The problem of Catherine Cambridge’s womb watchers

Started by Limabeany, July 31, 2014, 11:20:08 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Limabeany

The problem of Catherine Cambridge?s womb watchers | Tanya Gold | Comment is free | The Guardian

Quote
I cannot begin to imagine what sort of person puts a bet on the mysteries of a stranger's uterus, although I can imagine all sorts of tasteless variables relating to the royal condition (or non-condition) I could bet on. But I will not write them down. They are too unkind.

I hesitate to write about the internal miseries of the monarchy because, simply put, who cares? Pity for the royal predicament may have resonance in a less unequal age, and when applied to a more graceful and longstanding figurehead. But when blind men beg for pennies in the City of London, and I read about the specifications of the Cambridge kitchens, which are multiple and huge, divided between their newly restored palace in Kensington and their newly restored country house in Norfolk, it is hard to summon sympathy for a duchess. She is modern in the sense – and only in the sense – that she chose her destiny; should she not be left to it?

The enhanced income of the royal family, a gift from this ragingly unimaginative government, has surprisingly few critics. The unwillingness to show even silent solidarity with the victims of austerity by spending less money is just as surprising – if you swallow the fantasy that, actually, they care for us. (The opposite, in fact, is true. They recently bought a helicopter; and Catherine Cambridge's wardrobe allowance will never be made public, for reasons, I suspect, relating to national security). In which case, do we mind if a personal appearance on a betting slip is considered part of the payoff? The royal family has always been a source of entertainment to those who subsidise it, although that is not the darkest part of the bargain (that accolade goes to the inequality that's bound in the very bones of Britain; it teaches us to look fondly – and nostalgically – on tyranny). It is a cruel and efficient arrangement, and it is often tasteless. Not that I think they mind particularly. They'd rather we scrutinise their bodies than their bank accounts.

Even so, I resent the objectification of any woman, even of a woman who compulsively objectifies herself. The secondment – the gifting – of Catherine Cambridge's body to the public sphere is revolting and comprehensive; first her sister Pippa's buttocks, roped in for a global obsession of the most moronic kind; then her own breasts; now the womb. It is not forgiven by noting that royalty has always endured this because the golden – the divine – dynasty must be secured. A news culture that transformed the birth of Prince George into a carnival compounds the offence.
"You don't have to be pretty. You don't owe prettiness to anyone. Not to your boyfriend/spouse/partner, not to your co-workers, especially not to random men on the street. You don't owe it to your mother, you don't owe it to your children, you don't owe it to civilization in general. Prettiness is not a rent you pay for occupying a space marked 'female'." Diana Vreeland.

RoyalFan001

guess what. kate gave up her privacy. so she needs to deal with what ever happens to her. she's a public figure now. she's fair game.

Curryong

^^Kate has so few genuine achievements to her name that commentators are reduced to writing about her hair, clothing and when she will produce her next baby.

By the way, the writer of the article repeats the error that the royal family has bought a helicopter.

Canuck

Becoming a member of the BRF absolutely makes you a public figure and reduces your privacy in some ways.  You must appear with your newborn on the steps of the hospital for a photo call, for example.  But I don't think it means (or should mean) that every bit of scrutiny of your life, no matter how gross or sexist, is justified.  Just like actors who (legitimately, IMO) complain about paparazzi stalking and terrifying their children, there should be lines of basic decency that aren't crossed.  Some speculation about Kate's womb is to be expected; fictional tabloid stories about miscarriages are over the line, in my view.

As an aside, that article is flat-out wrong on several facts.  In addition to the helicopter thing, it's not true at all that the BRF has not made austerity adjustments.  But why let facts get in the way of a good rant...  :orchid:

georgiana996

Quote from: Curryong on July 31, 2014, 11:38:54 AM
^^Kate has so few genuine achievements to her name that commentators are reduced to writing about her hair, clothing and when she will produce her next baby.

By the way, the writer of the article repeats the error that the royal family has bought a helicopter.
:goodpost: :nod: , its almost as if she isnt even trying ! I mean if you look at the women before her none of them were as aimless pre marriage and post as she currently is  :( her place in history books - married to /mother of ... ;)
Surround yourself with people who are going to lift you higher.

Sandor

Quote from: Curryong on July 31, 2014, 11:38:54 AM
^^Kate has so few genuine achievements to her name that commentators are reduced to writing about her hair, clothing and when she will produce her next baby.


I don't think Kate's achievements, or lack of them, has much to do with it;  the press always speculates about royal pregnancies.

And really, other than the Queen, what royal ladies have genuine achievements?  Anne's Olympics perhaps?
I can't think of much for the others, frankly.


Curryong

What about Queen Maxima of the Netherlands (an economist who has served on international committees for the UN,) or Queen Letizia, journalist and nationally known anchorwoman before marriage, for two?

georgiana996

#7
Yes sandor but those women are dedicated to their royal duties , they actually do royal work more than twice a month  :notamused: with kate she was idle both before and after . No passions or ambitions .

Even the lady in my icon has worked/has interests and she isnt going to marry the crown prince , she isnt even married yet and she started her charity work .
Surround yourself with people who are going to lift you higher.

Canuck

Whether or not Kate is doing enough Royal duties is certainly up for debate.  But I really dislike the idea that being primarily known as a wife and mother is somehow a bad thing.  Many women make that choice (and some men choose to be primarily in the role of husband/father), and there's nothing wrong with it.  Yes, as Will's wife, she also has Royal duties and can't just be a traditional stay-at-home mom.  But if her primary accomplishment is raising happy children and supporting her husband, that's not a bad thing.

Lady Adams

Canuck, I do not think that being a wife and mother is a "bad" thing-- and I don't know anyone who would say that, frankly!

And if Kate wants to be solely a wife and mother-- I say go for it! But, then she should not take any money from taxpayers. She should give up her title and live off William's trust and salary. No more free accommodations at KP (or more extensive renovations), no jewels from the vault, flights on the BRF's leased helo, free admission to the best seats Wimbledon, etc...   

Remember when George's birth certificate was released? Instead of keeping her occupation blank or putting "wife/mother," William wrote that Kate's occupation was "Princess of the United Kingdom" It's time she start acting like that is, indeed, her genuine occupation.
"To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, and be nothing." --Elbert Hubbard, American writer

cinrit

I believe if the Queen and Prince of Wales wanted her to do more than she's doing now, she would be.  The Queen has already indicated her trust in Kate by sending her to Malta as a representative.

Cindy
Always be yourself.  Unless you can be a unicorn.  Then always be a unicorn.

TLLK

Thank you for posting the article Limabeany.  :thumbsup: It's an issue that all hereditary royal couples have to tackle even the men. IMHO CP Nahurito and CP Masako have had an especially difficult time with the IHA/media stork watchers.

Canuck

#12
Quote from: Lady Adams on July 31, 2014, 02:14:58 PM
Canuck, I do not think that being a wife and mother is a "bad" thing-- and I don't know anyone who would say that, frankly!

I was referring to georgiana's statement criticizing Kate because "her place in history books - married to /mother of ... ;) "

I agree, as I said in my post, that Kate has Royal duties to do and will not be a traditional stay-at-home mother.  But I also agree with cinrit that if the BRF wanted her to be doing more, she would be.  I think that the firm probably prioritizes her having a lot of time with George (and their other child(ren), eventually) when he is very young.  They are blessed right now with HM/DOE still being very active as well as Charles and all of his siblings.  They have room to let Kate have some quieter years with her children.

georgiana996

That was my statement  , and I didn't mean it as an insult but unless kate is going to work more or have like others have said any accomplishments to her name other than wife of /mother of , my statement was accurate .
Surround yourself with people who are going to lift you higher.

Canuck

Apologies, georgiana, I've edited my post to say it was you who said it. 

I'm afraid I still see it as a criticism, though -- you're implying it's a bad thing if her accomplishments are just being a wife and mother.  And frankly, I'm not sure what Kate could do about it.  Even if she does as many engagements a year as HM, she will still be known in the history books as Will's wife and George's mother.  I just don't see why that's a problem.

georgiana996

Its not a bad thing but I would say its a sad thing , as much as motherhood and being a wife might be satisfying to almost all of us its not something that would stick her out from the crowd , its not a great achievement , its natural to have a baby its natural to fall in love and get married , you dont spend years in school , then uni and grad school  to do those things . I wont be giving her a medal for it .
And she is living on tp money , she married the wrong man if wife and mommy was all she wanted . Royal wives have never been just that ..

And back on topic , unless she does more and has genuine achievements , the rags will only give her merit for her womb .
Surround yourself with people who are going to lift you higher.

Eri

Quote from: Lady Adams on July 31, 2014, 02:14:58 PM
Canuck, I do not think that being a wife and mother is a "bad" thing-- and I don't know anyone who would say that, frankly!

And if Kate wants to be solely a wife and mother-- I say go for it! But, then she should not take any money from taxpayers. She should give up her title and live off William's trust and salary. No more free accommodations at KP (or more extensive renovations), no jewels from the vault, flights on the BRF's leased helo, free admission to the best seats Wimbledon, etc...   

Remember when George's birth certificate was released? Instead of keeping her occupation blank or putting "wife/mother," William wrote that Kate's occupation was "Princess of the United Kingdom" It's time she start acting like that is, indeed, her genuine occupation.
Amen !!!  :clap:

SophieChloe

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me

Lady Adams

#18
Quote from: Canuck on July 31, 2014, 03:26:08 PM
And frankly, I'm not sure what Kate could do about it.  Even if she does as many engagements a year as HM, she will still be known in the history books as Will's wife and George's mother. 
Oh dear. I'm afraid I must disagree with that... Queen Elizabeth I, was never seen as just the wife of King George and the mother of Queen Elizabeth II-- just ask any of her 350 patronages!
"To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, and be nothing." --Elbert Hubbard, American writer

Rebound

If you work part-time are you not allowed to list your job as your occupation? I think you can.

And of course Kate is a Princess of the UK--she is Princess William as well as the DofC. Camilla is also the Princess of Wales, but chooses to use her DofC as her tiltle. I'm still a grandmother even though the kids call me Nana.

Sandor

Quote from: Curryong on July 31, 2014, 01:26:00 PM
What about Queen Maxima of the Netherlands (an economist who has served on international committees for the UN,) or Queen Letizia, journalist and nationally known anchorwoman before marriage, for two?

I was really just referring to the British in my post.

What you say is undoubtedly true, but don't forget that both Maxima and Letizia were considered unsuitable choices at the time of their (respective) marriages, and some still regard them in that way.
I'm not saying it is due to their careers, of course.  But...there it is, as the Emperor would say.   :shrug:

cinrit

Quote from: Lady Adams on July 31, 2014, 04:06:09 PM
Oh dear. I'm afraid I must disagree with that... Queen Elizabeth I, was never seen as just the wife of King George and the mother of Queen Elizabeth II-- just ask any of her 350 patronages! 

I'm sure she was very important to the 350 charities that she was patron of, but if you were to ask the general population ... those millions of people on the street, which is who I assume we're talking about when we say "remembered as" ... what is she remembered for, they would probably say she is remembered mostly as the mother of the current Queen and the wife of George VI.

And of course, we know it took several decades for her to reach that number of 350 charities.

Cindy
Always be yourself.  Unless you can be a unicorn.  Then always be a unicorn.

Canuck

#22
 :goodpost:

Also, just a minor point, but I'm pretty sure Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon wasn't known as Queen Elizabeth I -- that was the title of the 16th century Queen Elizabeth.  Since George's wife was not the actual ruler, she isn't given a I, II, etc. numerical modifier.  She was just Queen Elizabeth, and then after her husband's death, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.

Lady Adams

^ Thanks Canuck. Everyone makes mistakes  :hug:
"To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, and be nothing." --Elbert Hubbard, American writer

Canuck