should do a lot more with her platform, then there’s insinuating that she’s popping out children so she shouldn’t have to cut ribbons. And that is not acceptable.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Sophie’s “scandal” was a tabloid sting of a whole lot of nothing (see Fergie and Andrew’s actual scandals in comparison). The Queen listened to the tapes and forgave Sophie everything. At that point, they had divorced-and-widowed Charles, divorced and Randy Andy, Anne and her extra-marital affair. The Royals ended up having to turn Edward and Sophie into Happily Married Working Royals to rehab their own image, not Sophie’s.

        Sophie was a self-made woman who worked hard. That was going to continue post-marriage, and would have been with her own business if the tabloids hadn’t deliberately set out to get her. Compare that to Kate’s 15 years of laziness, partying, her merching family, her laziness, and her overall ineptitude and refusal to improve? No contest, Sophie comes out on top every time.

        LOL trying to spin Kate’s laziness into an issue of women’s rights? Sophie worked 200+ engagements the year she was expecting and the following year after she nearly died giving birth. Because Sophie knows what it is to do a job in exchange for pay/perks. Kate has NEVER cracked 200 engagements a year, pre-or-post kids, so the maternal/women’s rights argument doesn’t fly here.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “her merching family”

        What is the UK definition of “merching”? I want to make sure I understand correctly as Meghan is constantly accused on other sites for “merching”.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Kate’s family makes money off selling royal-related party supplies, along with items made by child labour in Mexico and sexualized costumes for little kids.

        I’m sure Kate fans will defend them, but it is TACKY for them to sell Baby Princess and Royal Wedding supplies. If we’re to believe PP is successful (LOL), they could easily afford to let their competitors beat them out in royal-related items.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @nota, When I think of “merching” I think of a compensated arrangement between two parties.

        Example: Mr. Big Time designer person gives me five complete outfits of my choice and I must wear them to high profile functions and get photograph.

        Example: Some Swiss watch company sends me two expensive watches, in order to keep the two watches I must show up to some charity function they are sponsoring and get photographed wearing the watches…one on each wrist! LOL!

      • Deedee says:

        Just send a piece of jewelry to Pippa and then watch it show up around Kate’s neck. Voila! Merch!

      • Cidy says:

        I wasnt belittling the work of other royals and I’m not a Kate “stan” I dont stan the royals at all because their jobs are ridiculous and they should be obsolete. My whole point was, I dont think that she sat there twiddling her thumbs thinking of ways not to work, I think she just wanted to have another baby.

      • notasugarhere says:

        She has spent most of her adult life avoiding work, including twiddling her thumbs 3X a week at the hairdresser. With kids gives her more excuses, laughable excuses for which some people defend her.

      • RehanaZehr says:

        Baytampabay, I am not sure nota is British? I might be wrong but her wording/arguments don’t sound British in the slightest. No offence! Oh and merching is basically famous people being paid to advertise/merch material things in return for the brands worldwide/specific country exposure. So, they don’t need to pay for items, they just need to advertise them by wearing clothes, shoes, sunglasses, whatever else, for a specific label or brand. I do remember Kate’s engagement dress being used in this way, the label got a huge amount of worldwide exposure and if Pippa did the same thing, I wouldn’t call that a scandal. When you’re in the public/celebrity eye, brands flock to you and it’s easy to make money on the side. I do remember seeing Meghan doing this during the dating days (she wasn’t official, it didn’t matter then) but I don’t believe she is doing it anymore. The Duchy of Cornwall pays for everything she buys, like the other ‘young’ Royals.

    • Erinn says:

      Yeah, I doubt she’s having babies to specifically avoid working. I think she’s having babies because she loves babies, the less work is just a bonus.

      • Molly says:

        Yep, this. STFU, Phil.

      • Mego says:

        I remember when she was horribly awkward with kids during engagements – times she showed up late, inappropriately dressed and exiting as quickly as possible.. Also you don’t see her reaching out and hugging kids and babies, particularly disadvantaged kids with horrible diseases (I remember Diana). Diana genuinely loved kids. No picture of her at the polo match holding baby Archie or even getting close to him for that matter.

        No Kate is not a great lover of babies and kids. I suspect she enjoys spending some time with her kids but the professional nanny (ies) does most of the dirty work.

      • Vv says:

        @Mego She’s even accused by “fans” of the other couple to stage hugs with children for PR.. What you say about her refusing contact is absolutely not true.
        Recently she was photographed happily tickling a girl’s foot,because she asked her to do it. Well,according to someone she was hamming it up for PR and invading her space. Think about it.

      • Mego says:

        Vv, I didn’t say she “refuses contact” because I’m sure that isn’t true. It’s just like with all things Kate she doesn’t put forth much effort in her encounters or her charity work to convince me that she has this great love of kids. The fact that she has three children doesn’t either because, hired help. To be fair I don’t recall her ever claiming that she did but people seem very willing to ascribe it to her without much evidence.

      • Vv says:

        @Mego I disagree. She’s clearly the most comfortable and happy during her engagements with children. It’s obvious to me that her experience as a mother has made a great difference in her approach. And her interactions with her own children can’t be faked either,whatever help she gets. She actually looks a very hands on mother.
        I don’t really get why we’re even questioning the relationships with her children now..

  8. Laura says:

    My supervisor was talking trash about another co-worker, saying that basically the same thing and that it “must be nice having half your career be maternity leave.” Different situations/jobs, of course, but I think it’s a sh*tty thing to say about someone.

    • M says:

      I hate to say this, but someone has to pick up the slack and do extra work when an employee takes leave. I understand the frustration because a lot of companies just pile all the work on one or two people. This causes a lot a bitterness and resentment against women in the workplace.

      • Nancypants says:

        M, say it but I have to say my biz partner gave one of our guys 2 months PATERNITY leave recently and then we found out his wife took the baby and other kid to her family in Arizona for a month.

        We could have used the help.
        I asked him why he didn’t go with them and he said, “Well, I needed to care for the house and the dog.”
        Bullsh*t and anytime someone isn’t pulling their weight, it falls on everyone else to take up the slack.
        It isn’t just women.

        Now that I said that, I’ll say this: I WISH I could have been a stay-at-home mom and had one more but it wasn’t an option and I had that puking-your-guts-up pregnancy thing as well, so, if I had her money and all, I’d be a stay-at-home mom too, however, the others are right in saying she could show up for an hour or so a few times per week for a good cause.
        It’s just an hour here and there.

        And I’m not getting into the whole, “being a stay-at-home mom is so hard” thing.
        Working 40-50 hours per week and being a mom is HARD.
        It’s two full-time jobs but I think Kate will have another and put up with whatever is dealt her because she’s been working for this her entire adult life.

      • Kate says:

        That’s why giving men parental leave and encouraging them to take it is so important IMO. If every new parent is taking parental leave and needing coverage, the bitterness/resentment is (or at least should be) less targeted towards women.

      • Betsy says:

        @nancypants – no doubt having a paid job outside the home is challenging when you have kids, but if you’ve never spent every day with your kids, don’t shoot off your mouth disparaging it.

      • Nancypants says:

        @Betsy, I did.
        I did 22 years in the US military and retired with pay and benefits then stayed home with 2 young daughters for a few years before returning to work and I’ll shoot anything I want. I’m really good at it and staying home with your children is a blessing OR a job well earned and some people around here need some reading comprehension classes.

      • Trashaddict says:

        The resentment shouldn’t be against women. It should be against companies’ “mean/lean” philosophy that lays on guilt to people who take legitimate time off. People need time off. People get sick and have family events. They have babies. Their babies have emergencies. Every business needs to build in enough cushion based on calculation of expected leave so that personnel can take their allotted time off without screwing over their colleagues. That includes men and women. There would be a lot less burnout if this were the norm.

    • A random commenter says:

      I have a coworker who is on an extended, paid maternity leave (as she should). That’s all good. But she’s already let it be known she’s gonna get herself some “extra, new mommy leave” when she comes back by goofing off in the pumping room at least half the day, so I and another coworker should “be prepared to pick up about half” her workload. I would never criticize a person using their maternity leave, nor would I criticize someone for needing to pump, but there are people who do take advantage, and that should be called out.

      • Fluffy Princess says:

        She can announce to you and your co-worker that you both will be picking up her slack, but that doesn’t mean you have to. You and your co-worker already have your own jobs to do–and if you are not getting paid to do her job, then “Oh well.” She can face the consequence of not getting her job done, period. Millions of other women manage to do this, she needs to learn how to do the same thing.

        I’m sorry if it sounds callous — but, until someone puts their foot down and says “No.” Then she will always find an excuse to get paid for the work YOU are doing.
        Don’t start down that rabbit hole, it will ever end.

    • Immy says:

      I agree, my supervisor asks me repeatedly when/if I am going to have more children (we only have 1) I have told her multiple time that we are 1 and done, and it feels very intrusive to be asked this by her (she is not a “friendly” boss)

      • KittenHeels says:

        Immy, not sure where you are in the world, but that is a pretty enormous no-no for an employer or boss. If your company is big enough to have an HR department they’d probably be quite interested to hear about it.

        Either way I hope you’re documenting this because plenty of women have found themselves looked over for promotions with the excuse that “they’ll just disappear and have another kid”. Your supervisor may be laying the groundwork for this – or may just be a bit of a monster.

      • Erinn says:

        “that is a pretty enormous no-no for an employer or boss”

        100%. This is outrageous, and should never be happening.

      • notasugarhere says:

        It shouldn’t happen yet it does all the time. Subtly or blatantly, I’ve gotten it from multiple bosses, mostly women.

      • KittenHeels says:

        It definitely happens, notasugarhere, and when companies get away with it they have no reason to stop.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Yet they get away with it, particularly when it is a smaller company. Why I expect better of female bosses I’ll never know.

      • A says:

        Yeah, if you have the capacity, you should one hundred percent take this to HR. I’m pretty sure this type of questioning is illegal on some level. Just saying.

    • KittenHeels says:

      Laura, I also agree that’s a nasty thing. Workplace culture is still so structured around men that having a child and taking parental leave is seen as a burden on the company. There needs to be enormous change to get companies to realise that hiring adults means some of them will have children, and we’re past the days of mom at home alone with the kids while dad works.

  9. Kittycat says:

    Well she cant have 5 or 6 kids to avoid work.

  10. HMC says:

    She must really really really love kids and being a mom to willingly suffer through another pregnancy (this one would be a “geriatric” one too) wit probable hyperemesis gravidarum.

    Didn’t PW make a comment along the lines that its irresponsible to have lots of kids?

    • OriginalLala says:

      yes he made that statement during a speech somewhere in Africa (can’t remember the exact country now) so it clearly only applies to us peasants

      • notasugarhere says:

        Or to POC. White people who live off the taxpayers should apparently have as many kids as they want in W&K’s logic.

    • Louisa says:

      People still believe that HG excuse?

      I thought it was all a ruse to get people to pile on the pity party for Waity when she was being criticized for her low engagement numbers back then.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Correct me if I am wrong but did not QEII agree to give Bill & Cathy the first two years of their marriage free & clear from Royal duties so they could settle into their new marriage?

      • Becks1 says:

        @bay – I don’t think so. I think first off, the Queen doesn’t “care” that much. Like I think she cares, but I don’t think she’s going to tell William he needs to work more. They did some royal duties during that time, but not a lot, and the reason was always “the queen lived in Malta!! MALTA!!!!”

        Then, once the two years was “up” and Kate and Will were supposed to be full time royals, she had George, they moved to Norfolk, and William did that part time helicopter pilot job. Then in 2017 they were supposed to move FT to London and finally finally finally be “full time royals.” For about 6 months prior to that move many of us here said Kate would announce a pregnancy at that point. And…..she did. September 2017. Louis. So, still waiting on her to be a full time royal.

      • notasugarhere says:

        No, she did not give them two years off. That Malta lie was fabricated by tabloids and fans to try to excuse the inexcusable laziness. HM didn’t live in Malta for two years, she visited Philip there four times while he was stationed there.

        We were told in the engagement interview Kate was going to hit the ground running and get right to work. A few days after the wedding, we got the quiet announcement that she wasn’t going to work but would be a housewife in Wales (with four full-time staff). No valid excuse for Kate not to work from the beginning of the marriage, even if Billy was pretending to work part-time at SAR.

      • Kj says:

        Um @Louisa, she was actually hospitalised when she had HG with George. Then was on a drip at home with Charlotte and Louis. She also missed her son’s first day of school when she had HG with Louis… not just engagements. It’s okay if you dislike Kate that much – but please don’t turn a real and serious issue like HG and claim she faked/hyped it solely because of that.

  11. Nicole says:

    Ooof the optics would be bad if they had a fourth. Wasn’t William recently going on about personal responsibility re: smaller families?

    • BayTampaBay says:

      I thought the third child was very bad optics due to the changes in the UK Benefits System.

    • Citresse says:

      It wasn’t only William…several years ago Philip said something to the effect of after his death, wanting to return to our overpopulated earth as a fatal virus and wipe out much of humanity.

    • A says:

      Tbf, William originally was rumoured to only want two. Kate is the one who convinced him to have a third. But I don’t think he was on board for that at ALL. So he would have walked the walk if he had been married to anyone else, if you ask me.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Or if he hadn’t been publicly caught drunken dad dancing with blonds on a wife-free skiing trip a few months before #3 was conceived.

      • RehanaZehr says:

        Louis looks very comfortable with Will so even if he intitally wanted 2.. he looks really happy with their 3rd. If they have a 4th child, he’ll come around lol. He doesn’t have a choice to be honest because he can spend all his time in the Rose bush but he’s going to tell her no to a fourth child? Pfft. Nah, there will be another Cambridge baby in the near future.

      • A says:

        @nota, the long standing rumour on this has always been that Kate wanted three, because she wanted a copy of the type of family she grew up in herself, aka with three siblings. I’m sure the skiing trip helped speed things along, but she’s had the idea of three for a while before that, while William was perfectly happy with two.

        @Rehana, if he’s going to have a fourth, the least he can do is issue a retraction of his previous statements regarding how having smaller families is better for the environment, and issue an apology on top of that. It’s okay for people born into incredible privilege to have four, five, six kids if they so wish, but god forbid the rest of us plebs might want large families, suddenly we’re the irresponsible ones. Eyeroll.

      • notasugarhere says:

        A, that doesn’t negate what I wrote. If Kate wanted three, William wanted two? Kate “won” because drunken dad dancing and needing to rehab William’s image. That’s why Baby #4 is likely in the wake of Rose.

  12. starryfish29 says:

    Well, at least they’re finally admitting what has been painfully obvious for years. They act like her kids would somehow be neglected if she spent even an hour a day working. I love how they manage to still put a positive spin on it, however, if this was anyone else they’d be frothing at the mouth.

  13. What IS a royal commentator exactly? The only thing I can really find on this guy is that he worked for The Sun for almost thirty years.

    • M says:

      They are people who do nothing but talk or write about the royals every day. Some of them have been studying and following the royals for decades. A lot of them are obsessed and behave as if they are members of the family! Phil Dampier has written quite a few books about the BRF.

      • Thanks! I wasn’t sure if there were some kind of official press Corp that they spoke to, issued statements etc. or if these people just pick a theory and write like there’s inside knowledge:

    • Becks1 says:

      We are all royal commentators here 😉

  14. DS9 says:

    I think the heir and spare were for all the usual reasons, both common to people and unique to royalty.

    But the timing and spacing of Louis and any future ones would be for the added bonus of avoiding what passes for work if you’re royal. It can’t possibly be her primary or even tertiary reasons but it’s definitely in there

  15. Murphy says:

    I think she has them because she can.

  16. Tangie says:

    The article said she was close to Crown Princess Mary of Denmark. If that’s true then I wish Mary’s work ethic and fashion sense rubbed off on her. But yeah, baby announcement this fall.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      I think Crown Princess Mary only planned to have three children but one pregnancy resulted in twins IIRC.

    • notasugarhere says:

      They’ve interacted what, twice in public? The first of which included a public spat in the car and Kate’s offensive/unprofessional refusal to taste nutrient-rich peanut paste.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Nota – public spat?? when was this?

      • notasugarhere says:

        In the car on the way to the UNICEF event. Not a whole lot of smiley faces, and Mary is generally pretty good at putting on an act.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        @Nota: I vaguely remember that one, weren’t they late to the event or something? And the reason they were late was because of Katie Keen (who we know is ALWAYS late to her engagements). I have a vague recollection of reading that at the time. And Mary being an Aussie wouldn’t have been shy about saying something about it. Its one of the things I love about Aussies, they don’t take crap from anyone.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @DU, IIRC Mary is actually a Tasmanian Aussie which would make it even more to be a fly in the car if she, a Tasmanian Devil, told off Cathy!

        ETA: Love the old Looney Tunes cartoons with Tasmanian Devil and Mrs. Tasmanian Devil.

  17. Immy says:

    If they have a 4th I think it will be an attempt to give Charlotte a sister. Kate and Pippa are close and I can imagine her wanting that for Charlotte as well.
    Will also add, that the whole “she wants more children to avoid work” is a horrible thing to say – especially considering her history of difficult pregnancies.

    • Citresse says:

      Yes, you make a good point- morning sickness to the point of needing hospitalization is not what I’d call a walk in the park.
      And even with nannies to help, it’s not a leisurely existence. You can tell both W&K are totally involved as parents. I think the point of this story is Kate is not cut out for public life so she seems to take full advantage of pregnancy and motherhood to dodge her public duties.

  18. Beli says:

    I said after Louis that they’d have a fourth and I still think that.

    And I agree they don’t necessarily keep having kids to avoid working, but it must be a nice bonus to have a ready excuse as well as all of the gushing praise that comes with it. The press are the kindest to Will and Kate when they’re expecting or have a newborn.

    • Citresse says:

      I don’t think they’ll have a fourth. There were rumours William didn’t want to have more than two children….. then there were discussions prior to their tour of Europe…. I think Kate had to really work on William to convince him of having a third….so a fourth? I doubt it.
      Besides, let’s be real here. Kate is not 21 anymore. The odds of Down’s syndrome etc becomes a concern. I’m certainly not saying women getting closer to age 40 shouldn’t have children…I mean look at baby Archie, everything turned out ok there….however yes, birth defects are a reality.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        Kate will get her fourth child and she will use the Rose affair stories to get what she wants. When that blew up, pretty much everyone on here said there would be a fourth baby, even before she started making the broody comments to the public.

  19. Linda says:

    I had a baby three months ago after trying for eight years and speaking from my experience, having a baby and raising him has been the hardest thing I have ever done and much harder than my career as a journalist. So I really do not understand how Kate having a baby is to avoid royal duties. I think it’s much harder I mean how difficult can it be to work two to three times a week?

    • Mel M says:

      Yes but do you have all of the perks and help that Kate has? Do you have nannies, housekeepers, cooks? Can you just go off to the gym or shopping or just have some alone time whenever you want to get away? Do you get to sleep through the night whenever you want? Kate can do all of that. If I had all of that help then I would probably never stop having babies but for us average folks we have to do it all.

    • Algernon says:

      I don’t think the emotional work of raising a child changes regardless of status, but let’s not pretend Kate has to do as much work-work as regular working moms like you. She has housekeepers, nannies, office staff, etc. If she doesn’t want to change a diaper, she doesn’t have to.

      • Mel M says:

        @algernon-I agree and disagree. I agree that all moms from every walk of life can love and worry and have the same hope and dreams from their kids and also get frustrated and exhausted by them. But people with means to be able to check out mentally when they need a break and recharge or have someone else do the mundane everyday of just laundry for a family of 5 or 6 or cleaning the bathrooms, paying the bills. All time suckers. They have a better chance of being in a better emotional state when being with their children. I know this summer when my oldest son, who is such a challenge and always has been, is at day camp or the week he was at my parents house gave both my husband and I so much reprieve and let us focus on the other kids because he wasn’t the main focus like he usually is. It’s recharged us and gave us a chance to look at our relationship with him from a different place instead of the frustrating, mentally taxing place like we do every night when we’ve had a difficult day and there’s no end in sight.

      • Algernon says:

        I didn’t even think of the mental/emotional angle, Mel. That’s a great point.

      • Kristin says:

        I also think emotionally it would be stressful to be the mother to the future king. There would always be threats and the necessity for constant security. I would imagine one would live in constant fear.

    • Brandy Alexander says:

      I don’t know. It’s true she probably doesn’t HAVE to do the menial work like diaper changes and midnight feedings when they’re babies. But seeing her with her kids – they show the typical attachments to her that come with doing those things. So, I kind of believe she is way more hands on with her kids then most people here give her credit for. And I agree with Linda – I only have 1 toddler and it’s hard. I have to work to live, and I feel like my time at work is way less stressful than my time with my kid (and for the record, I don’t have all the help she does, but I do have a husband who does more than his fair share and we still utilize help where we can like housekeeping services and such).

      • Mel M says:

        Oh I don’t doubt that she’s hand on, it is pretty obvious from the interactions we’ve seen but judging from the interactions we’ve seen with nanny Maria I believe she is there pretty much all the time as well. She also has the luxury of meaningful time to spent with them too. She’s not sitting at the kitchen table meal planning while they tug on her asking for snacks every five seconds. I know they like to push the “Kate loves cooking and does it all the time” narrative but I don’t believe she’s spending an hour or so in the kitchen preparing a meal for all of them while the kids run a muck all over. You will never convince me that she doesn’t have it easier in every way but these are also her kids so I’m not going to act like she’s doing something special because she loves them and spends time with them. She gets to do what she wants and what she wants is to spend a lot of quality time with her kids and so she gets too but anything she doesn’t want to do, just like her royal duties, she doesn’t have too. If she likes doing school drop off or putting them to bed or doing bath time then she can. If she didn’t like those things she wouldn’t have to do them.

      • Moneypenny says:

        Even if she does everything for the kids (which I doubt), all of that is a lot easier to do when you don’t also have to clean, cook, do laundry or work.

      • A says:

        You don’t exactly have to do all that hands on stuff in order to have a relationship with your children. I definitely think that Kate, like every other upper-class woman who has access to outside help, delegates the every day tasks to the nanny. And she has a cook and people who can clean and everything else on top of that.

        But I think she loves her children, and she spends a lot of down time with them, and she likes playing with them. And I think that she is absolutely there for them in terms of their emotional needs, even at this young age, and that makes a WORLD of difference. This is where most parents trip up, if you ask me, which is sad, because emotional fulfillment is what most people remember about their childhood. But she absolutely has a lot of help that frees up her time to do that for her children, which many other parents who have to work full time and take care of the house and take care of their children on top of that, wouldn’t be able to do.

      • Emeraldeyes says:

        Absolutely, A. I agree Kate is good at the emotional support side of motherhood – and more power to her. That’s important for the future King – after all look at Charles and all his adjustment issues.*

        That said, there are many mothers who work who are great at it, as are many SAHMs.

        *I am not dissing The Queen for Charles and his troubles, though. It was just an unfortunate situation. She simply had NO CHOICE but to take on royal duties when she did. She had two kids, one (Anne) who adapted and had no issue with her mother’s absence, and one (Charles) who did.

      • A says:

        @Emeraldeyes, I think the Queen and Charles grew up in a different time, as did many of us. I’m not using this to excuse their shortcomings, of course, because there were plenty of parents even at the time who were committed to their childrens’ emotional growth. But as a culture, this idea of taking their emotional development seriously, and realizing that it actually matters what we say to them even at that young of an age, is still a new one. Plenty of parents still scoff at the idea that children are relatively autonomous creatures whose feelings matter greatly, go figure. And I don’t think Anne really adapted, I think she has just as many issues beneath the surface than Charles, but he’s always been in the public eye far more, and his failings exploded in his face in a big way.

        Speaking of which, I do think that Kate is sincerely interested in her efforts to bring more attention onto these types of childhood issues, aka her Broken Britain initiative. But I think she suffers from the same problems that many of us who try to take on huge issues like this suffer from, which is that she’s thinking on a large scale and not having much follow through. She could stand to learn a little from her Chelsea Flower show garden, for which she absolutely had some really structured, focused help and expert advice on what to do. She needs to narrow the scope, look at what’s already been done in the field, and figure out ways to support those efforts. Meghan’s cookbook is a great example of this kind of thing, and I’m sure there are many equivalent types of projects on the childhood mental health/development front as well.

  20. Becks1 says:

    I think this is a good example of two things being true at once. Kate obviously loves kids, loves babies, and would probably prefer to be a rich SAHM.

    I think she also loves that her kids give her a built in shield against any criticism re: working. She cant work more, she’s a MOTHER!!!!!! And she gets so much goodwill around her childrens’ births and she knows that.

    I don’t think she is going to have a fourth just so she doesn’t have to work more. I think its more like a benefit of having a fourth. And yeah, I def believe she is going to have a fourth.

  21. HMC says:

    If they have a fourth child, and she doesn’t livestream her cervix dilating, I better hear the royal “reporters” complain.

  22. MeghanNotMarkle says:

    I think they’re going to have a fourth and Kate will never kick her “work” into any gear resembling the older royals.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Baby #3 was payback for the drunken dad dancing. I expect Baby #4 will be payback for Rose.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        nota, what do you think Cathy would have done if Bill Cambridge had so “NO” to baby #3?

      • notasugarhere says:

        The Midds would have applied pressure and guilt, the same kind they applied to get him to finally marry her.

      • Lady D says:

        Not the Midds, Carole. I just can’t see Mike engaging in this kind of subterfuge? I could be wrong of course, I know very little about him beyond his offspring, but he doesn’t seem the type to comply with dirty tricks. Didn’t he straight up sit William down and demand to know his intentions towards Kate, and again when making sure they would have access to their grandchildren? I remember that being a worry of the his before the wedding. (source was the DM, so take it for what it’s worth)

  23. Lowrider says:

    KP should allow her to be a stay at home till Willy becomes POW. Instead, they release keen articles when people can see that she and Willy are not interested in the charity side of the job.
    When Harry married Meghan, Will and Kate were exalted to sainthood. So, you know the media will not push back if they choose to do nothing till POW titles.

    • Becks1 says:

      Someone on here said a few months ago that Kate should just come out and do this. Like, KP should just say “for the next few years Kate is going to focus on raising her children with minimal appearances, and once her kids are in college she will have a more significant workload” or whatever. Like, just come out and say that she wants to be a SAHM. Stop with the keen-baiting (man I love that phrase.)

    • notasugarhere says:

      Not after the millions spent on fixing up the massive space they demanded in Kensington Palace plus 10 bedroom Anmer Hall. Taking those huge perks without doing the work in exchange isn’t going to work in the face of hard Brexit.

      Honestly, all the other royal women work more, always have, even when they have young children. This constant infantilisation of Kate would be laughable if it wasn’t so pathetic.

      • Becks1 says:

        @nota – for sure. It would be horrible, optics-wise.

        But I feel like that’s basically what she’s doing – a SAHM with minimal appearances – so just come out and say that already lol.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Let’s stop applying the term SAHM to her. She isn’t taking care of the children, cleaning up the sick, doing the laundry, cooking the meals, cleaning the home, running the household, balancing the budget. She isn’t doing the work of a SAHM parent.

      • Becks1 says:

        Well, to be fair, being a SAHM in my mind just means that you aren’t working outside the home. Lots of women stay at home and have tons of help. But, I get your overall point, which I think is that by using that phrase it implies she’s cleaning toilets and such while child-rearing, which isn’t the case.

      • Betsy says:

        @becks1 – can I move in your circle? I have an involved spouse, which is more than lots of my fellow SAHM friends have.

    • Algernon says:

      First of all, sad as it is to say, the POW title for Will is only a few years away. It’ll happen long before his kids are are grown, or even college age. At some point they are going to have to be full time working royals with kids, like every other working royal. Second, as economic inequality continues to become more and more of a political issue, do-nothing royals will end the monarchy faster than anything. I truly do not understand why Will and Kate can’t see that. They’re only tolerated as long as they are seen as an asset to the nation.

      • Nibbi says:

        I’m watching “The Crown” right now (what a great show!!!) – I know it’s necessarily got some fictionalization thrown in, since no way could the writers of the show know the full extent of the inner workings of any family–
        BUT. There’s just no disputing the fact, even just looking at the numbers of years & engagements & extreme devotion to her role, with her rigid schedule & all – as everyone always says, her DUTY- that Queen Elizabeth has always had. She is still working in her NINETIES, for crying out loud; no one could ever breathe a word that she doesn’t take her position seriously. The show, I guess, just sort of deepens my sympathy for what it must be like to be born into a family like that- living with incredible pressure and public scrutiny that you were BORN into, and making great sacrifices and difficult decisions as a result.
        It just makes me think that yeah, the Monarchy could still fail, and that rather quickly- cuz yeah, I do think that when they look like lazy, spoiled moochers (certain of the younger royals, *cough) , now more than ever it could still all go teats-up, and then when one looks at what Wills’ grandmother has done with her life, how she’s lived her life, what she seems to believe given the context she came to power in (her uncle’s abdication, etc.) – just really sad if that all fails, really. I do think the the royals can do a lot of good for their country, when/ if they can be arsed to, the way she has.
        — And then, there’s the whole thing about how Kate, herself, wasn’t born into the family, but seemed to really hang in there long & hard & should have known that really, to deserve that kind of wealth & extreme privilege, she’d have to keep regular ribbon-cutting appointments alongside being a wife & mother.
        It’s just kind of sad & gross.

    • The Original Mia says:

      They could never come out and say this. Not before Brexit and especially not now. OMG. It would be open season on the royals. Instead, the public is treated like they are stupid with the constant keening that comes every January in regards to Kate’s light schedule. It won’t get any better when the kids are teenagers. There’ll just be another excuse given for why the FFQ can’t be arsed to do more. Or they’ll just blame Meghan for breathing.

  24. Winnie Cooper’s Mom says:

    I don’t get why she didn’t just find a moderately wealthy man to marry like Pippa, where she could exist as a SAHM in peace. Why chase the crown if you don’t really care at all about Crown-related duties? She knew what she was getting herself into.

    • Algernon says:

      Exactly my feeling, too.

    • Lady D says:

      I think this is more William’s long term plan. There is no way in hell he is ever going to work as hard as his grandmother and father do. No way. He is lazy, petulant and dull and he is paving the way to do far less as King than his predecessors did. He will want to put in appearances as King on the same schedule that he and Kate follow now. By the time he is King his people will be used to little to nothing from him.

      • Tourmaline says:

        I think you really have it here @Lady D.

        Kate’s workshy-ness is a part and parcel of William’s. He is petulant and resentful of duties and she has adopted that outlook. Once she had kids, she REALLY couldn’t be bothered with working more than the bare minimum.

        I’m sure she looks at Pippa and Pippa’s lovely luxe lifestyle and is jealous that Pippa has no duties imposed upon her.

        Also, Ma Middleton (Carole) has made comments in the past that to my ears are judgmental of working mothers. For instance, in published quotes of her talking about Party Pieces, she has been sure to say that she started it so she can spend as much time at home as possible. It was very much in the vein of “I had a company, but don’t you dare think I wasn’t home pretty much all the time!”. In her Telegraph interview last fall (can’t find the whole thing online unfortunately) I recall another veiled slam on working mothers.

        Also–those who say, who will do the hundreds of bread and butter royal engagements around the UK that many royals like Anne, Sophie, etc. do now–the answer in the day of King Wills is going to be: No one, that type of royal engagement scheme will be dropped like it’s hot!

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Tourmaline, Really sad because the “hundreds of bread and butter royal engagements around the UK” are the lifeline of BRF popularity IMHO. The Queen Mum is rolling over in her grave!

      • A says:

        @Bay, the Queen Mother thrived on public attention. A real extrovert if there ever was one. So the role of being Queen and Queen Mother was absolutely perfect for her in a lot of ways.

        Even a person who was relatively shy, like Queen Mary, had an iron clad sense of duty to her role that ensured that she was able to fulfill the public responsibilities that came with it, which is what people in this position have to do. For better or for worse, until the British people decide to get rid of the royals, they’ll have a role in the public sphere. You have to compartmentalize that from your private life and just get on with it tbh.

      • Vv says:

        @Tourmaline In the days of King Charles we’ll not see those engagements anymore ,because the other son doesn’t look eager to do that work either,to use an euphemism. Even if some people pretend that he’s much different.

      • A says:

        @Vv, why compare with Harry here, in a post that doesn’t mention him at all? Harry is not going to Prince of Wales. William is. Harry is not going to be king. William is. The expectations for the type of work and visibility that is expected from William will always be much greater than what is expected of Harry, given their relative rank within the royal family. If William is destined to be more important, to occupy a much more prominent, if not THE top job in the family, then it stands to reason that he will be held up to a greater scrutiny and standard, as will Kate. And he SHOULD be. He’s going to occupy a crucial constitutional role within not just Britain, but also in a lot of commonwealth countries, for better or for worse, until the RF is gotten rid of. There are a LOT of storms brewing on this front that I expect we won’t see until William’s reign. So yeah, excuse me if it worries me just a tad that William has yet to carve out a functional role within the family, and is more interested in petty squabbles with the press and his brother because his ego was bruised.

      • Vv says:

        @A I was responding to the fact that we’ll not see those bread and butter engagements that other royals do under King William because he’s too lazy to keep them in their schedules.
        SInce people say that Charles will heavily rely on both sons,I was remarking that it’s not just an issue related to William. So yes,we’ll probably not see that type of royal work under Charles either. And their roles don’t really matter in that sense.

      • Eloise says:

        @VV, comparing Harry to William and claiming that Harry is so lazy and is as lazy as William is really reaching, IMO. When you consider what Harry has done in his 34 years, he is only comparable to his father who at 34 years already had a very successful charity and had also done the POW role successfully. Harry founded Sentebale at just 17 years of age, founded IG at just 30 years old, and at that time, Harry had made 2 treks/expeditions to the North and South poles Walking With the Wounded and had served 2 tours in Afghanistan. What exactly has William done with his life that compares him to Harry? If we are comparing, Harry is comparable to his uncle Andrew, (both are spares; Meghan is compared to Sarah duchess of York, both wives of spares, Kate Middleton is compared to Diana princess of Wales, and/or Camilla Duchess of Cornwall wives to the heir), William to prince Charles, both heirs to the throne). But even then, Andrew fades in comparison to Harry when you consider what Harry has achieved in his life do far. I’m just waiting to see what him and Meghan do with this new charity of theirs as they already proven that together, they’re such a force to reckon with. And I strongly believe that it’s just a matter of time before the Royal foundation folds and closes it’s doors.

      • Vv says:

        @Eloise Their daily tallies speak for themselves. You can find the numbers. Are expeditions to the North Pole some achievement? These things are,like a lot of things they do,PR exercises. And while I don’t want to dismiss his interest in veterans’ causes or his collaboration with Prince Seeiso for Sentebale,it’s disingenuous to overlook the timing,the PR rehab role played by his involvement with these things,even if the intentions were genuine. William also held other jobs,part time jobs,and he supports organizations and causes that objectively have benefited from his involvement.
        But now they’re both full-time “working royals”. If they’re outworked by persons in their 70s and lower in rank ,because they don’t want to do the type of “work” they surely consider boring,it’s fair to criticize them, and say they’re both expected to do more. It’s even more noticeable when they have multi-country tours counted in the yearly numbers (like Harry last year), and those numbers remain frankly poor.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Because she wanted the status, prestige, fame of being royal.

      • PlainJane says:

        And so did Mama Middleton.

      • The Original Mia says:

        Especially Mama Middleton. I’ll never forget that picture of them at some event where William was in dress uniform. Carole had the smuggest look on her face, smacking on gum, while Kate looks strained. I always assumed the title was more important to Carole, while Kate just wanted William.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Kate wanted The Prince, petulant cheating William just happened to be the man with that particular job. If he’d been the way he is but wasn’t wealthy or a prince? Kate wouldn’t have clung to him for 10 years waiting for marriage. The title and status were just as important to her as to her mother.

      • Winnie Cooper’s Mom says:

        “She wanted the status, prestige and fame of being royal.” Oh really? Because it seems like she hates the crowds and fame, and would rather slip away to the country quietly with the kids than be out and about, having phots made of herself. Don’t get me wrong, I believe she enjoys the perks of the connections and the homes and travel etc. But again, I don’t see her enjoying any aspect of her life that she couldn’t have also gotten by way of a non-famous wealthy aristocrat.

      • Cerys says:

        Exactly but she didn’t expect that she would have to work for all the perks. I don’t think she or William had the ability to think ahead to the days when he would be the heir of the 70 year old heir to a 93 year old monarch. The time for them to step up is now.

      • Becks1 says:

        If she was “just” a wealthy aristocrat, I doubt she would have access to the bespoke designer clothes she has, the diamonds, the tiaras, the palaces, etc. She likes going to the royal box at Wimbledon. She likes having an upscale country manor that she did not have to pay for. She likes having an “apartment” at KP that was renovated to her specifications, without costing her a penny. Etc.

        THAT’S the stuff that I think people are talking about when they refer to her wanting the status and prestige. Obviously, she could be a wealthy private citizen and have a lot of those perks, but prob not on the same scale.

      • A says:

        @Becks1, there are plenty of aristocrats out there who are much wealthier, have more access to palaces and country houses that could make Anmer Hall look like a shack. So it’s not just the money and the title and the properties. It’s the fact that being a royal commands a certain type of respect among people. If you’re always being sneered at for being nouveau-riche, what better way to stick it to all of your critics and haters than to marry the person who will have the highest title in all of the land? Not to mention, people know who William is on a global level. Who can honestly say the same for someone like the Duke of Westminster?

    • TP76 says:

      I agree with everyone on this thread, including Cerys. Not only was Kate status- and wealth- seeking, she also is not the brightest spark. Pippa, on the other hand, obviously has a much more strategic mind and more self-awareness.

    • Anance says:

      Agreed. But for the Duchess to look like Kate Middleton takes time, money and effort. All the beauty maintenance she does — skin care, hair dressing, dental, exercise, chef-based special diet, dress sourcing and fittings – easily accrues to 30 hours a week.

      To that add the time to get ready for an engagement – professional hair and makeup, dressing, etc. IMO, at least 4 hours just for a one time look. Imagine reviewing a speech, studying the in-and-outs of the visit, etc. as well.

      Methinks Kate avoids public appearances to cut down on beauty-related work. It’s her choice to always appear perfect.

      • notasugarhere says:

        It is her choice to focus on her appearance over substance.

        Look around at other royal women. Intelligent, engaged, well-dressed, professional, well put together – all while working and raising kids. These excuses for Kate are beyond ridiculous now.

  25. PlainJane says:

    ” Hell, I could even war-game a scenario where Kate uses William’s (alleged) affair with Rose as an argument to have another baby.”

    I think this has already happened. The optics of a ‘solid marriage’ would be so much stronger if they have another child. I wouldn’t specifically call it a band-aid baby, because there are so many reasons for another child, as people have already outlined. But I think this is definitely part of the larger discussion.

  26. Bella Bella says:

    If I were a baby and Kate came at me with her manic smile, I would cry.

  27. Emeraldeyes says:

    Kate Middleton was an extremely pretty and well-connected young woman, who could have married a “man from the city” like her sister Pippa did. She could then have been a lifetime stay at home mom and wife, without the stresses of any type of public life. When she chose William, she not only chose a life, she chose a career and a lifetime of duty. Somewhere, inside, she knows what awaits her.

    My take is that she may indeed have a fourth child and immerse herself in child rearing until it is absolutely necessary to step forward on a full time basis. Which is fine, I guess, but KP should be upfront about it instead of all this coyness. William should make himself highly visible, too, to show the public bang for the buck.

    • notasugarhere says:

      It is absolutely necessary now and has been since the day their engagement was announced. There is no such thing as a part-time royal, particularly when these two are gobbling up huge perks for next to no work.

    • A says:

      Except a man from the city can’t provide a title in the way William can. Kate wants it both ways. She wants the title, AND she wants to focus on her children rather than the demands of her public role that come with said title. It’s this part that’s going to cause problems for her, because you simply can’t have it both ways.

  28. Cee says:

    And water is wet.
    She is lazy and everyone should come to terms with that fact. Demand she do more, but let’s not kid ourselves. SAHM work way more than she does.

  29. Louisa says:

    Never liked her, never will.

    She will always be that social climber who waited ten years for the prince to get her. If William were Average Joe she wouldn’t have given him the time of day.

    It doesn’t matter how many kids she’s got; if Will tires of her she and her equally social-climbing family will be kicked to the curb.

    • Linda says:

      I don’t see anything wrong with social climbing. I rather admire women who have the grit and guts to do it. I don’t see criticism for men who engage in social climbing.

      • Jane'sWastedTalent says:


        Oh the criticism’s there for men too- social climber, user, opportunist, con man, gigolo. How can you admire anyone who behaves this way? I can’t imagine that you really mean that. This isn’t like playing politics to get ahead at the office (which is also contemptible), this is far worse- deceit in the private realm, on the most trusting, intimate level.

        Con men and sociopaths have similar mindsets by the way, in that their most common emotion is contempt for others. You really admire this?

        (For the record, I’m not accusing Kate of being a social climber, I think she was just a dutiful daughter who didn’t {and probably still doesn’t} have the imagination to think that far ahead. But for someone to take an attack on her and twist it to praise social climbing— !!)

  30. agnes says:


    As if Kate needed any pregnancies or her children to do that. She was pretty skilled in the “avoiding work at all costs”-departement before she even got married.

  31. Guest says:

    Lol. I saw this on the dailymail and lmao at the comments. They were upset about how dare they talk about kate like that, blamed meghan, and downvoted all the comments that agreed with the article.

  32. Cerys says:

    The article reinforces what most people believe about Kate except for her most devoted fans. As soon as it was time for Charlotte to go to nursery, along came Louis. Baby No 4 is inevitable. Tbh, even if Louis is the last Cambridge baby there will still be a load of excuses as to why Kate can’t step up her royal duties. Every other Royal mum can find a balance between duty and child rearing but not Kate. A few events per week would be sufficient to increase her numbers considerably.
    The bottom line is that Kate is lazy. She and the equally lazy William are happy to turn up for “fun” events like Wimbledon, charity sports occasions and film premieres but not the mundane events. Harry is much the same. It’s too early to tell what way Meghan will go but at least she held down a job before her marriage.

    • one of the Marys says:

      I don’t think it’s too early to tell how Meghan will go. My impression is she is raring to go and it has been suggested she should slow down and not put herself forward so much. Plus I firmly believe William and Kate are panicking and William feuding because Meghan is so ready and willing to embrace the role

  33. Hildog says:

    Go for #4 Kate! I would do the same…She get’s a ton of goodwill and time “off”. Her body seems to bounce back fairly quickly. If she enjoys being a stay at home mom, having her family nearby and wants to stay out of the spotlight, it seems like having another baby would be the obvious choice. It’s not like they don’t have the resources and help. Plus, she and Will have MANY years before they have to take on any real “Royal Duties”.

    • Kitty says:

      Why the EXCUSES? She can be a mom and a full time royal. Diana did it, Anne did it.

    • notasugarhere says:

      They are welcome to give back every perk, move to the country on their own dime, and pay for themselves until they are wiling to get off their lazy asses. Otherwise, they are required to work for the boatload of perks they demand. Simple.

  34. Elle says:

    She’s not lazy. Just look at her workouts and the effort to maintain her appearance. I truly believe she’s anxious in public and that makes appearances hard for her. If I were her PR person, I’d pack her schedule with low-key events with small groups of kids and events with young moms and their babies. She’s one of the most natural, joyful mothers I’ve ever seen. She could do SO much good talking about pre- and post-natal health.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      @Elle, Cathy is LAZY on-top of all the other things you mentioned. Big crowds (and the bigger the better) are part of being a successful and POPULAR Royal; go ask Diana, go ask the Queen Mum and then go ask Fat Mary.

      • Emeraldeyes says:

        Who on earth is “Fat Mary”?

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Emeraldeyes, “Fat Mary” was the Duchess of Teck, mother of Queen Mary, cousin to Queen Victoria and granddaughter of George III.

        She pioneered doing volunteer PR work (meet, greet, ribbon-cutting, etc;…etc…) for private charities with emphasis on meet/greet of the common man. People would cheer in the streets as her carriage passed by, “there goes our Fat Mary”. She was always broke due to over-spending but her popularity “with the people and press” were the main reasons Queen Victoria kept helping to bail out her first cousin.

      • A says:

        Speaking of Queen Victoria, she got heavily criticized by the press and the parliament for the four years she became a shut-in after the death of Prince Albert. Her son and Princess Alexandra had to pick up the slack in terms of public appearances. But her reticence to fulfill the public role that goes with being the Queen definitely had people questioning the whole point of the monarchy at one point. And this was in the 1800s!

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @ A says, Edward, POW, kept telling his mother that she needed to get out in public and be seem more by “THE PEOPLE”. It got so bad that Queen Victoria refused many years to formally open Parliament and only did so when she wanted something from the Government.

      • A says:

        @Bay, Queen Victoria was only perfectly happy to fob off the public responsibilities of being Queen onto other people in her family (like the POW, Princess Alexandra, the Duchess of Teck etc). People don’t seem to realize just how *weird* she was, in reality, lol.

    • A says:

      @Elle, people seem to be labouring under a misunderstanding of Kate’s position. No, she can’t cop out of things because of her anxiety in making public appearances. If it were that much of a detriment to her position, she should have never married William to begin with. Marrying into the RF is a job as much as it is anything else, and it comes with certain expectations of what you should do, just as with any other job. If she is committed to her position, there are definitely ways to get over being anxious in public, and I say this as a person who can’t make a phone call even if my life depended on it on a good day. The Queen is not a people person, she has said as much that being in the public eye and fulfilling her role has been difficult for her, but she has to do it because it is a crucial component of being the Queen. Sadly, there is no negotiation on this front.

    • Beach Dreams says:

      What is with this “public anxiety” narrative that people keep throwing around? Kate LOVES attention when its in a “fun” setting where she can show off and be glamorous. Her early days of duchessing made this super apparent. She’d be beaming at galas, red carpet events, with Hollywood stars, etc. and then look sour and bored at the more “normal” events. She’s managed to hide her disdain better over the years, but that’s the reality of the situation.

  35. Marina says:

    Little Willy better hope Lazy Kate doesn’t get pregnant again, as we will not be paying for another one of their offsprings.

    • Citresse says:

      Be grateful W&K didn’t get married in their early 20s and start having babies then……..Kate might have been known now as the original Kate plus eight.

  36. Amber says:

    I guess I don’t mind as much that she’s work-shy because it seems as if she’s responsible for the primary child-rearing duties in their family. Raising three small children is demanding, even with help. So while I think she should do more, and she will HAVE to when Charles ascends the throne, I also believe she’s the primary caregiver at home so it doesn’t bother me so much. But William avoiding his commitments bothers me a lot more. Especially in the wake of the affair rumors, which I believe are true.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Anne had two kids and worked full-time. Sophie had two kids and worked full-time. Crown Princess Mary, Queen Mathilde, Queen Maxima, keep listing them. They all have had young children and all have worked while the kids were little more than Kate ever has. This constant excuse that Kate is the only royal who doesn’t have to work while raising her kids is getting tired.

  37. iulia says:

    I don’t understand this collective obsessive projection on this woman, that she HAS to work. Why does she have to work? What’s the point of being an aristocrat, none other than the future Queen of one of the top world powers, if you have to earn your existence by daily “work”. It is illogical and reflects our communist globalist dangerous thinking. These people are elite, they should live as elites from my part. More that that they are cultural icons , like tourist attractions. We are getting more and more ridiculous as a society with more rigid rules about what everyone should do, think, believe, and of course not do- think- believe. Honestly if I were this woman I would quit the damn position. It looks harder than being poor in a third world country. And I live in a poor country in case anyone jumps to conclusions. But I live in congruence to my social status. She doesn’t and it is very weird. She must beg for time to raise her children, future king, because she has to have a day job, running charities. Ridiculous. I assure you there are other people in this world that do not work and exploit others and none gives a damn about it or even see. We are all busy judging this small group of English puppet royals.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      @iulia, I think you are WRONG. If you are a private citizen then all you say is true but if you a public figure or married to public figure then NO!; you are not correct.

    • Emeraldeyes says:

      She doesn’t have to have a day job. She *should* work a few hours a week, putting in public appearances because SHE LIVES ON THE DOLE. The only British royal with an actual, defined constituational role is the Queen. The others exist on a social contract with the British public that has been in place for the last century.

      The royals support charities, provide support to the monarch and public relations to the country, and in return they very nice lives in large, tax free residences.

    • A says:

      “communist globalist dangerous thinking” You…don’t seem to know what communist means, do you? Because if you think insisting that a woman who has ALL of the benefits that life can offer, simply by virtue of her marriage to a rich, powerful man, is communist, then I have to tell you that you’re wasting all the oxygen it took to write out the rest of your comment.

      ETA: Nvm, I got to the part where you think her life is harder than “being poor in a third world country.” As the kids these days would put it, y i k e s.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Oh look, another Trump supporter has come to the royal threads.

      As long as they receive royal perks, they are required to do the royal work. It is simple, easy to understand.

    • kris says:

      She doesn’t have a traditional job though. If she was creative, she could easily dress up and do a few hour long events. The fact that she didn’t even work while she was single shows she has no ambition. She didn’t do much before she got married. Which is fine if her lifestyle wasn’t being funded by taxpayers who can manage children and working actual jobs not just getting dressed up.

    • Lady D says:

      @iulia, “looks harder than being poor in a third world country”
      That has to be one of the most uneducated, ignorant statements ever printed on this board. How could you? And you said this to defend a lazy, spoiled, charlatan who wouldn’t give you the time of day?

  38. Pam says:

    Between this and the botox story, someone is out to make Kate look bad. No different than throwing Meghan under the bus. But who is the culprit? Rose Chumley?

    • BayTampaBay says:

      The Daily Fail has been more stories lately with a negative bend toward Cathy Cambridge.

    • Rogue says:

      I think Bill wants to carve out the family life that he didn’t have which is understandable so no doubt he supports Cathy being like a SAHM. Perhaps he wanted Diana to be around more. Say what you want, Diana did serious numbers when she was part of the BRF and was very committed to her role. However as mentioned above, they are happy to accept the privileges of the role so really should reciprocate in the number of public duties they undertake. The length of the typical royal engagement is an hour max, Cathy could do 2/3 a week and still have plenty of time at home with the children. The fact she doesn’t shows both her (and Bill) are just not interested in public service and just want to do the bare minimum with the Press hyping up the little they do. This is a shame with the profile they have to highlight issues and really make a difference.

    • Beach Dreams says:

      I disagree. The botox issue would’ve been a non story if KP didn’t come out swinging against it. Yes, there’s the problem of endorsement/commercialism but KP & Kate don’t help matters when they focus on responding to trite matters like this and her use of wiglets and extensions. It just makes people question her more.

      • HMC says:

        I read a theory somewhere that the british media started to turn on Meghan when Harry released that statement asking them to back off. If that holds water, then I can see them turning a salty eye toward the Cambridges when William had that statement about his human rights being violated when his fondness for rose gardens was leaked.

    • Jane'sWastedTalent says:

      Part of me is kind of wondering if it’s just so that when Meghan comes back from maternity leave they think they’ll be able to go extra ugly because- ‘Look, both duchesses get criticized!’ Also, maybe variety, and definitely the usual DM general misogyny. But so many of these racist royal reporters (RRRs?) seem to have inappropriately *personal* obsessions with Meghan that I wouldn’t put it past them. They truly resemble stalkers in the criminal sense.

  39. ME says:

    What exactly is her job anyways? She just has to show up at places, smile, shake hands, take pics, and leave. That’s not hard. Even with 10 kids someone could easily still do her job.

  40. A says:

    I think, as the article says, that Kate definitely prefers being with her family to fulfilling her public role as a member of the RF. I don’t a single person who wouldn’t. I really think that Kate never expected to be quite so interested in her family and being a mother and all that, but now that she is, she really finds a great deal of joy in it. I think both her and William got married on the understanding that they would be able to have this type of family life, the kind that Kate had and William has always wanted, regardless of the criticism they will have to field as a result. And it’s for this reason why I think they’ll never divorce either. It would cause a significant rupture in their idea of a happy family, and neither of them would want that kind of upset in their lives. They seem like the type of people who would want to be able to look back at their married life and say, “At least we raised a beautiful family.”

    Look, it’s not for everyone. I know there are plenty of people in this comments section who would be utterly baffled that anyone could find any type of fulfillment in a life like this. But I’ve always thought that William and Kate, while they care for each other and are committed to each other, got married to each other for what they can provide as much as anything else. For William, that’s the idyllic family life he never got, with the type of closeknit family circle that he could never experience. For Kate, it’s the title and the respect that comes with it. I think they do love each other and care for each other deeply, and people disagree with me on that, but they have different rules for their relationship than we would, and it is what it is. There isn’t much use to continue judging them on this point, lol.

    • DS9 says:

      I agree with you. This is what love and marriage and personal fulfillment look like to them

      • A says:

        Yup, pretty much. Their priorities in terms of what they want for their marriage are simply different from ours. It isn’t a problem for me insofar as their private life goes. But Kate wanting to focus on her children rather than the demands of her public position is a whole other story.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        I have a very big problem with Cathy (and Bill) Cambridge not wanting to fulfill their public role to an acceptable level. IMHO fulfilling the public role is the price they must pay for the lifestyle they live.

      • A says:

        @Bay, exactly. I mention the stuff about their family and their marriage because I feel like you can only judge them on that front to a certain extent. Beyond that, it’s their marriage and their circus, and there’s only so much any of the rest of us can say about the whys and the hows of it all.

        But none of this precludes them from acting like professionals. If Kate wanted to be a SAHM who was involved with her children’s life, she should not have married a man whose wife is expected to have a public role that basically amounts to a job for them. I’m sure that there are plenty of parents out there who, if the circumstances were just different enough, would love to spend more time with their children rather than at work, so Kate has plenty of company on that sentiment. But she made her choice when she married William, and she continues to make that choice every day she remains married to William. Them’s the shakes, sadly.

    • Emeraldeyes says:

      I don’t for one minute doubt any of that. I agree that both Kate and William, despite anything that happens between them, find great fulfillment in family life. I also agree that they love each other.

      All that aside, both of them also have an agreement with the public, whether they like it or not. The demands on them on that side of their lives will get much greater once the Queen dies. They may be able to continue as is for a few more years, but it things will have to change once William is POW.

      • A says:

        Yup. I don’t really mind how they choose to conduct their private life, it’s not my marriage after all. But if it’s affecting their public work, that’s a problem, and a big one at that.

    • notasugarhere says:

      The “idyllic family life” he appears to avoid frequently, like when he exited the scene for the first six months after their first child was born. None of this justifies her laziness for the decade of waiting, nor her two years of laziness post-marriage and pre-kids. Working a handful of hours a week for charity isn’t going to break their children FFS.

      This transactional marriage is based on living off the taxpayers, for whom they are required to work. It gives her family the status they crave and William the coverage to do what he wants (with whomever he wants) out of public view. Whatever they need or want in their private life, they are required to work.

      • DS9 says:

        I doubt think either the original commenter nor I meant to imply anything about their shabby work ethic.

        We were speaking to their marriage and family life.

        Personally, I have three children and work 50+ hours a week so you’re never going to find me making excuses for Kate’s flimsy workload.

      • A says:

        I’m not particularly interested in arguing the details, but no, the fact that William was not a hands on parent for the first six months of a new borns life, which is usually one of the more stressful and least fun parts of being a parent, especially a new parent as was the case with George, doesn’t mean that he doesn’t not interested in his children or his family, or at least his idea of what it means to have a family. His interactions with George and his other children in the time since prove that he’s relatively involved with their lives.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Voluntarily leaving for the first six months of their son’s life and you defend him. SMDH

    • Jane'sWastedTalent says:

      I agree.

    • Becks1 says:

      I think their marriage is definitely an “arrangement” in many ways, and not in a cold way. I think they both are getting something out of it that is different than two people being in love and wanting to get married. Like @A said, Kate gets the title and position, William gets a wife who provides him the traditional stably family life and looks the other way when he is “away.” I think they do probably care for each other but I think there is definitely an “understanding” between them and that is why I think they wont get divorced. They both knew what they were getting into, in terms of the family and marriage etc.

      That’s not an excuse for not working obviously.

      • Lady D says:

        If this is true, I sincerely hope Kate manages to have at least one affair that knocks her socks off, during her marriage to the life-time philanderer. Eventually children won’t be enough for her.

  41. Tim Peterson says:

    This is all rather unfair. After all her only REAL job was to produce an Heir and a Spare. She has done that. If they get any more use out of her, it’s all bonus.

    So stop complaining. She did her job and should now be allowed to relax. Put her out to pasture, as it were.

    • notasugarhere says:

      It is 2019 FFS, her job is not “brood mare”. There are 3000+ people in the known line of succession to the UK throne.

      Go research the late king and queen of Belgium, Baodouin and Fabiola. It was a great personal sadness they couldn’t have children, but it did not prevent them from doing their royal jobs. Nor should having children prevent W&K from doing their jobs, as it hasn’t prevented any other royals-with-kids from doing theirs.

    • RehanaZehr says:

      This comment really made me laugh out loud! I agree that Kate’s biggest job was to produce an heir an a spare; little Louis is hers and hers only, so to speak. Her second job is to raise the heir and the spare in a happy, drama free, nurturing and caring home. The Cambridge’s are doing well with their young family on this front. Whatever deal K&W may have amongst themselves – in regards to Williams wandering eye – clearly the kids and the family dynamic aren’t affected. He probably goes out, does his thing, then comes back to the home. Whatever, if it works for them, it’s fine. The kids are very happy & loved & clearly comfortable with their parents. The Middletons being a close knit family helps in a big way because Will didn’t have that growing up. Basically, they have a picture perfect family for the public and Will isn’t going to mess that up – he knows he has a good thing going. But, Kate *is* the future Queen consort of this country so does need to be seen being involved with different causes and charities. I don’t think she can really pick and choose with the ‘job’ aspect of being a Royal. The truth is, most people in this country want to see Kate turn up looking fantastic, smile, wave, and not say a word. The reality is…. she needs to branch out with her causes and start doing more to help. The gardens project was her first big project; I loved it and thought she was in her element. She needs to find her passions, then continue with building upon her causes. I hope she does more, time will tell. You can’t really say she doesn’t have to do anything anymore because that is wrong – she does. She has a good platform, she should be making the most of it. Gardens, children, mental health, sport, etc. Kate has the means and resources to do more.

    • Beach Dreams says:

      Unfair? LOL. What’s unfair is lying about being keen to work and do grandiose projects year after year.

  42. Nahhhh says:

    What they do isn’t really work but okay..

    • Rogue says:

      If what they do isn’t work that makes it even less excusable that Kate does so little of it! Her numbers are barely above Meghan’s who has been on maternity leave since March! I am not sure why Kate cannot focus on doing the bread and butter royal work such as public building openings one/two times a week. She would be visible doing her public duties& supporting the Queen, would only be a few hours of the day leaving plenty of time for family and less pressure to do big projects which her lack of work history (and perhaps lack of actual passion?) mean she may not be cut out for. Seems like a win for her and the public.

    • A.Key says:

      My point exactly

  43. Kj says:

    Speculating this about Kate is interesting and all – but having more children still doesn’t explain it for the men. If Kate has been expected to do as many engagements as Anne and Sophie, then William and Harry should be able to catch up to Charles and his siblings to.

    • Rogue says:

      I agree the younger royals should have higher engagement numbers and particularly William and Kate as the future King and Queen consort should be leading the charge.

      • Kj says:

        It doesn’t seem being King or Queen (even future ones) matter anyway. Charles is going to be King yet he does lower than Anne sometimes. Seems like it’s okay for the future monarch to be at the same level at the rest instead of like 5 steps ahead. William and Harry should both be up there with Charles for sure though.

  44. Rogue says:

    I think all the young royals should have at least 200 CC entries and there probably should be better way to count entries- all BTS meetings and preparations should count but I don’t think family celebrations should.

    The BRF may be vulnerable post Brexit and when the Queen passes as Charles doesn’t have same public affection as the Queen (I do think he’s been a great public servant) so William and Kate should be working to secure its future for themselves and George, and as such would expect their output to be more than Harry. But either way they should all be doing more and especially of the public meet and greets to engender that goodwill for the BRF.

    • Vv says:

      I agree about the entries and the public meet and greets.
      But it looks to me that the “bread and butter” scheme of royal engagements is already being ditched by all the “younger” royals.
      None of them want to do that work,which in the end is what makes a lot of people feel close to the institution. It’s not just a W&K’s issue.
      I think the fact that William will have to deal with a job he will never quit,with a more and more increasing workload for both of them, is surely playing a role in how they want their current schedule. But they should be really more out in the public more.
      The behind-the-scenes meetings with their foundations’ staff and choosing the initiatives that maximise the media attention isn’t enough for those who want to *see* them. I’m extending the same reasoning for Harry,Meghan too.
      For example,they can do more community visits,touring areas that royals rarely visit. I thought their visits in Northern Ireland and Wales were planned very well. They need to do more of that.
      But at the same time I’ve also read that very often cities,towns (even charities) are not dying to receive “royal visits” because of the chaos and the security costs. Probably it’s not always easy as we think.
      As for a fourth baby,it would be bad optics for them,and I don’t think they want another either. But who knows.
      Anyway,the thought that she wants to go through another pregnancy and deal with a fourth child her entire life to get those 8 months for herself with the pregnancy excuse,is quite ridiculous.
      Also,it’d be nice to stop referring to babies as “payback” or patch up.. It looks like some people really think she’s forcing her husband to procreate with some sordid tactics.

      • Nic919 says:

        The security for them wouldn’t be any different than for Charles or the Queen and yet they attend hundreds of these events in small towns. In fact it would be more for the Queen. So that’s not a legitimate excuse.

  45. ex-Mel says:

    Yes, I am sure THAT’s why she is having children – so she doesn’t have to “work”.
    I never wanted children (and never had them), but I find that incredibly offensive – as offensive as only sheer stupidity can be.

  46. stacey says:

    Do British tax payers finance her lifestyle? If so, she should work after she takes time off for maternity leave.

  47. Corporatestepsister says:

    What disgusts me is how WK don’t seem interested in the Prince’s Trust and don’t want to do bread and butter appearances on behalf of the Trust. It has helped generations of needy people and is a perfect place for the couple to do charity work and end up with good ties and WK are the next Prince and Princess of Wales.

    If she gets pregnant and shirks work, I believe it would end up with people giving up on her and moving on beyond the BRF. She is building zero ties with her nation that will sustain the monarchy to the next generation and that is the point of being visible and connected to the public. It’s the reason that royal children were shipped off, to bond with the wider world and build ties that will last to the next generation of monarchy. I wonder why she is so uninterested in building ties with the people and press who pay her way through life and frankly I believe she is at a point where she has to either work or the public will give up on her and heads of state will write her off as a pointless ornamental bubble head. She has no real leverage and if William is cheating, I believe he’s given up on any kind of married life where she is a contributing partner. At some point the public will lose patience and she’ll be marginalized when she might want to be center stage. She has few ties and no powerful connections to soften a blow should divorce occur (in that family anything is possible).

  48. Blue36 says:

    Totally off topic, but does anyone know if that old lady who got into the accident is okay? It’s been about a month since it happened.

  49. Evie says:

    I agree that Kate is no whirling dervish of activity. But it’s also true that a BIG part of her “job” is to produce heirs. She now has three children. It’s possible she’ll try for a fourth, who knows?

    Should Wills, Kate and Harry work harder? Absolutely. But this is nothing new; the younger royals have been lazy for years. In the 21st century, the monarchy is an anachronism.

    Everyone keeps harping on Kate eing the “future Queen of England.” And therein lies part of the problem, IMO. God Bless Queen Elizabeth II, she’s been an outstanding monarch and has rarely put a wrong foot forward in over 60 years on the world stage. However, 60+ years of rule is a long time. I am NOT trying to hasten the Queen’s demise or lobbying for her to abdicate in favor of Charles. I’m just saying that the Queen’s extraordinarily long rule and her own unassailable work ethic have provided the younger royals with the opportunity to be lazy. The Queen has not insisted that Will, Kate and Harry do a minimum amount of engagements per year. Charles, Anne and Camilla have all stepped up but the younger ones haven’t.

    The Queen could live for another 10 years and presumably rule for at least another five or six. By the time Charles becomes King he could be 75 or 80. If he’s King for 10 or 15 years — it could conceivably be 20 years before William becomes King barring anything unforeseen happening to Charles. Meanwhile I think the younger royals will continue to enjoy the perks while avoiding most of the burdens. Kate is taking her cue from Will and Harry, and neither of them spent 27 months or over 2 years pregnant. Kate has done an admirable job of producing heirs – you can’t take that away from her.

    • notasugarhere says:

      There are 3000 + people in the known line of succession to the UK throne. See my example of Belgium’s throne going sideways. Having children is NOT a requirement of the royal job.

  50. Corporatestepsister says:

    Thing is, that while HM might still have many years and so might Charles, all it takes is one heart attack to change all that overnight. William and Kate are unprepared and Kate taking her cues from her lazy husband just shows how selfish she is to do this to her Sovereign and shows her for the freeloader she is.

  51. Molly says:

    Poor Kate

  52. Rach says:

    This article is ridiculous. No woman has a baby for maternity leave or to stay at home. This is very sexist coming from a male royal commentator. Having a baby is no walk I’m the park. Anything negative on Kate is peddled here even if it is totally absurd.

  53. Elisabeth says:

    Stephane Bern well-known for his connections with royal circles seems to think that Kate middleton dreams of having 5 children ! so brace yourselves for some more. She’s not going to be working for a long while yet!!!!!

  54. Riley says:

    I can’t fault her for wanting to be with her kids. Once they are all done having them and they are all in school, then that’s a different story. But if people are honest, most would prefer to be a stay at home mom. I know others that could afford to stay home, but choose to work. This just isn’t a big deal to me. She should do what makes her happy.

    • notasugarhere says:

      If they were funded with their own money, they could do what they want. As their lifestyle is provided by taxpayers in exchange for work, they’re required to work.

  55. ejodee says:

    It’s a full time job for SOMEONE to raise three kids. Don’t know why it can’t be the parent’s job if she wants it, or why anyone should be allowed to call that shirking. I don’t see anyone holding up Charles’ upbringing, which was cold and distant by design, as the right way to raise a King. Or for that matter, William’s and Harry’s childhood, which was reeling from divorce then tragically cut short by their mother’s death. Who thinks George, Charlotte and Louis do not deserve all of their mother’s attention?

    • Maria says:

      She can have as many kids as she wants. Just don’t expect the taxpayer to foot the bill.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Ah the old “working parents are bad parents, working mothers are bad mothers” trope. All other royal parents work while they have young children.

  56. Here In My Jammies says:

    I’ll never forget the time Kate skipped the Irish Guards because she was needed at home with her children and she was Twitter papped having her hair done.

    • Wigletwatcher says:

      Officially, KP stated she should not be expected at this event every year. It’s annual and 1 of the easiest. She was setting a precedent.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The first excuse was she didn’t want to set up the expectation that she’d show up every year. When that excuse was beaten up, then they came out with “she wants to be with the kids prior to the next tour”.

  57. Hyacinth Bucket says:

    Can anyone help? What was the magazine that Kate edited, where she left after half an hour to get her hair done?

  58. A.Key says:

    I’m sorry, royals “work”?


    Attending events and posing for the cameras while mingling with people is “work”?