Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Kate Filming BBC Show + CP Victoria's Vacay and Kate's Work Schedule

Saturday, February 18, 2017

Happy Saturday! Today I am catching up on work over at Kate's Clothes, (most ensembles I was behind on have been updated) and filling you in on stories I didn't have time to cover this week. As you all recall, two weeks ago Kate, William, and Harry stopped by a training session for the London Marathon runners who are competing for Heads Together.


A little over a week later, on Monday the 13th, Wills and Kate (with our fave sidekick Harry) were out and about with a film crew working on a show for the BBC called Mind Over Marathon. The show will air in April and will feature presenter Nick Knowles following different runners who are competing for mental health awareness.


The trio filmed at St. Mary's University in Twickenham and despite the chilly weather, they looked in high spirits. Kate wore the exact same ensemble she did on the 5th, all the way down to those Asprey London Button earrings, while the boys both switched it up. Harry went a little more formal in khakis and William swerved toward sporty in a puffer jacket and new athletic trainers. Life is full of surprises, kids, what can I say. 

via Daily Mail Online
I wondered if Kate wore the same outfit to fit seamlessly with her appearance on the 5th, but the boys changed, so it can't be they are trying to pass this footage off for video from the 5th. I think part of the reason might be that women have far greater latitude when it comes to dressing than men. For example, we can dress jeans up or down in ways men cannot. I haven't made a study of Harry's and William's ensembles, but I don't think that either really wears jeans for many official events. They tend to go in khakis or they go in athletic apparel, but I think the only time I have seen William or Harry in jeans is on private occasions, date nights with Kate or Meghan or other off-duty events where we are but spectators, and not invited participants. It seems for William and Harry, jeans just aren't part of work wear. See all the photos at the DM here


I am looking forward to the segment with the Cambridges; it looks like it will be cute! The DM also shared a fun little video which serves as an amuse-bouche. I can't actually embed it, because Blogger doesn't like it, but you can view it here. And because I can't stop myself from sharing my opinion, the light jogging in jeans looks awkward, but I enjoyed it regardless. 

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

Now for a little controversial debate...Yesterday was the 60th day that Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden has not been seen. That's right, she hasn't been out in public since before Christmas and she doesn't have anything on her agenda until mid-March. According to the Swedish Palace, she is on an extended vacation with her children, because she wants to spend quality time with them while they are still young, and before they have to begin their formal schooling. This really surprised me, not because I think a mother should not be able to make this choice, but because I follow a lot of varied royal news sources and I hadn't heard a word about this! 


If Kate disappears for even a few weeks there is public outcry, in fact even when she is actively out and about we still hear a lot of complaints that it isn't enough. The Duchess of Cambridge is the wife of the heir apparent to the heir apparent, while Victoria is the heir apparent to the king. She is next up to bat. I think it is interesting that there is barely a whisper regarding her very long absence, while Kate is often maligned even while she is actively working. 



I posed this discussion on Instagram last night and got some interesting responses that I want to share. (By the way, if you don't follow in Instagram, you can find my profile here. I just signed up a few weeks ago!) @the _mbr said:
I've always believed a large part of the outcry over Kate's workload or appearances is driven by the publics hunger to see her and what she is wearing and the press need to sell papers or get clicks. People use the "she's in a publicly funded position and must earn her keep" justification and compare her to CPM Mary, Victoria and Sophie Wessex. The fact that Mary and Victoria are first in line (Victoria a direct comparison to Charles as future monarch) and that Sophie's 2016 engagement load was only around 30 more than Kate's gets glossed over. For some reason Kate seems to attract people's resentment and I don't think she can win.
Katie C. who writes our Charlene of Monaco blog, which if you haven't seen it, you need to check that out here, said:
In addition to what you've said above, with which I fully agree!, I've heard that the Swedes can be less gruelling with regards to work vs family dynamics - though that certainly doesn't account for the rest of the world! It would, at least, explain why she would make this choice without hesitation. Applause indeed! :)
@Jazzudee  compared the workloads of the two women:
The Crown Princess seems to have worked much more than the Duchess in previous years so I don't think it's fair to compare the 2. I feel like Kate takes much more criticism because she works less. Not that Kate doesn't deserve the time with her kids, because all parents do, but she just hasn't worked enough overall. I wish she worked more because I love seeing her!
There were other interesting responses, but I don't think any really fully accounted for the double standard that seems to be operating here. If we can understand that a mother would want to prioritize her children in this special time, why can't we extend that to Kate? In fact, if Victoria takes three months off to spend concentrated time with her children, is that better than Kate's approach, which is to spread her engagements out, but make sure her overall workload is such that she can give her children steady attention rather than time in spurts? Is one better than the other? We don't usually have this kind of discussion on the blog, but today I am opening the comment section for your thoughts. Please keep it civil, of course, but I welcome vigorous debate. 

216 comments:

  1. Kate took fifth months off after she had Charlotte and she already didn't work enough before that
    Crown princess Victoria took little maternity leave and now she is taking only 3 months off and her workload is always much higher
    But I don't understand why royals seem to think that spending one or two days a week out in public promoting important causes will scar their kids for life
    So am I thrilled that Victoria is taking this time off? No but I am much more understanding of it than I am with Kate

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Orange County GrandmaFebruary 18, 2017 at 9:49 PM

      I have read all your comments hear. I understand them to say Kate should not be a mother to her children. But to let the nanny raise them. The only take I can come up with is that you have no children of your own. One comment you made I had to laugh at it What does your friends working have to do with Kate taking care of her children.
      Kate is lucky she has the support of the Queen to be able to stay homr as much as she does and look after two.children.
      We don't know what Kate does behind the scene. But it has been said that she does a lot of work behind the scene.

      Delete
    2. Is the Queen not a mother to Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward?

      Delete
    3. Orange County grandma if you think Kate must do a lot of work behind the scenes I think you may be mistaken. Charles would never sleep if he did as much work behind the scenes as you claim Kate does
      If she had more of a work history I would give her more benefit of the doubt

      Delete
    4. Orange County GrandmaFebruary 19, 2017 at 7:12 PM

      Yes the Queen is the mother of Charles, Ana, Andrew and Edward. But she was not there for most of them growing up do to her duty as Queen. I think she realizes now that children need their parents.
      I feel we have Diana to thank on how William has taken to him and Kate want to raise their children. More hands on, less nanny raising.
      Let's face it all of the Queens children were raised by nannies and governesses and did not see much of their parents growing up.

      Delete
    5. What you say is true Orange County grandma but generations of wealthy children have been raised by nannies and governesses. Hands on parenting has not traditionally been a part of what it means to mother for aristocratic women.

      Delete
  2. This is a Kate Blog so I understand why you are comparing CAtherine with Victoria, but as the latter is Crown Princess (heir to the throne) I think that is inappropriate. And its not only the female members of a family that care for their young children.
    William is the heir to the heir, did 200 engagements last year AND worked for EAAA and he got every kind of flak that the media could throw at him.

    I think there is different pressures on UK royals, particularly William and Catherine and thats because they sell/click to the public. Public expectations are higher in the UK as well.

    And within the BRF there are different standards as well. In the past 5 wks Princess Royal has cancelled 7 engagements because of helicopter/weather issues. No mention anywhere in UK press. Catherine did it once and again was castigated by the media. And even using a helicopter causes negative comments.

    Double standard by the media and royal followers both home and abroad is alive and kicking

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Princess Anne takes LOADS of engagements, look the future events of the BRF and she's got the most scheduled, so 7 miss don't affect her. William was criticised for only making 200 events because his job is not with the EAAA, his job is to be a royal, that's what he was born for.

      Delete
    2. Actually, his job *is* with the EAAA; he formally accepted a position for which he is paid (although his salary is donated). That's a job. He also happens to be royal, but, sensibly, he chose to find a way to have a semi-normal work experience while helping people before he ascends to the throne. I can't find fault with him for that.

      As for saying he was "born for" being a royal: that may be true in one sense, but he's also a human being. He's fulfilling his duties and his path as he sees best, and none of us really have a sense of what his position's like to live in.

      Delete
    3. Funny Will didn't list the EAAA job as his occupation on Charlotte's birth certificate. He listed "Prince." I do understand both points here. Will doesn't have to work at EAAA but choses to and that's admirable. On the other hand, I am sure there are other co-pilots who could do that job. But its a little harder to find a stand-in prince.

      Delete
  3. Prince Albert also recently had to defend Charlene who apparently is also under fire for putting family ahead of work. Melania Trump is also doing the same for her son. i think it is a double standard when it comes to Kate and I think it all comes to the fact that classism is still very evident in society. On the surface people have embraced that a commoner has married into royalty, but they are quick to throw her background back at her if she does not perform in the manner that they think she should. Personally I think she has conducted herself admirably since coming into the family and that William and her, together with approval from the queen and Charles have had a set agenda. Sophie Wessex, if you look at the CC will go weeks without and engagement- sometimes three weeks, but she is considered a workhorse. Good for these women for putting family first, because they can.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Catherine is the wife of the heir of the heir. Victoria is the heir. It really makes me laugh at the double standards that are employed.

    Imagine if Catherine was the heir to the British throne? Catherine more than holds up her position as the wife of The Duke of Cambridge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree, Victoria is far 'more important' to say it this way - directly next in line to the throne - than Kate.. still, some people are so unfair and criticize Kate fore any tiny bit while defending Victoria over anything... i like victoria, but I do not like these people who apply such a double standard!

      Delete
    2. Yes, Kate is in a very different position (as the WIFE of an heir of an heir vs. being the next QUEEN). This makes the silence over Victoria's "absence" even more interesting and ironic.

      Speaking as an American, I am not aware of any royals (other than Charles, Diana, Camilla, William, Kate, and Harry) making the cover of newspapers and magazines. It's my impression that Victoria is very popular in Sweden, but the Swedish royal family does not have the star power that the BRF has on this side of the pond. Perhaps Victoria does not have what I call reality star expectations placed on her. And by that I mean that some people follow Kate like a reality star that is expected to be a daily source of entertainment. Some folks almost appear to feel entitled to it.

      Delete
    3. Does anyone know how much revenue the Swedish royal family brings in because of Swedish royal-based tourism can what the BRF brings in?

      Delete
  5. I believe that Prince Charles funds the royal work that the Cambridges and Prince Harry do, not the public. Maybe Jane can check that for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Out of curiosity has Victoria done this before? Or is this break to focus on her children a first for her? For the Swedish royal family? I ask only because before I weigh on with a judgment I wonder if there might be more to the story. Victoria did recently have a baby and taking time away to "focus on the family" can sometimes be a polite cover for needing time to deal with an illness/issue without sharing all the personal details.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope there is no health problem with Daniel amd his kidney!!

      Delete
    2. Sonja, it did cross my mind. I sincerely hope not...

      Delete
  7. The BRF is simply the best known royal family worldwide. I live in Austria and one would think that I am interested in and informed about not only the British royal family, but also the Swedish, Danish, Dutch, Belgian, Spanish etc. royal families. That is not the case. Kate & Co. are much more in the centre of attention than e.g. Queen Maxima. I don't know the reasons for this, but it's definitely a fact. Therefore we hear an outcry from the media if Kate does only so many engagements a month, but if CP Victoria takes three months off, that's okay. She doesn't have the same celebrity status as Kate does although she's higher in rank.
    Personally, I sometimes wonder if Kate spends enough time with her children. I always feel sorry for them, if Kate has many day-long or evening engagements. They're certainly well cared for, but little children need their mommy (and daddy) and I hope Will and Kate get as much time with their family as they wish for! It's the best investment in the future they can make!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are kidding right? She goes two weeks between engagements and only did 130 last year. She spends way more time with her kids than my mom ever did because unlike kate my mom had a full time job that she worked 40 hours a week
      Tread carefully, because you seem to be implying that full time working mothers aren't doing what is best for their kids
      I actually respected my mother more for working hard
      So it is amazing to me you seem to think that kate working 60 days out of the year (as was the number for 2016) seemed to be too much

      Delete
    2. The question Jane poses is whether there are double standards between the royals and not whether they are working enough. To compare the royal lifestyle to our lives is not even reality.

      Delete
    3. I think we are all entitled to our opinion, Sarah. Your language is quite aggressive and almost threatening in parts.
      Royal Watcher

      Delete
    4. I just get a little upset when people claim that in order to have children be raised well the mom needs to be with them all day everyday because I believe most my friends as well as my mom have worked full time and I think we turned out just fine

      Delete
    5. That's not what Anonymous 2:49 said, Sarah. That's what you read into it.

      Delete
    6. No Sarah you did not turn out well. You are impolite and aggressive in your views of the ditches





      No Sarah you did not turn out well. You are impolite and aggressive in your views of the DoC. Part of her duties is to teach her children how to act in a civil society. How to be polite, how to respond in certain situation,wether good or bad how to be in control of their emotions; yes this training starts early. RG


      Delete
    7. I can't believe you published Anon 8.48's comment Jane. Telling another commenter that "she did not turn out well". Wow.

      Delete
    8. I didn't personally insult anyone anon.
      Just because I don't dawn over the Cambridges and call people out for saying ridiculous statements like working 60 days a year is working too much doesn't make me aggressive
      I just think maybe my idea of work ethic is very different from yours
      Tsipa she basically said working 60 days a year was too much. So call me insane if I think that opinion is ridiculous

      Delete
    9. All working mothers have day long or evening or perhaps night engagements. It's called WORK. And it's not twice a month. Then our children should be traumatized to the impossible level :).

      Delete
    10. Counting the time she is in front of the cameras as the ONLY time she spends working is somewhat simplistic and unrealistic, no? There is so much more to it than that, as anyone who has followed royals and watched various documentaries would be aware of.

      Delete
  8. So many thoughts flying into my brain right now. First, I agree that there is a huge double standard in the court of public opinion. Kate won't sit on the throne as consort until both HMTQ and PC have passed. Even then she will only be the consort. So, comparing her to Victoria isn't quite an equal thing to do. I also think that comparing Victoria's past workload to Kate's is very unfair. Victoria was born to the crown and has served her life in that role. Kate married into the family from the back ground of a commoner not quite six years ago and has had two difficult pregnancies since then. Her workload of under six years compared to Victoria's lifetime of work and experience shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence.

    I also feel that the Swedish people are far more respectful of their royal family as are the Dutch. In Britain (and sadly in other countries where opinions don't count as they are not our royals) there always seems to be an attitude of "What have you done for me lately?" where the BRF is concerned. I have observed over the past few months that those who preach tolerance with venom are, in fact, the least tolerant people on the planet unless everyone shares their opinion. It makes me sad.

    ReplyDelete
  9. There definitely is a double standard. Many people, for example on twitter, are much more harsh on Kate than they are on Victoria. I think it is just not fair. Both deserve time with their little kids, whether it's in a block of many months off like victoria or spreading out engagements over time like kate.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I feel like this is comparing apples to oranges. The fact that they are both royalty is the only thread that connects them and a weak one at that.

    ReplyDelete
  11. American royal watcherFebruary 18, 2017 at 3:38 PM

    I'm an American, so this is certainly only a pt of view from that perspective, however, I'm wondering if the lack of official comment for CP Victoria's 60 days absence was more at fault than the actual absence. As much as i love seeing the Cambridges, I hope that as they are not the most directly in line, Charles is, they are able to maximize this small detail and enjoy their young family. They seem to meet each public engagement with such poise, warmth,and goodwill, we all want more! Personally, I marvel that they balance all they do now, and it is clear that they are comfortable being involved with their children. It's a new role for royalty and they too, need to be given the opportunity to find their own sense of balancing duty and family.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Of course there is a double standard!!!!!

    Maxima and Willem-Alexander spent Christmas half way around the world in Argentina: no criticisms.

    Mary and Fredrick spent Christmas a couple years ago half around the world in Australia: no criticism.

    William and Kate spent Christmas in Berkshire (google maps tells me that it's 1 hour and 5 minutes from Kensington Gardens): HOW DARE THEY! DISRESPECTFUL! ITS ROYAL TRADITION! THE QUEEN IS OLD AND COULD DIE!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Then again every family has different traditions and the BRF is fairly traditional and conservative and has distinct traditions surrounding Christmas. On the other hand there are likely holidays or traditional events that the non-BRF royals have as part of their family dynamics that the BRF does not.

      Delete
    2. The Dutch and Danes travelled halfway through the world to visit families they rarely see. The Cambridges left at home two great-grandparents who might have spent their last Christmas.

      Delete
    3. Right, but HM is 90 and PP is 95. The "they could go at any time" thing has been true for at least a decade (longer, really, because who knows?). It's ultimately a family decision how they spend their holidays, and as Priscilla points out - one that gets a different level of criticism from the public.

      Delete
    4. Here, here Tsipa! It's a family decision and I'm sure that HM and PP were well aware of, and supportive of, sharing a small part of their large family so they could also see the other grandparents. Nothing about Christmas at Sandringham, along with the walk to church, is official. Traditional, yes, but they are not ignoring duty. When duty calls they are there no matter what the Middleton family is doing. The Middleton family has a tradition of going to the Caribbean every winter but W&K haven't gone for two years now. Yet, nobody is crying fowl there!

      Delete
    5. Priscilla, you are so right. :) The irony here is that if W&K spent every holiday with the Windsor's while the Middleton's stayed out of sight in Bucklebury, William would be called an insensitive and selfish husband for not considering his wife's feelings and Kate would be called a Stepford wife who doesn't stand up for herself. Ha!

      Delete
  13. If we cast back our minds one, then two generations, we will remember how the late Princess Diana was criticized for taking baby William with her on the royal tour of Australia. This was juxtaposed with Queen Elizabeth's LONG tours without baby Charles. Some people suggested that this made The Queen a more serious and harder working royal and Diana a better mother. The work/family balancing act is difficult enough without the whole world criticizing you. Is there any real evidence that The Duchess of Cambridge shirks the duties that Her Majesty currently expects from her? I say we leave her and CPV to get on wth things as best as they can. None of us know what the emotional landscapes of those families are in private. All children need their mothers and some need them more at different times. I love following the royal families as much as any other person does, but I also respect that they are FAMILIES and must sometimes put family before work. The money grubbing, rumour mongering elements of the media, who perpetuate such shocking double standards, need some humanity, compassion and common sense!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Voice of reason, Sherrie. Thank-you. No rehashed "talking points." I have learned to skip commenters who can be counted on to give the same spiel, without regard to intervening events or circumstances, or-for example, after likely reading many comments as to what William actually said and what exactly he was talking about when he used the word "normal," some still use the term to mean life-style, not relationship to his children, as he clearly stated. I have come to the conclusion that some people are not open to logic and reject anything that does not line up with a particular belief. By the way,I doubt the Swedish newspapers publish multiple photos of CP Victoria's behind either. That's the clue to whether a forum is interested in getting clicks versus serious news. It is difficult if not impossible to find any rear views of other royal family members, both BRF and others. It is a matter of good taste. If someone is walking around with toilet paper on his shoe, one need not make a general announcement. If the Queen dislikes Kate's choice of pants she will tell her privately and Kate will listen. I don't have much hope of the tabloids employing ethical practices, let alone common sense and compassion They are selling papers. I do hope fellow women commenters could show a more humane response.

      Delete
    2. Excellent post, Sherrie.

      I've said this many, many times before...W&K cannot be judged fairly without understanding and considering the chapter that preceded them. There is a method to the madness. Also, judging W&K by their six (almost!) years of married life is rather shortsighted given the rather long history of the BRF.

      Delete
  14. I think there are many reasons for the differences in treatment including differences between the UK and Sweden. (And the size and spread of the Commonwealth means more attention too.) One of the most problematic though IMO is Will's insistence on wanting to live a normal life. People who ARE living normal lives--raising children while working 35-40 hr jobs every single week or if a stay at home parent, caring for children while doing housecleaning, yardwork,laundry, charity work and so forth--often don't understand why an out-of-the-house work schedule as meager as the Cambridges has seemed to be *some years* (including before the children were born) is considered such a sacrifice. We've been told both W&K do alot of work "behind the scenes." That may be true but then we have yet another public statement about not reading briefings or a poorly prepped speech which calls the claim into question. Will's job with the ambulance service--something he doesn't HAVE to do--has also sometimes been a PR negative not a positive as one would expect with KP having to walk back statements. (Remember the one about Will not being able to do royal duties on his time off because aviation rules said he had to "rest"?) So as I've said before, I don't think the issue is work level per se but much of the bad PR has been self-inflicted. 

    The issue of support that Martha raises has been addressed on the blog at length before, once fairly recently I think. I am not enough of an expert to get into the details but suffice it to say Charles isn't supporting WK&H with personal funds he earned as an individual non-royal citizen. (Although I personally think Charles is a hard worker.) Also, the BRF is exempt from inheritance taxes so one COULD argue that means others have to pay more in taxes to maintain services, services that have apparently declined in recent yrs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But there are no allowances for what "normal" constitutes for individuals. For William, his mother and father were gone all the time with full royal workloads. His friends in school, while aristocratic and wealthy, did not have their parents duty-bound to be gone all the time and have their photos (and all their problems) splashed about as entertainment on the front of every newspaper. I'm guessing that for William "normal" would be anything that didn't include that. It's not like he intends to live a middle-class lifestyle in the way we would define normal. He most likely doesn't even know what that entails. But, since his words are dissected all the way down to the way he pronounces each syllable, the speculations become ridiculous. Why can't he just be praised for being a loving husband and father who wants to spend time with his family? His father has said on many occasions that he was very lonely as a child and was always told to suck it up because that was his duty. Diana was also a very lonely child as a result of her divorce torn family. She was determined to be there for her boys. I'm no great fan of Charles but I would bet that he is William's greatest advocate for spending as much time as he can with his children while he is not currently the next in line.

      Delete
    2. I believe that William's definition of normal is relative; I suspect he means normal as compared to prior royal generations. Not normal as in Mr & Mrs Smith down the street. :)

      Delete
    3. The world was quite different when Charles was young. All children---not just royal children--were likely expected to be seen and not heard. Many children of wealthy parents--not just royal children-- were "raised" by nannies. We knew MUCH less about child development as well. Travel including royal travel took much more time too. I was not suggesting we go back to that time although I do think the almost obsessive focus we now have on children, at least in certain groups, is not always a good thing (children over-protected from "failure," trophies for all, helicopter parenting continuing into the college years)

      I also think it is a bit of a false dichotomy to imply W&K have no other choices besides raising their children the way Charles was raised or doing what they've done. Recall the ski trip last yr in early March. At the time of that vacation Will had done only 4 royal engagements in 2016. The way the PR for that trip was handled seemed to be an intentional stick in the eye of the media...most likely directed by Will. Had it not been handled that way, counts of royal engagements might not have been done so early in the year and would not have been reported with news of the ski trip setting up a clear narrative that extended to St. Pat's Day and beyond. So I do think Will brings alot of the bad PR on himself in part because of his view of the media, a negative view that predates Diana's death. So he has not learned to use it to his advantage and seems to have actively resisted learning to do that. (The Queen seems to view it differently) Will has also stated he think "ribbon-cuttings" are a waste of time. Maybe but they do get royals in public view and tend to get positive local press or at worst neutral press. So those don't take much time away from home and can be used for a more positive public "working vibe".

      The "normal" stuff that has been mentioned either by Will or by his PR team elicits backlash too IMO. Better to have people conclude for themselves that the family seems  normal with normal relationships vs demanding to be viewed that way. It's pretty clear what many people are **hearing** is: "we value our children and want to spend time with them. So you won't see us much while they are young. If you cared about your children you'd do the same. If you don't stay home you must not care or at least you don't care as much as we do." I know that's not what's meant but I do think it is what is heard by many. 

      I expect Will is a good father and hope he's a good husband. But I don't think it's reasonable for that to be enough in the public's view. As he is a prince in line for the throne people expect more especially since (unlike in Sweden)  the more senior royals are elderly. (Added to that is Charles' s supposed desire to "downsize")

      It's not the same but close enough....I hope my dr has a good private life but I don't want his/her family life to get in the way of reading current medical literature!


      Delete
    4. I'm tired of those who say Catherine has no work ethic and call her lazy. There's a big difference between the presence or lack of participation in public events and assuming that conveys something about her "work ethic". We don't really know what her work ethic is. We know that her parents worked hard and built a successful business and set an example. She grew up, unlike many of her current cohorts, in a work-focused environment. We know that she was and is a disciplined athlete. We know that she did well in school and had top marks. From the glimpses we have seen, she seems to be an accomplished photographer; which requires hard work and discipline. So what if she only worked part time before marriage, there are many among the affluent that didn't work at all. We know from some reports, that when she is at event she is very well informed and makes thoughtful observations and questions. That is evidence of doing her homework. We also know that at first with George she did not have a nanny and only acquired help when the public appearances increased. We don't know the degree to which Catherine does the household management, her own cooking etc. We do not know what her daily life obligations are - whether self or externally imposed. I have no issue with the clamor for more public appearances although I believe that will happen as Elizabeth and Charles decree. But I do object to all the characterizations of Catherine as lazy and and work adverse. I believe her to have a work ethic, it's just not necessarily directed as you might wish.

      Delete
  15. I think the issue here is that Royals live a life too far removed from the average person that its hard to empathise with their holiday needs. To be clear even the most hard working of royals do not work anything resembling a 9 till 5. Most people who know what its like to hold down a job will not recognise what Kate does as toil. It must also be noted that Kate barely worked prior to her marriage so its perhaps not too unkind to suggest that Kate does not have a work ethic? As for balancing motherhood with her duties I would never begrudge any parent spending quality time with their children but the fact is due to the nature of royal duties, consider that most tend to last a hour or so, Kate could comfortably carry out full time duties and still be ever present for her children. I shouldn't have to point out there are many working mums who dont have nannys yet make fantastic parents. Again this goes back to what I think is the fundamental problem with monarchy there is no solidarity between royalty and subject. We cant empathise with them. When its debatable whether or not Kate would be employable in the private sector is it not then fair to ask why we should listen to her? If W&K would be gracious enough to reimburse the UK taxpayer for their security detail when abroad I think that would go some way to offsetting criticism. I see no reason why we should help subsidise their constant travel to France. Just my honest opinions

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's so interesting that there are comments that Will and Kate don't have any idea what it's like to be "normal" (which isn't even a thing, btw), and then when they try to - Will takes a job and Kate stays home with the kids - there are comments that they have no right to deprive the taxpayer of their presence. Is it any wonder they make their choices without trying to please everyone?

      Delete
    2. I think I agree that because Kate barely worked in her twenties she is criticized a lot more now for not doing enough. I think that if she had a steady job as a 'commoner' up until she got married, she would definitely not receive this kind of criticism about work. I think it is self inflicted. Yes her family is rich, yes she didn't have to work, but I think that has worked against her, as people perceived her as being lazy previously. In fact, this is probably the hardest she has worked her entire life, and even though she is beautiful and gracious etc that really isn't a compliment.

      Delete
    3. So, basically, everyone is being harshly judgmental about the life of someone they don't really even know. We have no idea what it's like to be in Kate's shoes either before her marriage or since. None of us have ever lived in a fishbowl where people (including people in these comments) pick apart and criticize every single thing you do, don't do, say, don't say, wear, and don't wear. I'm guessing that all of you judges sitting on your high horses couldn't spend one month living her life and still put a smile on your face for the world at large after someone photographed you with your skirt flying up and put it on the front page in every county and every language. And good luck knowing your husband and children are under a constant security threat. BTW, the last time you ran out to the store in your sweat pants without any make-up on and your hair in a mess - be grateful nobody recorded it for all posterity and will drag those pictures out every time they wish to make a false accusation about you, your husband, children, or parents.

      Delete
  16. It's simple. CP Victoria takes up to 5 events 5 days a week, unheard of Kate or William. Kate's is always on holiday, rarely has an event each week, so it's not fair to compare at all. CP Victoria makes an overseas visit at least eavery two months, Kate/William don't. They both should spend time with their children, but the Swedes recognise their role, the Brits don't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She most certainly does not work these numbers. Charles and Anne who are the hardest working BRF members don't work five days a week either and they work more than the Swedish Royal family. Camilla, who is Victoria' s counterpart works more than Victoria.

      Delete
    2. No, Charles is Victoria's counterpart.
      Camilla is Daniel's counterpart.

      Delete
    3. Charlotte, you seem to have a good deal of animosity towards Kate. I wonder if this Kate fan blog is the best place for you.

      Delete
    4. Orange County GrandmaFebruary 18, 2017 at 9:31 PM

      Charlotte you are completely incorrect. Kate is not always on holiday. I believe the last holiday she took was last winter and it was four days. Then I think they went to France last summer. You can not call royal tours vacations. If you want to complain maybe you should complain about the York girls. They both quit their jobs and are always on holiday.
      So every family royal or not are entitled to have personal time with their families.
      Sounds like you might be jealous of Kate's life

      Delete
    5. Do they publish every holiday they go on?

      Delete
    6. As per holiday I meant she has always free time. I do not concern about the Yorks since they aren't the future monarch/consort. CP Victoria does have remarkable numbers, 5 events a day 5 days a week is not sometime that always happens, but her workload is very consistent, so much so that people worry when they haven't seen her in 60 days!! I do like Kate, but it is unbeliavable how people will defend her when she's wrong. She and William need to do more, HM is in her 90s, Charles isn't too young either, and before long they'll be Prince and Princess of Wales. They are both royals, by marriage and birth, they both have to undertake their duties. 200 events a year may be enough for Harry, but not for a 2nd in line and his wife. Does CP Victoria work more? Absolutely. Is she 2nd in line? No. Will W&K be 2nd soon? Yes. It's nice to live in a farm and do nothing with your days or work as a local does, but they must prepare for their roles, and waving, similing, wearing pretty clothes and going to few events where they'll stay for 1.5 hours won't do.

      Delete
    7. Woah Charlotte ... please don't compare The British and Swedish royal families when you obviously do not have the detailed knowledge of either.

      Delete
    8. Orange County GrandmaFebruary 19, 2017 at 7:05 PM

      @anon 10:20. If it is Kate and William we hear about all of their holidays before or after they have happened. With the York girls we hear about them before, during or after.

      Delete
    9. Always on holiday? Really. Care to share list? :)

      Delete
    10. The fact that HM and Charles are getting on in years is probably a large part of just why Will and Kate are guarding these precious years of their lives so closely - they very likely don't have many left before they're thrust even more firmly into the limelight. I say let them be.

      Delete
  17. CP Victoria doesn't takes up to 5 events 5 days a week. She does around 90 to 100 engagement per year. People needs to stop acting like she's pulling Charles numbers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Their engagements are counted differently. She is out almost five days a week for nine months a year.

      Delete
  18. I think that the issue is that Victoria is respected for her work ethic while Kate has been criticized for hers. From her days as a girlfriend Kate was being kept in style with hardly any work to show for it. She had a great degree that she could have used while working for an art gallery or behind the scenes in one of the great London museums, but she chose to take the easy path of not doing that so she could be available for William. As a mother of a second grader I constantly urge her to never take the easy way out, to take on challenges and to stand up for herself. So to me Kate's life choices have been problematic and ones I would never have made or encouraged a daughter to make. My opinion of her is colored by her early life choices and what they revealed about her mettle. I think she is sweet and kind but with little backbone.
    Victoria on the other hand has shown tremendous fight her entire life. First for her health then for her love, all the while performing her duties to perfection. She works all the time and royal watchers know that. Hence she gets empathy and respect for her choices. If Kate had held a full time work schedule ever I can guarantee there would not have been this kind of blowback.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To sit on the side lines and criticize for taking an easy way out is in itself easy. Unless you are in the situation, you do not know the dynamics of the situation. By all accounts from royal reporters, she has plenty back bone and to marry into the BRF requires back bone. Coming from a family who are self- made millionaires also rubs off. They did not achieve that with pennies from heaven.

      Delete
    2. And you don't know anything about my life and what I have done in circumstances. So you can't really comment whether I am on the sidelines or not. It is your opinion that she has plenty of backbone and marrying well requires some kind of backbone. Not a fact. I don't share your opinion.

      Delete
    3. I agree with this opinion. Her earlier life choices have definitely shaped the way we perceive her now. But essentially who really cares. It's not like Kate is reading this and is deciding to take on more engagements. I actually don't think that the royals are completely aware of most of the negative remarks they receive.

      Delete
    4. Very well said Anonymous 5:01. I agree with your opinion. Doesn't mean I don't enjoy being a Kate watcher but I do have my eyes open to her situation and don't set the bar too high for her and am therefore rarely disappointed by having unfair expectations of her. She is what she has always been. I love her gorgeous hair and that amazing coat collection and the crazy faces she is wont to pull at times and I am a Princess Charlotte "sugar"- I will watch that that little bitsie with continued great interest!

      Delete
    5. Agree with you anon. When people say that Kate must be doing tons behind the scenes I get a little skeptical because I haven't seen anything from her work history that would make me think that
      I'd totally admit the fact that Kate didn't ever have a full time job makes me more critical of her because I am worried how she will handle it once she becomes princess of Wales or is she going to continue this part time work

      Delete
    6. Maple- that little girl is a power house. Even George seems somewhat in awe of her. I am thinking of the balloon pounding incident at the Canadian play date. She just made straight for them. And with the bunny, was it? I can imagine a number of those photos are sitting in the family album. To think that we have a commenter here who not only was present, but also took part and has personally interacted with that little family!

      Delete
    7. 5:01, If you have problems with Kate's life choices, why do you follow her? Why are you here? Why are you spending time commenting about someone who obviously offends you? I don't get it.

      Delete
    8. RobinfromCA: on the contrary Kate does not offend me at all. Unlike some of the people commenting here I am quite comfortable with having shades of grey in my life and am perfectly happy getting along with people I disagree with, while not judging them. Perhaps you have not realized that such a way of life is possible?
      I do not agree with Kate's choices and never have and would never make similar choices in my own life. I would never cite her as a role model to my children. I would cite myself to my children or other women around me that I know whose life choices I admire and agree with. But so what if I don't think that she is worthy of emulating? That does not mean I hate her or that she offends me. I am perfectly happy to admire her beautiful face, her amazing athleticism and her enviable wardrobe. I think she is a happy, kind woman with a great life. And I feel happy for her that she is happy and surrounded by love.
      For my own daughter however, I would wish for a life with more than that. That is all.
      One does not have to judge others and live life in black and white, you know. Perhaps you and some others can try it some day. It might make the world a less unhinged place.

      Delete
    9. "Sweet and kind" alone wouldn't cut it when you consider everything that has been thrown at Kate since she was in University. It takes quite a backbone to deal with every aspect of your life being analyzed and criticized, to have your motives questioned, to have your family accused of being social climbers, to have both your public and private roles picked apart on a daily basis, to have decisions involving your children under a global microscope, etc. AND, to handle it all with class and dignity. Sweet and kind? YES. But Kate is SOOO MUCH MORE.

      Robin, great questions.

      Delete
    10. um, we can still follow Kate for her fashion and for seeming to be a sweet and genuine person while still looking with a critical eye at some of her choices (e.g. not take a job in order to be available for William full time). I like her bc she's kind, smart, and it's fun to watch her fashion. However, would I hold her up as a role model to my own daughter? No way. We don't have to love everything she does 10000% as some people her think we do.

      Delete
  19. Compare Victoria to Prince Charles? It's laughable. Charles does soooo much more. Again Catherine is the wife of the heir of the heir. Victoria is heir.

    Catherine does as much as Daniel and he's the crown prince consort.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And to add to your comment, Anon 5.09, the Swedish king and queen are younger than the British queen and prince. They are likely to be working for a long time yet.
      Royal Watcher

      Delete
  20. I think that no comparison can be made. Victoria has laways worked a lot, almost until the end of her pregnancy. Plusz this is a first for her. Maybe there is something going on that the public doesn't know. Honestly...

    ReplyDelete
  21. The marriage of William and Kate really is a fairytale. A beautiful commoner who with all sorts of up and downs married her prince. Because of that we all look eagerly to see pictures of her out and about.For lack of a better word,it makes use feel happy. When we don't see her we are unhappy and perhaps displace that anger by saying she isn't out and about often enough. Just a thought.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I honestly thinks this comes down to the media on each country. The British press and tabloids in particular are notorious for negative converage of figures in public life and Kate has been at the receiving end of that with respect to the level of her engagement in public life. The Swedish press simply don't take that tone and hence its coverage hasn't focused on her absence.

    All that said, I'll agree with some of the comments above about some relevancy when it comes to comparing royal workloads with that faced by the general population. I can't comment on what Princess Victoria is expected to do as a the heir to the Swedish throne but unless Kate was constantly touring without her children or dedicating herself to eight hours of work a day away from her children, she has considerably more flexibility in her schedule than the average working mum - and perhaps media coverage of perceived absense from engagements reflects public sentiment on that point.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I've been an avid royal watcher since Kate really came onto the scene all of those years ago. I find it all very fascinating but I think the thing that fascinates me the most is how people assume to know what is going on behind the scenes or what the Queen things or what Kate feels. It's honestly ridiculous to me... Do these people really think they know the Queen better than the Queen's family knows her? Of course not! If the Queen thought that Kate's pants were too tight or her workload wasn't enough, Kate would obviously be the first to know. Not us. So I think that's the first point in all of the Kate criticism. We pretend that we know but we have NO IDEA what happens in their private lives.

    I also think there really is no comparison to be made here. I think pitting two women against each other (not what I think you're doing here Jane, just pointing it out!) will go nowhere. People are different, expectations are different, countries are different. As has been mentioned many times, Kate is the wife to the heir to the heir. I honestly feel like we see her PLENTY. And, she's obviously increasing her workload this year. Assuming she lives to an about average age of 85 (not to get morbid here!), this has been 5 years of her raising her children while doing some engagements with another 75 (!!!) to go. How can anyone think what she's doing is not enough?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just a note that the question didn't pit Victoria against Kate. It posed the point that the public (not even the press, necessarily) has a double standard for these two women. I have always been a strong proponent of Kate's right to do as she likes, especially when it concerns her children, and I applaud Victoria for doing just that herself. Obviously, I hope there is nothing more troubling, like a health issue, behind this. My point is that fans might be confused about what really drives the complaints about Kate. Or, at least I am opening the discussion to explore that possibility, without deciding before people make their points.
      Frankly, I do not look forward to the day we see Kate everyday. I think that will be...tiresome. I think she works enough for herself and frankly, for the public.

      Delete
    2. Jane Kate can do whatever she wants as long as she pays for her own royal protection and gives up the fancy houses the designer clothes and the nice vacations
      Part of being royal is work. I don't care if she isn't the next queen but she IS going to be queen
      She is also 35 and has never worked a full time job

      Delete
    3. Well, that's not quite right, though. Kate could become a recluse tomorrow and never venture beyond KP's gates, and while it would be weird, she is under no obligation to do anything, so long as William is happy with the arrangement. William is the royal through whom all those luxuries flow. Kate is the recipient as his spouse, just like any random girl could have been had he married someone else. Since she is his partner, she shares his work to the extent she chooses, but she is entitled to the goodies because she is his wife, not in her own right. If William said he was done with being a royal and carrying out royal duties, we'd have an abdication situation on our hands and that would pause the gravy train. See the difference?

      Delete
    4. Jane is correct here. Anyway royal protection is at the request of the government and not the royals. They would probably relish not been followed by security all the time. Their vacations are paid for privately and William is wealthy enough to afford the vacations. Actually they take fewer vacations than most families of similar standing. As for clothes, well she seems happiest in her skinny jeans, so she can probably afford that.

      Delete
    5. Pfft. Sarah, if you think that never putting a toe out of line for 15 years, bearing and raising two children (one of whom will inherit the crown), being patron for multiple charities, functioning as a diplomat, being ever-present to the threats of attack or paparazzi harrassment, being married to the future king while maintaining your psychological integrity, AND staying model-thin and beautiful ISN'T a full-time job, then...I am seriously interested to hear what you do for a living.

      Delete
    6. Where does William get is money? From Charles and he gets it because he is prince of Wales so William doesn't have his own source of wealth at all he gets the money because he is royal and therefore Kate gets the nice stuff because she is royal
      Anything he got from princess Diana came from prince Charles since he paid her a lot of money after their divorce
      and no tsipa that is not a full time job because she isn't actually working. And no working out doesn't count as work
      And everyone who raises children has to do most of those things and they still work full time

      Delete
    7. We have no way of knowing where the inheritance money for William and Harry came from. Fact is that the princes did inherit a substantial sum and it is there's to do with as they wish

      Delete
    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    9. Sorry, Tsipa, just saw your second comment. I don't know why there was a delay.

      Delete
    10. Sarah you seem to have a very strong negative opinion of Kate and the British royals in general. In fact a lot of your views on royal life, its privileges and funding is quite Republican (in the British anti monarchical sense not the American political sense). If you hold these views (which is absolutely your right) I wonder why you would choose to spend so much time on a forum that is clearly pro-Kate. I ask very genuinely as I would like to understand why one would devote their time to a topic or person that they obviously have negative feelings towards.

      Delete
    11. I love queen Elizabeth and prince Charles and and admire them greatly
      When William and Kate first got married I was so excited because finally someone who was a commoner would join the royal family. I thought it would be nice to see someone join a family that has worked in the real world
      But it has been six years and starting with her skipping handing out shamrocks last year I have slowly started to fall out of love with her

      Delete
    12. And is it then not time to quit following her on this blog AND take the time to negatively comment and continue with your life and find something else to follow that will not upset you that much?

      Delete
    13. I won't comment on how you demonstrated your affection prior to March, 2016-that is a matter of archive record on another blog. I will add that none of the BRF royal brides and grooms, other than Prince Phillip, in the past 100 years were royal before marriage. That includes Sophie, Tony, Autumn, Sarah, Elizabeth the QM, and Camilla. The precedent would actually have been if William had chosen a royal bride. I think that mostly applies to the European brides and grooms as well, including Victoria's husband-all the Swedish consorts, as well as those from Monaco, the Netherlands, Spain...as I recall.

      Delete
    14. I never was "in love with her" or a "fan", I never though she owned me anything and couldn't care less about who gives out the shamrocks. I don't pay taxes in the UK and don't use the term" role model ". I don't feel disappointed or let down. I am still interested, more so in fact than at the time of the wedding. I really feel she has a lot of common sense. First, the charities she supports. Not glamorous or Hollywood ones. Simply going to the root of the problems. Also the fact that she openly says she wants to spend time with her children, revolutionary, if you think about it. And of course the way she dresses and the fact that she seems happy.And many other reasons for me to think she is a likeable kind of person.

      Delete
    15. Let me be clear I am not saying Kate shouldn't spend time with her children because I think she and William both need to because I think the reason prince Charles and William aren't as close is because of how much he worked when William was young
      I am simply asking her to do more than working 60 days a year but I am not asking her to work 350 I think there is more of a middle ground she can reach that is all
      Mainly I like looking at the fashion because as someone even taller than Kate I like seeing what she wears and she was the one who gave me confidence to wear 4 inch heels because if Kate who is only 2 inches shorter than me can do it than why can't I?
      And be clear, I am not thrilled that Victoria is taking off this much time either becuse that would be hypocritical of me
      I am actually a little more puzzled by Victoria because she is the heir to the throne and Kate is married to the 2nd in line
      I understand Kate not doing a lot her first couple of years of marriage because I think they did a good job of having her slowly learn how to go on engagements
      But we are almost six years into the marriage and I just want to see more of her
      If I were Kate and I had her platform I would be out there constantly promoting my charities because I love the heads together iniaitive and want her to see her doing more than that

      Delete
    16. anon 12:26- well, THAT was a breath of fresh air. Not pressuring- I would like it if you had a name other than anonymous because I would certainly look for your remarks.

      Delete
    17. Sarah, I'm going to say this without knowing if Jane will publish it, but you are always so negative. And it is really time to get over the whole shamrock thing! It was almost a year ago for crying out loud and it is William's duty - not Kate's! If you've fallen "out of love" with Kate then maybe it's time to move on to something you do enjoy. In the meantime, I have chosen that I will not read any comment with your name attached. Who needs the aggravation?

      Delete
    18. I am really stunned that Jane is allowing this obvious bashing of another poster. This is bullying, plain and simple. Please stop it. If you don't like Sarah's comments then ignore them. Don't demean yourselves in this way by picking on a young stranger you have never met.

      Delete
    19. Thank you anon

      Delete
    20. Re "the whole shamrock thing" - yes that was in 2016, but it now appears both the Duke and Duchess have decided to attend a rugby game in France March 17-18.
      One wonders who will fill in this year?

      Delete
    21. They are not only attending a rugby match which in itself is scheduled for the 18th and not the 17th. The foreign office have asked them to tie in the invitation of Williams new patronage with an extended visit for diplomatic purposes. The shamrock story is getting rather old. William holds a position with the Irish guards which has never been held by a royal before, so the duty should fall to him.

      Delete
  24. I'm always confused by the debate over Kate's work, and the defense some people are determined to make for her.

    She's a rich, privileged woman who doesn't want to work much, and she succeeds at that. She's never been a hard worker, and isn't someone I'd want my kids to emulate.

    That said, it's no skin off my nose (I'm not a UK citizen). I think she seems kind, she seems to be happy in her marriage & with her children, and it's fun to watch her fashion choices. You don't have to admire everything about a person in order to have fun following them.

    I don't know much about Victoria, so can't comment on that part of the post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not sure that you really know how much she wants to work or not work. In all likelihood it could be a deliberate choice that the family has made to prevent past dilemmas. And since when is work ethic the only characteristic that is relevant to a person? And is work ethic only relevant if one holds down employment? Catherine and Victoria have choices and it is not up to us to decide what those choices are.

      Delete
    2. JTQ, I feel exact same sentiments you've expressed above. As for Anon 9:46...don't gaslight us here. We can see how much Kate works and we can assume if she wanted to more she would, because there's been no change since she was a young woman with a college degree and no job. Of course they have choices and they're not up to us - but it is up to us to choose to criticize them (I don't choose to) and whether to respect them and see them as role models (I also don't: a role model is someone who has worked hard to accomplish something and Kate never has.)

      Delete
    3. Anon 9:46 - The owner of Jigsaw, where she was briefly a part-time accessories buyer, said that Kate took the job with the proviso that she needed a lot of flexibility because she was dating William, and then quit because she needed "more time to herself." She later worked for her mother's business, although I'm sure it was also with the same requirements (part-time, very flexible). That pattern has continued. Kate isn't interested in working much, and doesn't have to, so she doesn't. That's just how it is.

      You also asked "since when is work ethic the only characteristic that is relevant to a person?" and said their choices were their own. Um, those are straw-man attacks, anon. As I said, ultimately it's irrelevant to me how much she works or doesn't work. And fortunately, there are other things to like about her.

      Delete
    4. 'SM, JTQ" Perhaps you must ask yourself what was the source for my information? I am not asking that the source(s) be listed here. Just think about it..I know I ask myself why a former boss, employee, acquaintance would speak to the press about anybody. Also, how accurate was my quote of the article, or even the quote as printed in the original source? Also, as seen many times with high profile people such as Victoria, one does not always or even often tell everything. There is nearly always, I believe, another side to the story. Even princesses and girlfriends have a right to a private life.

      Delete
    5. anon1 - The source is an Evening Standard article written in July 2008, interviewing the founder of Jigsaw, Belle Robinson. I would assess the article's credibility factor as reasonably high: 1) While the Evening Standard is not exactly the London Times, it's also not the National Enquirer, 2) The article itself is factual, and is complimentary to Kate (emphasizing that she is "not precious"), and 3) Ms Robinson's comments were matter-of-fact, and did not indicate any axe to grind.

      As I stated previously, I'm not familiar with Victoria, so can't contribute anything about her.

      Finally, I consider it obvious that everybody deserves a private life. That doesn't prohibit former bosses from giving interviews about their famous employees.

      I'm bowing out of this conversation now, since I think we've covered everything.

      Delete
    6. anon 1 or should I say annie, I recognize your MO. You like to obfuscate facts and be willfully blind to facts that make you uncomfortable. You know what you are doing. Stop it.

      Delete
    7. If being rich and privileged and not having to work a traditional job is unappealing, then why follow a royal blog? :)

      Delete
    8. As I said twice, there are other things I like about her. And if you're going to ignore the context of my comments, then why bother responding to me? :)

      Delete
  25. I definitely see a double standard, and I agree with Robin and Anonymous 2:49 that the way the BRF is treated is very different from the way other royal families are treated. This makes sense to me, as the British Empire was until fairly recently very large and higher profile than Denmark or Sweden, for example.

    I also suspect that Kate gets more of the focus - both positive and negative - because of her "commoner" status prior to marriage. As much as many people see it as an admirable fairy tale to enjoy vicariously, in others that turns to envy as they see her getting experiences that the average person doesn't have. It's easy to criticize her from afar, but the truth is that none of knows what her life is truly like, and so we all see what we choose to focus on - we're really filling in a huge number of gaps with our imaginations.

    Personally, I would never want Kate's job. Being unable to leave the house for fear of being photographed or harassed? Knowing that every change spotted in your hair, face, body, dress, conduct will be ruthlessly scrutinized and filed away for future use? Having to keep as much as possible about yourself hidden because any slip will be sold to the highest bidder? Being on your extra-super-best behavior for the rest of your entire life?!?! (Seriously, who here is planning to do that? I'm not.) Yuck. No, thank you.

    I get that Kate might have some aspects of life easier than most of us readers here, like having a nanny and a larger clothing budget and Range Rovers and all of that. (So do lots of people, by the way - even Pippa, for instance, will have far more cash at her disposal, and far less scrutiny.) But Kate's a royal, so that comes with the package - and it should. She's representing the UK. She also can *never* take that mantle off, she gets more press than the other royals, and she had to adjust to this new, very different life as an adult - which I think many people don't realize demands a hefty dose of courage and work, and can take a significant psychological toll. Even William wanted her to get a good looooong glimpse of that before she committed to it.

    So if the way she keeps herself happy and healthy is to do her best impression of a regular stay-at-home-mum as often as she can manage it, isn't that a good thing? Let the woman self-regulate, for goodness' sake.

    Yes, it's possible that she could do more than she does. Someday she will right now she doesn't. The Queen doesn't have a problem with it, and, luckily, it's not our life to worry about.

    And really. Even the British taxpayers can't reasonably expect to own her whole life for whatever her portion is of the 62p per person the BRF costs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tsipa you've said everything I feel in a much more elegant and articulate way than I even could have. Thank you!

      Delete
    2. Assuming she is happy and healthy is as much guesswork as saying she isn't. I don't believe anyone should make assumptions of her private life- that is just projecting what you wish it to be- good or bad. Look what happened with Diana. I'm sure there are many issues in the BRF collective that never see the light of day. And thank goodness for that, we hear and see enough in my opinion. I don't believe this family gives a flip what the public thinks of them anyway, bad press is so much fluff and probably laughed at over their morning coffee. Their destinies will only change if they choose it (David) and I don't think it will happen, as (imo) they very much believe in themselves and what their bloodlines represent.

      Delete
    3. maple, I am enjoying your comments immensely, and while I agree that most comments about royal personal feelings and private activities are assumption, I can't quite agree that they don't care about public opinion. Both William and Harry have given statements and press releases about the harm some public remarks have done. William has a project that focuses on cyber bullying. I have a feeling that Anne tish-toshes and dismisses mean comments and Sophie may just shrug and say, "Consider the source." I think she did react, finally, to comments about her daughter. I think parents will tolerate unkind remarks about themselves, but not about their children-or other loved ones. I don't think Phillip's remarks would be printable, however. Ha! (this may be a duplicate)

      Delete
    4. Tsipa, I agree 100%! There are a lot of stones being thrown in glass houses here.

      Delete
  26. Jane was there something wrong with my second comment? I was concerned that the reason for Victoria's absence was other than spending more time with her family. That is almost a parody of sorts of the most common excuse given for a public person's absence. I said there really was no basis for comparison since the focus of the debate is that Victoria was treated with tact and respect compared to how Catherine is treated- the problem is, there is no sense debating this as Victoria could very well be ill, not spending more time with her children in comparison to Kate's time with her children. We could compare the actual time Kate spent out of the public eye-I think it was 2-3 weeks after Charlotte was born before the polo and then 5-6 WEEKS not months before the Trooping appearances, compare that to the 60 day absence of Victoria. I did make a comment similar to those who feel the difference isn't so much the difference in countries and roles as the contrast of Swedish press and how information is handled by their PR people and the British tabloid press. I will add there are other factors such as the mind-set of the readers, bloggers, and followers of the various royals. There is fairly obvious expression of "Why should she have what I don't have?" and another word for that attitude is jealousy, like it or not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One comment was deleted just because it kind of said everyone else's points were silly, which I thought might reasonably offend the others and turn the discussion into personal attacks rather than a discussion about the subject. That was my only concern.

      Delete
    2. Anon 1 it is clear that there is a group of American women of a certain age and presumably a certain amount of wealth and privilege who are part of the core commenters on this blog. They tend to be huge fans of Diana and tend to view many comments as "attacks" or criticisms resulting from "jealousy". That is certainly one way of arguing that Kate is better than Victoria. It is not however the only way to see things. And truthfully none of us have enough information about either women or her situation to make an accurate or fair judgment.

      Delete
    3. I'm quite certain I didn't call anyone silly or make any personal attacks about an individual commenter. The same cannot be said of some of the other commenters, however. Frankly, some of the direct, insulting personal remarks, beyond the insults to Kate, shocked me. I may have said the grounds for comparison may be pointless, which I explained in my above comment. I did not mean to imply that your proposition was invalid.Perhaps that was the problem.

      Delete
    4. anonymous 10:17- it could also be said, to extend that argument, that it is clear there is a group of a certain age and a certain lack of wealth and privilege who see themselves as the underdog and feel they must lash out at anyone with said wealth and privilege- or the "core commenters " and Kate, for example. One needn't spend his life with the mindset of one on the outside looking in. One can make a place inside some core group. By the way, I am currently retired after working for nearly fifty years. Believe me, I am not living the life of privilege and I don't believe it was necessary to resort to assuming that all people with a given opinion belong to any specific group. I believe that is called stereotyping, often the basis for unfair judgement. On the other hand, although labeling people is tricky, certain remarks can and have been seen as indicative of resenting those who one sees as more fortunate than oneself." My Mom had to work so why shouldn't Kate-" for example. I yield to Lady Violet.

      Delete
    5. Hey, anon 1, I think you, royalfan, Diane, and I have just been called women of wealth and privilege. (I think we were also just called old but I choose to ignore that.) I do not deny that I have many great blessings in my life but I think that's the first time wealth and privilege has been added to that list. Excuse me, I have to go search for my wealth now. I seem to have misplaced it. :-/

      Delete
  27. Just heard a great remark from Lady Violet on a Downton Abbey rerun: (speaking to Lady Mary)"My dear, a lack of compassion is as vulgar as an excess of tears," Sort of sums up everybody's viewpoints. :+]

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Haha LOVE. πŸ˜‚πŸ‘πŸ»πŸ‘πŸ»πŸ‘πŸ»

      Delete
    2. I miss Downton! Victoria (miniseries on PBS) just isn't as good! Cheers Violet!!!

      Delete
    3. PBS really must find a new home for Maggie Smith. I will miss her the most. I am trying to think what sort of role she should play next. She does lovable curmudgeon so well.... Yes, Hoosier-I am watching Victoria too. It is visually impressive, but there seems to be a healthy dose of poetic license going on there. Ha! For awhile, I had hopes for a spin-off for Downton. With Tom and Cora and the Shirley McClain character and some of the downstairs people- in New York. I wanted to see Carson and Ms. (forgot her name) happy. And the under butler turned teacher. It really was a satisfying conclusion.

      Delete
    4. I am also watching "Victoria" but I agree there is a great deal of poetic license being taken. Of course, there would need to be since we don't know what they really said but I feel as if they rushed the romance of V&A along. She went from disdain to completely in love in a heartbeat. It's not like he did anything to change his personality. I miss Lord M as he was the most intriguing character - and the best actor in the whole lot!

      Delete
    5. Lord Merton, Robin? I would have enjoyed seeing his story evolve-his relationship with Violet's nemesis. It would be fun to see Lady Violet get her come-uppance from Lady Merton.

      Delete
  28. First time posting, but a long time reader. I think part of the reason why there would be such an uproar is because a combination of the workload and the media. I remember how people once said that William was the great hope of the monarchy. People were (and probably still are) counting on William to modernize the monarchy. And when William and Kate got engaged everybody got caught up in this fairytale romance and how they are going to regenerate the monarchy and bring in a breath of fresh air. Nearly 6 years in and it seems that excitement has died off and part of it is the media and the relationship between the media and William/Kate. Its common knowledge that the relationship between them is not great. W/K are not as open with the press as the press would like them to be. In addition they are not as consistent with their workload. People feel that they need to step up and it seems like that is what they are doing that this year. They are going to need the press and the press is always going to be there. If you follow any other of the royal websites you see Victoria and Daniel working hard, providing photo ops for the kids including videos. They even bring the kids along to some of the engagements. Quite a few people on other fan websites joke that Estelle works more and has a better work ethic than Williams and Kate. Its kind of mean, but I can see why they would say such a thing.

    I think if we see W/K working hard "behind the scenes," people may actually back off. There's a documentary with Charles and Diana "In Private and In Public" (its on YouTube), that gives people a look at what goes into all the work they do both in front and behind the scenes, and then they also give a glimpse of their private lives with William and Harry. If William and Kate did something similar like that, it might smooth things over. I know Victoria and Daniel do something similar a few times a year. With they way the world is going these days and everything going on it, it would be best if William and Kate get on the press's good side and really show the public they are worth their taxes/money.

    I hope I'm not coming off as too mean or anything. I just wanted to share my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is a fine line between providing photo-ops of the kids and child exploitation. It is a path any parent in the public eye must tread.

      Delete
    2. And of course Kate treads the line correctly and Victoria exploits her children

      Delete
    3. No, that is not what I said. That is where you chose to go with my remark. William and Catherine make their decisions, Victoria and spouse make theirs. The K family of television fame have made theirs.

      Delete
    4. I don't think Victoria exploits her children. To me exploiting children is what some celebrity parents do to gain attention, fame and/or money. And they do it constantly. Victoria's kids are not out there every day, but they do make quite a few appearances. When William and Kate were leaving after the Canada tour, some people joked that will be the last time they would see their kids until their teenage years.

      I think Victoria is preparing her children for a future in the public eye because that is their future; their future role. She's getting them to use to the cameras and the press.

      Delete
    5. OTOH, Victoria's children may be at less risk as assessed by security when going out in public. (My hunch is that they are). Aside from different parenting styles, and differences between a woman who grew up the crown proncess and expected to be in the limelight vs. one who is pretty obviously shy and adjusting to her public role, I suspect the security factors make a big difference.

      I would love to see video of what Will and Kate do to prepare for their events! What a great idea. I bet that would go a long way towards soothing public misconceptions of their workload, and it would be so fun to watch.

      Delete
    6. I don't think Victoria exploits her children. I do think William and Catherine should be allowed to decide what is best for their children, just as Victoria apparently has. I say apparently because I have no idea what is behind the decisions they make. It may be that the Cambridge's philosophy is ---the children will soon enough face living in the public eye; let's give them some peace now as a foundation for the future..........I do feel that the Swedish royals have not had the same experience with the press that the BRF has. Some of the distance and mystery the BRF seems to project does not seem operable in the Scandinavian countries. For example, I don't believe they have the elaborate coronation and opening of Parliament ceremonies that the BRF does. The public loves to see the pomp, but there is quid pro quo inherent in that. The pomp and grandeur are traded for less access. That may partially explain the difference in press relations.

      Delete
    7. That "In Private, In Public" show (and the book that went with it) were all part of the Charle's PR machine because Diana was so much more popular than he was. He had made some really off beat remarks about talking to his plants and such that had the media thinking he was a loon. They also saw him as a distant parent. That show was intended to make the public feel exactly the way it made you feel and yet it was a complete masquerade of what was really going on in their personal lives at the time. I think more compassion and not more press is what is needed.

      I don't believe any of these royal families are exploiting their children. Some celebrities on the other hand...

      Delete
    8. I'm interested Tsipa to know why you think there is less security risk with the Swedish royal children than with George and Charlotte (or all British royal children?)?

      Delete
    9. If people expected W&K to run with it and modernize the monarchy overnight, well, that's not a very realistic expectation. They may be senior royals, but they are far from being able to call all the shots.

      On the other hand, if you consider the various chapters prior to this one, they HAVE come a long way.

      Delete
    10. anonymous 10.00, I think you have hit the nail on the head on a central issue surrounding William and Kate. Because of who they are, there are so many; however their relationship with the press is a key one. So much of what we know about William and Kate comes from the press - so their relationship with the press is actually a major controlling factor to the insights that we get on their lives and activities.

      Your comment also led me to think again over this question of how they spend their time: exactly what constitutes "work" for people like William and Kate? Really, what is the definition of work for them? It seems that there are several schools of thought as to what work (for them) should be. The main ones I'm picking up on via comments here are 1) holding down a job (which William currently does and has been), 2) being a mother/father at home with the children (which Kate does, William I'm sure does too albeit with far less attention), or 3) showing their faces and being involved in support of various charities, events or representation of their country (which both of them do). They do all 3, and it’s very likely they do all sorts of other things in addition too - but still, there is the issue of “working enough”. So it seems that the main issue is the time/ratio they have allocated these "work" items. Knowing what they do "behind the scenes" doesn't really help the argument either, as that phrase is so vague - what does "behind the scenes" mean - activities behind the camera? Giving orders? Going over accounts? What activity would make one think: “oh, now they’re really working, really giving it their all?” If we saw Kate visiting a charity's headquarters in a documentary situation, is it really logical to think that then people will think: "oh, well now I know what she did on that day last month (or whenever the documentary was shot), so, now I'm satisfied that she is using her time 'correctly'..."? For Charles and Diana, even that documentary was in front of a camera – and I’m sure they picked and chose what was seen and what wasn’t.

      I agree with those saying that we cannot account for every second of the lives of these two. It is just not feasible to do it, or to try dictate how they divvy up their time, even if one is paying them 62p a year. One universal fact for everybody, regardless of who they are, is the fruit identifies the tree. By fruit, I don't mean the opinions, feelings, criticisms and thoughts of others...those are actually the fruits of the person whom they come from. I mean what one's actions lay the ground for going forward. A child is a mirror of their parents; and what one invests their time in will eventually come to light. In the short term, William and Kate may seem to have some issue with time management and "work ethics"; but long-term I believe that if they keep trying to contribute in a lasting, meaningful way to their society and their family, it will benefit more people than just them.

      Skenya

      Delete
    11. Anonymous 9:25 - The BRF gets far more press that the SRF does, that's all. I have yet to meet an American, for example, that even knows that Sweden HAS a royal family, whereas everyone knows that the UK does. More publicity = more attention = more loonies coming out of the woodwork. (For example, the number of people who criticize Kate in a given week compared to the number who even realized Victoria had been missing for nearly two months? Big difference. πŸ˜‰)

      Delete
    12. Skenya- interesting comment. A word of advice-there are one or two anonymous commenters who rotate among blogs and apparently are intimidated by challenging questions and varying alternatives. You may be asked to "Stop it" or assigned an "MO." Ha! Seriously, though, I appreciated your thoughtful analysis.

      Delete
  29. I have been an avid Royal Watcher since the Princess Diana era. For those of us that remember, Crown Princess Victoria battled an eating disorder as a teenager and there was fear for her health. She had intensive treatment for it and then it looked like her life blossomed and she was doing really well. Let us hope that she has been having fun being Mommy and not battling any health issues herself or in her family. Pause.... wait for the internet trolls....

    I do think Kate is also under the most intense scrutiny- even on this blog where most of us really like her, there is on occasion, some unpleasant and unkind things said. We women are a hypercritical lot. That being said, I do think Kate could be more visible doing more royal work. If she doesn't get pregnant this year, I am sure we will see quite a bit of her. Her main job is providing an heir (done) and supporting William (ongoing). That's really all that is required of her. She's a wealthy woman and has the staff and means to give her family all the time that she wants. That's her choice, and I support her in that. If she had married a less public man, she probably would be the managing director of her parents' company with all the perks and responsiblities that that entails. In the next decade, William and Kate will be more and more the face of the monarchy. There's plenty of time for that. I am sure they are both grateful to have this window of opportunity to be with their little ones as much as possible. Charles and Diana did not have that time, nor did the Queen and Prince Phillip. The older generation are ok with this. If this makes Granny more comfortable that she's leaving the institution on firmer footing, so be it. I think William and Kate are ever mindful that the Monarchy right now is HM and Prince Charles- no one wants to overshadow these two and the work that they do now. Nor is anyone under any illusions that the biggest draw for public interest right now is William, Kate and Harry. They are young, photogenic and seem to be genuinely nice people that want to do their duty for their country and to make Granny proud. They have to be rather nimble to walk those fine lines-they have a staff that should help them do that (sometimes I wonder if the KP office is up to the challenge, but then again I think the West Wing of the White House has some issues too).

    I will be cheering both Victoria and Kate on- I think they're both doing a great job for their country. They deserve time off as we all do from our jobs. But then again, we know as moms, you're never truly on vacation.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The answer as to why the double standard exists is because Victoria is more liked than Catherine which is not the same as being more popular.The public are more sympathetic to Victoria,whether that is fair or not is another matter but that is what I can gauge.Also I believe that the British public judge their royals by a stricter standard as compared to the Swedes and indeed I believe that being a member of the BRF is more stressful than being a member of the SRF.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I know there are some of you who want to discuss the work issue, and this situation with CP V was interesting enough or me to open it up to a topic that is generally not super welcome, but one reason I don't usually allow the discussion to take place is that it very easily spins out of control. So, just a reminder to keep it civil all around. :) There are interesting points being made, but it spoils it if people are unpleasant.

    ReplyDelete
  32. The press (and not just the British press) are unfair to Catherine.
    Before her marriage she did work, but it is difficult with a gang of press men on the door step or chasing you and your sister down the road when you return from an evening out. She had her phone hacked definitely by British press, but probably by others as well.
    If her skirt blows in the breeze, it is front page news all over the world and to now she has been reported as pregnant about 25 times (even on sites like this),but last week there were two major incidents in European royal families as well as the disappearance of Princess Victoria, barely reported at all.
    Catherine is not the only member of the family who has been treated this way; Princess Anne was; Margaret; Sophie and Camilla have all been treated badly in their early days.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You make a good point, Jean. Many people seem to think that having a camera in their faces any time they set foot out the door is what they signed up for. I'm glad you reminded us of the phone hacking incident because that is the ultimate invasion of privacy. They had access to all of their texts, emails, and contacts. Nobody thought about the inconvenience of having everyone you know need to change their phone numbers because the press now had access to them. And the pregnancy rumors accompanied by focusing cameras on her body parts to support their speculation is just plain rude. I don't know how the girl keeps a smile on her face sometimes.

      Delete
  33. To expand on what a few others have said, I think the reason Kate is criticized so much more than other royal women for her lack of public appearances is because she didn't seem committed to a serious career before her marriage, and that was the negative first impression many everyday people got of her. I've been following Kate's fashions since she was first described as William's serious girlfriend in 2005, and I remember the British press excoriating her as "Waity Katy" for YEARS, saying she was just partying and shopping on her parents' dime, waiting for William to propose, instead of appearing to pursue any independent goals, ambitions, travels, or big charity projects of her own. If the "Lazy Waity Katy" narrative was ingrained into the minds of the public from 2005 to her marriage in 2011, it's not surprising to me that it now continues in the form of "her royal workload isn't enough!" Since she was a commoner to begin with, I think the public felt she had to do something to earn her way into the monarchy and deserve all those tiaras and titles, since she didn't "earn them by birth" like many of the royal women in Europe.

    That said, I also don't think a lot of lay people realize that the vast majority of profoundly wealthy people all around the world DON'T work that much, if at all. It's normal in very well-off social circles to not have a job, and somewhat odd to have one, especially full time. Their ancestors, not they, are the ones who worked hard. I never knew that myself until I was an au pair for a wealthy family in Germany. Wealthy women shop, eat at upscale restaurants, work out, go to the spa, drive their kids to/from school in extreme luxury SUVs, and call it a day. (And occasionally go to a fancy party.) That's a totally normal schedule for them. Before that au pair experience, I always believed wealthy people had high-paying jobs and had their nose to the grindstone 80 hours/week. I learned that the upwardly mobile do that, not the ultra wealthy.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I think it's a combination of monarchy rankings. The British crown is heir to the most bombastic, powerful monarchy that, to a large extent, changed the course of the 18th-early 20th centuries (sadly, the historian in me must add, not for the better given the colonial pillaging and abuse). That said, the fortune and power of the 18th and 19th centuries cast the British crown in a much more positive light given the tragedies of the two world wars, and the exemplary leadership shown on the world stage. Thus, while Britain is merely a shadow of what it used to be, it's crown has built extraordinary wealth (and yes, in large measure due to its merciless exploitation) and has been on the world stage in dramatic ways that the Swedish monarchy has not/is not. Thus, I do NOT think there is a double standard in regard to the Duchess of Cambridge. She joined a loaded, both in positive and negative terms, responsibility in terms of the history, baggage and successes of the British Monarchy and she is expected to live up to extreme responsibilities. The BM has successfully shielded and battled so many potential adversary forces throughout its history and in order to avoid further recrimination and scrutiny it HAS (thanks to Elizabeth II, Prince Phillip, Diana and her children) assumed great civic and social responsibilities that were unthinkable to the crown in earlier centuries, in part, I believe, to amend some of the wrongs of the past (although in my view they're unrepairable) and guarantee a new ethos of survival for the future. In short, again, there is no "double standard" in regard to HRH Cambridge and other heirs. She stepped into the Big Fish of European monarchies and is rightfully expected to deliver to the public (happy to say I'm quite happy with the increasing involvement she and HRH the Duke have demonstrated; Prince Harry has also become a fantastic guarantor of the future of the British Monarchy). Silvia.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I don't think it is okay to criticize either Kate or Victoria for choosing to spend time with their children. We are not privy (nor should we be) to circumstances that may be going on in their lives (either health related or otherwise) and they should make their families a priority. I am so appalled and disgusted by some of the aggressive and downright cruel comments I've read here. I have so much empathy and compassion for the royals, because they can't win. The bar is set so high by the public that they will always fail in the eyes of someone. And there is so much injustice in that. They are human, just like the rest of us; not some product of divinity. Kate and Victoria are mothers, wives, and women, like so many of us, and they deserve grace and space. Hypothetically, what if they were battling post-partum depression or endured a miscarriage, and just needed time to heal? What if their spouse or children were struggling with a health issue and they needed to devote time to care for their loved one? Or, what if they just need to take some time for self-care and their children? Regardless of the circumstances, they do not deserve to be criticized or put down. Criticism is exactly the reason why I did not let anyone know I was battling depression for 15 years. I knew I would be seen as "less than or not capable", because that is the load that comes with the stigma. And sure enough, that was exactly the critical response I received from quite a few people. Please let's be kind and compassionate to the rovals. Everyone deserves understanding and grace.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Beautifully put, Sarah! I, too, dealt with bullying and depression for years, and the ability to finally not give a rip what anyone thinks of me is a tremendous blessing. I very much hope that you, Kate, and Victoria also have that (well, and everyone else, too).

      I'm here because I LIKE Kate; I don't like all her choices (hello, Alice bands), but I enjoy enjoying what I see from her, and not being bothered by what I disagree with - it's just interesting information. Plus, isn't it wonderful that Jane puts so much skill and energy into creating this beautiful site where we can come together in appreciation and constructive critique of a fascinating, well-loved woman? Thank you, Jane! I'm going to go feel good about that. ☺

      Delete
    2. I think the comments are getting more interesting and adult-my opinion, of course, This is absolutely my last remark on this subject- Ha! anyone want to buy a bridge?....anyway, I did want to say I enjoyed that photo of Victoria and her family Immensely. The expression on the little prince's face mirroring his Dad's-I wonder what they were scowling at, Perhaps the sun in their eyes. Then, little Estelle so ladylike, a mini-Mum. They all are dressed just perfectly.

      Delete
    3. That photo is adorable, anon 1. I loved the matching outfits and Estelle's shoes are so cute! Beautiful children.

      Delete
  36. I gave up work completely when I had my children...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, let us now commence attacking you and your poor work ethic, anonymous 2:55. How dare you make a choice about your life and your family?! I object most strenuously, and I attack you.

      (That is SARCASM, btw. Your life decisions, much like Kate's, weirdly, are yours to make. Sigh...)

      Delete
    2. Is anon 2:55 a public figure supported by public funds? If not I'm not sure why you believe commenters will judge her as they do Kate or Victoria.

      Delete
  37. As to the cause for the disparity between the criticism Kate garners and other foreign princesses get, I hate to say it, but I think it's directly related to the British obsession with class. I think Brexit may well be, too. Or, rather, it's related to the FACT that for centuries the majority have been under the thumb of the few who are quite convinced that they are somehow "better" than the rest. This attitude still prevails amongst the Establishment--but folks, the underdogs are finally fed up; they don't want to "know their place", they want THEIR kids to have an equal opportunity to succeed, to get into top-notch schools and universities, to have what it takes to succeed, big-time. And I agree with them--but, in their rush to demand needed change--and if you doubt that, check out the make-up of the House of Lords--more Brits than ever before are questioning the existence of the BRF. It isn't just Kate they are targeting, it's the entire family. They recognize, IMO rightly, that destruction of the monarchy will lead to the destruction of the peerage, etc. The monarchy is the lightning rod because it is perceived to be at the top of what is--again, just my opinion--a very corrupt system of privilege. They sense that the BRF, the peerage, the Anglican Church, the politicians, are all in bed together.

    It isn't just Kate, it's every member of the BRF, even the Queen. The irony is that Kate was neither born nor bred royal; in fact, her mother, born Jewish, began life in a council flat; she then committed the cardinal sin of marrying into the middle-class and an Anglican at that, and one with a trust fund, which gave them the means to educate their kids. Result: Kate was given a path which led to William. And anything else Kate's parents managed to acquire, they achieved thru hard work.

    A long-winded way of saying of saying that Carole IS one of the malcontents--but she succeeded. Kate is her daughter, now married into that pinnacle of society, and this is cause for resentment. It's not reasonable, but it is understandable.

    A further irony is that somehow--I suspect unintentionally--Kate first, then William--stumbled upon a cause they both liked: mental health. Better yet, they could pursue it, together, in the UK--altho, with the potential to be taken global. And it's an important issue. (I don't sense the same level of commitment from Harry, but then, he wasn't as damaged as William by their childhood.)I don't think Kate was particularly damaged, but I do think that she needed a bit of help to unscrew screwed William.

    So here we are; William might make a great king one day, with help from Kate, but the mood in the UK seems to grow uglier as I write; all bets are off re the survival of the monarchy--too many royal scandals seeing the light of day, and too many more--Philip--to come.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JC, I do think that your reference to resentment is a valid one! On many levels.

      Also, do you believe that some of the criticism of W&K's work ethic may be sanctioned by those who benefit if workloads and commitment comparisons are made? If you know who/what I mean!? :)

      Delete
    2. In many respects I agree with you, JC, but in a few I don't. I especially don't feel as if Harry was less damaged by their childhood than William. For years (and occasionally still) the press claimed that Harry wasn't even Charles's child. They said he was the result of Diana's affair with James Hewitt. The fact that Diana didn't even meet James Hewitt until after Harry was born seemed to be irrelevant to them. No matter how you slice it, seeing your picture next to the photo of who the press is claiming is your "real father" on the newsstands and on the nightly news is going to be damaging to a little boy. My personal opinion - and I want to clarify that it is just my opinion - is that William and Harry feel so strongly about mental health because they have gone through childhood trauma in a "stiff upper lip" family and are finally speaking out about how hard it was for them when their mother died. They also know of her struggles with depression and how, instead of helping her, the family was about as unsupportive as possible to her. I give all credit to Diana and her boys for helping to bring the Monarchy out of the dark ages and into the present. She may not have always gone about it in the best way but the end result is for the better.

      Delete
    3. JC, I believe you're misinformed about Kate's mother being born Jewish:

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/16/jewish-royal-baby_n_3764180.html

      Delete
    4. Oof, I hope Harry saw as little of that as possible. That would be really hard.

      Delete
    5. royalfan, of course I believe that the "criticism of W&k's work ethic may be sanctioned by those who benefit..." within the BRF, and I think I know who/what you mean. I chose not to go into it because it wasn't directly related to Jane's supposition and, I suppose, because I figured that what I had written would take enuf flak as a standalone. Want to save my ammo for a time when it really counts, if you get my drift:))

      Also, I thought to present this problem as a sociological one because it needs to be said. By my reckoning--strictly as an armchair sociologist--the BRF and the British Establishment are a good two generations behind Canada and the USA . I well remember my very first trip to the UK; it made me eternally grateful that I had had the incredible luck to be born a white Canadian protestant--but predominately a CANADIAN, not a Brit. First time I'd ever considered it, altho, of course, Canada is far from perfect...but we're closer to it than the Brits.

      JC

      Delete
  38. This article sums up my arguement much better than I can
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/02/19/why-william-and-kate-have-a-royal-work-problem.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good grief, what a judgmental and negative article. If that's the kind of thing you read, no wonder you begrudge Kate her (perceived) success and happiness so much.

      As previously mentioned here, this may not be the place for you to hang out (or at least comment). It doesn't seem to be bringing out happiness and well-being in you, and your comments are unpleasant to read. In future I'll skip them. I wish you well.

      Delete
    2. excellent article that makes many salient points. Thanks for sharing.

      Delete
    3. I also thought it was a very interesting and well reasoned article- thank you for sharing.

      Delete
    4. I am a fan of the British Royal family, and a follower since the "Diana" days. The Daily Beast Royalist is well written and thoughtful. Tom Sykes is not a "Kate hater" - but he is a journalist who is very comfortable pointing out the facts with regards to the Royal Family - be they positive or negative. William and Kate need to do more - especially as Prince Charles wants to slim down the Monarchy - that is fact - it is that simple.

      Delete
    5. Good grief Tsipa. What a judgemental and negative woman you seem to be. If this is the kind of attitude you have towards a stranger online I shudder to think what you are like in real life.
      Kate is a public figure. Everyone is well within their rights to hold a positive or negative opinion of her work or lack thereof. The blogger who writes this blog has invited EVERYONE to share their views on her work and her reputation. Hence Sarah and others have come out to do so. You are judging Sarah's character on the basis of an opinion that you do not like. Shame on you.
      Must you engage in such a witch hunt simply because Sarah's opinions are not palatable to you ? Why not show some restraint and try to counter with your own arguments instead of trying to bully her off the blog. A grown woman like you should know better. Learn to behave with some dignity even though you are anonymous.

      Delete
    6. Thank you Sarah for pointing to that article. So the complaints still continue.

      Delete
    7. Sarah: I hope that you will continue to hang out here and comment, and I don't think your comments are unpleasant to read. I won't skip them in the future. Thanks for sharing the article and for sharing your perspective.

      Delete
    8. "Despite extensive counsel to the contrary..." LOL. The article reads like an anti-W&K summary from a blog.

      Seriously, what I continue to find extraordinary is the insistence that W&K are free to call the shots. I guess the Queen calls THEM daily to seek advice. Unreal.

      Delete
    9. Another commentator here who enjoys what Sarah brings to the discussion. Her comments are not at all unpleasant. Just because someone has a different viewpoint, does not mean their comments are unpleasant. Thank you for posting the article Sarah. It's good to see different opinions. And thank you Jane for allowing all of us to share our opinions.

      Delete
  39. I don't have anything to add to this topic, I just wanted to say thank you to Jane for starting this discussion, it has been interesting reading the various points of view on the subject.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I think the difference is in how the palace staff have addressed the issue. If Kensington Palace had said after Prince George and Princess Charlotte were born that Kate was taking a year maternity leave, we would have known what to expect. I find the Swedish Court's openness refreshing whereas KPs insistence that Kate was working when she really wasn't just led to some resentment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In some ways, I think KP did *too much* explaining. The more they said, the more people dissected, criticised, and felt entitled to know. Sometimes less is more.

      Delete
    2. It is possible -this may have been stated by KP-that Kate was trying to recover and go on during her illness. HG is an unpredictable sort of illness: it doesn't progress like healing a broken bone. One minute one is feeling well, up and around and the next terribly ill. It is very difficult to predict and therefore difficult to make plans in advance. There is the immediate health concern for two people-both mother and unborn child.HM and BP advisers faced the same dilemma recently during the Queen's illness. The press and public did not know until a few hours before an event whether or not she would attend a function. One thing that the Queen's organisers did was space the release of publicity of events done previously to her illness and plans for future so that the Queen was kept in the public's eye, so to speak. Kate was at Trooping and the next day at a charity polo match within six weeks of Charlotte's birth. Not an unreasonable time for allowing for recovery and a newborn's bonding needs, if this is at all feasible. This might have helped with Victoria's absence, although she apparently has been out of the public's eye for a longer continuous stretch than either the Queen or Catherine.Her PR people may have assumed it was a private matter and perhaps no one would make an issue. I don't know where this story highlighting how long she had been out of sight originated; I doubt it was in the Swedish mainstream press.

      Delete
  41. I've never known CP Victoria to take time off in the whole time I've been following royalty stuff (other than when she was sick with anorexia in the 90s), so this news has me a bit worried to be honest.

    I'm hoping it really is just an overworked mother taking some time to stay on top of her health, but I would be worried that there is a personal/medical issue with her or one of the family (has Prince Daniel been seen?)

    She did take less than a month's break after giving birth to Prince Oscar, so maybe she's taking a long overdue bit of maternity leave. I hope she's okay.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I blame the British media for inciting this "katred", if I was in her lucky position, I would most certainly be taking advantage of spending all the time I wanted with my children. She is entitled to do what she wants - the rest of us are just begrudgers!

    ReplyDelete
  43. I am American and I have the president from h___ to deal with, so the royals all look good to me. Everything is relative, people. But don't the Swedes look utterly beautiful? I wish they received more attention.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm new here but hope others agree--please no American or other politics! This is my escape. S

      Delete
    2. Lol Rebecca! I'm with you there!

      Delete
    3. Anon 1:26pm, yes! I have been swamped all day, but meaning to get back to this. No politics here is my preference, too.

      Delete
    4. I, too, agree with the preference for no political comments.

      Delete
    5. I think a lot of the discussion that surrounds Catherine and her daily life and activities is quite politically motivated, considering that the RF is supposed to be apolitical. I agree about the US UK, French etc. political situations having little place here. As with some Kate discussions, there is a great deal of emotion and temper on display at times. It is very clear which subjects tend to draw heated discussion, often from either unidentified or visiting commenters.I was personally attacked and labeled and told to "stop it" by one anonymous on this post. Others were personally maligned as well. I don't think that belongs here either. If such a comment is published, at the very least, the person should be allowed to defend himself and express concern about the remark.

      Delete
  44. Duchess fan from downunderFebruary 21, 2017 at 5:34 AM

    Jane, any thoughts on possible French designers for the Paris trip?!

    ReplyDelete
  45. Victoria's sister Madeleine is slammed too because she doesn't do 'enought'. Leave those woman alone. Kate is maybe not working 'enought' or whatever but she keeps her family happy. I think her marriage with William works so well because they can live a 'normal' live at this moment instead of a media circus every day. Let them enjoy their precious time.

    ReplyDelete
  46. My concern in reading some of these comments. I had hoped that the conversation about work at home with family or work outside of a home for either male or female was long done with. One can argue about if one thinks that the work one does for a company matches their salary level or matches what the company needs or one can discuss if the work one does at home is meeting the needs of the family but they are both equally valid jobs. One can do both or do only one or switch. But please let us not resort to comments such as well I have an outside job and also raise a family therefore everyone else should do the same, or I only work on raising my family and that is what everyone else should do, etc. There is a way to have this discussion that does not devolve to that level. I will get off my soapbox now.

    ReplyDelete
  47. From what I've read on the subject trolls tend to be sadistic personalities. Some people feel more powerful when they consistently criticize another. They'll seize on any issue to denigrate the other. The issue is really their need to make themselves feel superior. There has been a lot of carping about all manner of things about Catherine. This work ethic discussion from some commenters seems to fall into this category. Catherine has a long life ahead of her. She will accomplish many things. Right now she is focusing on her children, much like her mother did when her children were young. The women's movement was all about giving women choices, not dictating what paths they should follow.

    ReplyDelete

The rules for commenting are simple: be polite. Please be respectful of the BRF/Middletons, even in criticism; please be respectful of your fellow readers, even in disagreement. Vulgarity will disqualify a comment.

Debate is welcome, direct and personal insults are not. Topics we tend to avoid here: "does Kate work enough?" and "Is Kate too skinny?" Everything is subject to approval.

I (Jane Barr) moderate all comments. If a comment is live, I approved it. If you find something offensive, or think my approval was an error, please email me at princesskateblog(at)gmail.com.

At times, an acceptable comment just goes missing. If you felt your comment should have been approved, but did not show up within five hours, again, pop an email to the above address.

Happy chatting!