QuoteThey have spent the last two days supporting Great Britain at the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow, but William and Kate can look forward to a well-deserved month off in August.
The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have cleared their diaries and will be holidaying in the U.K., Royal Watch can reveal. William and Kate usually jet off to the private island of Mustique, but they are planning to stay a little closer to home this summer. Sources say they will be taking Prince George to Scotland next month to Charles and Camilla, at their Highland home, and they will also take Prince George to see the Queen and Prince Philip at Balmoral.
Exclusive: Where William, Kate, and George Are Headed for a Month-Long Summer Vacation | Vanity Fair (http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/07/duke-duchess-of-cambridge-summer-2014-holiday?mbid=social_facebook)
It's my understanding that the Royal Family usually spends August "on vacation", so this isn't out of the norm, but please, don't try to convince us that they "deserve" a vacation after having worked for 2 days. Especially when their "work" consisted of watching sports.
HM and the DoE are typically in Scotland for much of Aug. and Sept. though I do believe that they along with other members of the BRF will be participating in some WWI centenary events in early August. Charles and Camilla are usually up there as well for those months as well. The rest of the BRF seems to vary the amount of time spent at Balmoral, but everyone seems to be there for at least a couple of weeks.
Most European monarchies slow down during August as well, so I'm not surprised to see that the BRF does the same.
It is my understanding that maintenance staff use this time for deep cleaning and repair work at BP, Windsor Castle, Clarence House and KP.
If media reports suggest this would be around the time that William might be starting work for East Anglia Air Service too.
:goodpost: :happy15:
Quote from: Lothwen on July 30, 2014, 03:17:06 PM
It's my understanding that the Royal Family usually spends August "on vacation", so this isn't out of the norm, but please, don't try to convince us that they "deserve" a vacation after having worked for 2 days. Especially when their "work" consisted of watching sports.
Another vacation. No surprises. After the hard work of watching sports.
QuoteKate has been hands-on with the renovations and has helped with the redesign and interiors, and is apparently keen to make sure the final touches go exactly as planned.
"They will be at Anmer for much of the time they have off," a source revealed to Royal Watch. "They cannot wait to move in and they want to make sure the last stages of the refurb go to plan.
The 10-bedroom house has its own tennis court and swimming pool
Aren't they just so down to earth :random39: :overhere:
Quote from: Lothwen on July 30, 2014, 03:17:06 PM
QuoteThey have spent the last two days supporting Great Britain at the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow, but William and Kate can look forward to a well-deserved month off in August.
The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have cleared their diaries and will be holidaying in the U.K., Royal Watch can reveal. William and Kate usually jet off to the private island of Mustique, but they are planning to stay a little closer to home this summer. Sources say they will be taking Prince George to Scotland next month to Charles and Camilla, at their Highland home, and they will also take Prince George to see the Queen and Prince Philip at Balmoral.
Exclusive: Where William, Kate, and George Are Headed for a Month-Long Summer Vacation | Vanity Fair (http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/07/duke-duchess-of-cambridge-summer-2014-holiday?mbid=social_facebook)
It's my understanding that the Royal Family usually spends August "on vacation", so this isn't out of the norm, but please, don't try to convince us that they "deserve" a vacation after having worked for 2 days. Especially when their "work" consisted of watching sports.
There was much criticism when William and Catherine didnt go to Sandringham for christmas now they are going to Balmoral for the royal summer holiday and they are being moaned at again.
To be clear: a month of vacation, when Kate worked two days (watching sport) is what people are critiquing them for. It's hardly a "well deserved" break, in my opinion.
:goodpost: Lady Adams, people don't bemoan the Queen her vacations... :shrug:
QuoteThey have spent the last two days supporting Great Britain at the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow, but William and Kate can look forward to a well-deserved month off in August.
(http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/frech/h020.gif) (http://www.cheesebuerger.de/smilie.php) "-a well deserved month off..." (http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/frech/h020.gif) (http://www.cheesebuerger.de/smilie.php) after spending "two days at the CW games"
... I'll pop back once I've picked myself up off the floor.
I agree the phrasing is silly, but it's not like the BRF or W&K said it.
Perhaps the appropriate title would be "HM and the DoE Clear Their Calendars for Aug. and Sept." Members of the BRF are expected to visit as well. :)
Whether 'well-earned break' or not, it will be nice if the report is true and William and Kate are going to spend some of August with William's grandparents and father and stepmother. It will be a chance for the older relatives to get really acquainted with George.
Quote from: TLLK on July 30, 2014, 08:45:28 PM
Perhaps the appropriate title would be "HM and the DoE Clear Their Calendars for Aug. and Sept." Members of the BRF are expected to visit as well. :)
Very good way of putting it, TLLK.
I'd add an amendment: ....members, though expected to visit, are not required to take the month of August off as holiday for themselves. Especially if they've been out-worked by an 88 and 93 year old! :shame:
Louise and James better pick up the pace or NO PONY TIME!!!!! :D
I really shouldn't criticize. After all, I get a two day vacation for every 5 days I work
I agree. Louise, James and Georgie are Falling Short. Chop chop, there kidlets!!
Lothy. I want your benefit package. Do you really get a 5 days on 2 days off work week?? Decadent. :clap:
I can remember when my British in laws found out I "only" got FIVE weeks of vacation at my job (in the US, five weeks is relatively unheard of!) and they were unamused.
Still, I'd rather a two day-two month ratio ;)
:clap: :happy15: :goodpost: :happy15: :clap:
Quote from: Lady Adams on July 30, 2014, 09:05:00 PM
Quote from: TLLK on July 30, 2014, 08:45:28 PM
Perhaps the appropriate title would be "HM and the DoE Clear Their Calendars for Aug. and Sept." Members of the BRF are expected to visit as well. :)
Very good way of putting it, TLLK.
I'd add an amendment: ....members, though expected to visit, are not required to take the month of August off as holiday for themselves. Especially if they've been out-worked by an 88 and 93 year old! :shame:
Quote from: Lady Adams on July 30, 2014, 11:23:52 PM
I can remember when my British in laws found out I "only" got FIVE weeks of vacation at my job (in the US, five weeks is relatively unheard of!) and they were unamused.
Still, I'd rather a two day-two month ratio ;)
Lady Adams, did you inform them that you had to be employed with the same company for at least 5 years, and work an average of 37.5 hours a week in order to get that much vacation time?
No, because I-- gasp-- got it off the batt! Lucky me!!
However, when I told them I got NO maternity leave they started really pushing for me to move to the UK. :angel: :coy:
Why wouldn't you want to ? :blowkiss:
Well I couldn't complain about vacation time when I was working. Teachers do receive plenty of time off, but I only received ten paychecks a year. My credit union would remove and deposit funds into my July/August savings so I received the same amount each month.
Maternity leave for my school district was 8 weeks paid for a natural birth and 10 weeks for a C-section. My own experience for a child born on Jan. 26 ended up being 10 weeks paid, then unpaid family leave and I would have had to come back for the last two days of the year. Principal just ended up hiring a sub for the entire time. Have to say that she was dealing with an explosion of newly married teachers who all had their first child within that first year or 18 months after their weddings. Maybe that's why she wasn't so thrilled for me when I showed up at her door saying "I need to talk to you." :teehee:
I was a teacher for 7 years and had the same experience with the 10 months pay but although there were plenty of days off, Many, many, many were spent on training, meetings, writing lesson plans, preparing classes, exams...
Ok I usually defend them but even I'm getting tired of this crap now.
Prince William and Kate will holiday in the UK - hellomagazine.com (http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2014080120233/prince-william-duchess-of-cambridge-holiday-scotland/)
QuoteThe Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, nee Kate Middleton, will reportedly take a month long holiday in the UK this month. The royal pair and their one-year old son Prince George have picked Prince William's father's home in the Highlands for their annual break.
This is a press story so take with a grain of salt. But then again it wouldn't be any different to what they have been doing if true.
This month off is beyond pathetic, shame on the pair of them.
Clear their calendars... Sounds like some 'journo' is on something not kosher... I bet the Palace knows they would be crucified beyond repair if they went on a fancy Caribbean vacation after the 6M mansion William has decided not to use and this pointless gap year...
QuoteThe Duchess no longer walks Prince George through Kensington after she was snapped in the Royal park last year.
Zara and Mia routinely get photographed when they're out at horse events. And guess what? Zara ignores them and goes about her business! Sensible thing to do. Kate is sounding obsessed with privacy, to the point of detriment.
Or William...
I don't think it's herself that Kate is concerned about in the park; it's probably George. Can't blame her ... I wouldn't want strangers, journalists or not, taking pictures of my baby without permission, either.
Also, let's don't forget that the Cambridges have not said they're clearing their calendar, nor did they say that they're taking a month off. The media said that. They are traveling to Belgium on Monday to join King Philippe and Queen Mathilde for a day of ceremonies, and to the Tower of London on Tuesday.
QuoteThe Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry will represent the Royal family at national commemorative events. The couple will attend a ceremony at the Cointe Inter-allied Memorial in Liege, Belgium with King Philippe and Queen Mathilde of Belgium on Monday.
They will then travel to St Symphorien cemetery in Mons, Belgium, where they will be joined by Prince Harry for a service.
World War One centenary: legion of tributes to those who gave so much - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-one/11007330/World-War-One-centenary-legion-of-tributes-to-those-who-gave-so-much.html)
QuoteOn Tuesday, it’s to the Tower. Will and Kate will walk through the poppy field and each will plant a ceramic poppy in the moat.
To the Tower! See what Duchess Kate will see there | Entertain This! (http://entertainthis.usatoday.com/2014/08/01/to-the-tower-duchess-kate/)
Cindy
^^ I agree. For heavens sake, Kate, walk in the Park with your toddler if you want to! I know photographers can be a nuisance, but it is the scarcity of photos of George that is causing paps to behave like vultures.
If Kate took a regular walk in the Park with her son in a stroller security officers would stop those who wished to poke their cameras in the baby's face and within weeks interest would probably die. It's no good being precious if you're a public figure.
^Curryong :notworthy: :goodpost:
The proof is in the adorable little pudding that is Estelle. :vday2:
^ totally off topic but I do admire the way Daniel and Victoria manage to gracefully deal with the press when it comes to their family without treating them like theyre their enemies.
I think Curry, HistoryG make good points reagarding K walking in the park with her son.
I want to add....
SHE is not a private citizen and cannot expect not to be photographed beyond the walls of her palaces and castles and estates.
She cannot have the same rights as a private citizen. Who wants to photograph regular people., If a regular person is being photographed, he/she needs to call the police because the is some crazy person planning who knows what. It is not a big deal for K to photographed with her child. PO are there. Camera lense are not up in her face or the child's face. They probably do the long lense thing. From the pic out there, it is kind of fuzzy.
Note- I did not say she did not have human rights same as anyone else.
Semantics . The heading is making it seem like KnW are clearing their calendars. It was cleared for them. Ok, true. HRH and BRF are cleared for Aug. n Sept. We get that. This is nothing new. Still, as Loth says,
Quote from: Lothwen on July 30, 2014, 09:17:06 PM
It's my understanding that the Royal Family usually spends August "on vacation", so this isn't out of the norm, but please, don't try to convince us that they "deserve" a vacation after having worked for 2 days. Especially when their "work" consisted of watching sports.
I agree.
I want to add if hey should want to go to Mustique, then they will!!! I would not be surprised if they do not go someplace . Maybe not there so far but to Ibiza? SoOf France? Tie it in there to visit PA and expectant HSH, Char. make it yet another official vacation visit. There is nothing no one can do about it if they take a get -away vacation. The media might report it in a way to rev up themselves and the people. It would be a hot story far a few 2-3 weeks. Then it is off to next story...alls forgotten. It does seem likely that they , esp. K , has her time full with her home renovations.
I don't believe Zara or Daniel and Victoria have a possible deep hatred for photographers and how they can ruin a royals life. William and Kate have put George on display and have provided pictures, the desire for more and more and more will never cease and they have decided their own way to protect their son.
I swear this entitlement some have when dealing with royals is so sick, like they have no valuable reason to not want to be photographed especially with their child.
I also want to take back my earlier post, I fell into the lame trap of believing what a magazine says is true. More than anything they are making this crap up like everything else.
^I don't think it's an entitlement; more like a "you're a public figure and that's part of being in the eye of the media". I can't control what William and Kate do with George, but personally I admire the way that Victoria and Daniel deal with them as a part of "the job" type of thing even if they don't like it.
Quote from: XeniaCasaraghi on August 03, 2014, 07:22:44 PM
William and Kate have put George on display and have provided pictures, the desire for more and more and more will never cease and they have decided their own way to protect their son.
I swear this entitlement some have when dealing with royals is so sick, like they have no valuable reason to not want to be photographed especially with their child.
:goodpost:
Quote from: XeniaCasaraghi on August 03, 2014, 07:22:44 PM
I swear this entitlement some have when dealing with royals is so sick, like they have no valuable reason to not want to be photographed especially with their child.
Absolutely agree. I can see where the Cambridges would like to preserve their familial privacy, and that's admirable for the sake of George and the inevitable "K2". Eventually, they really won't be able to shelter themselves or their family.
I wonder if it continues, would their apprehensions with acclimating their child(ren) be detrimental to the tenuous symbiosis of the RF and the public? You already have William who seemingly begrudges his position but definitely not the perks. If they bring up a second generation who aren't properly socialized and accepting of their what the public perceives as their "getting their tax dollars worth", what next?
Either way, I don't think Georgie will be a king, so whatever...
Quote from: HistoryGirl on August 03, 2014, 07:44:49 PM
^I don't think it's an entitlement; more like a "you're a public figure and that's part of being in the eye of the media". I can't control what William and Kate do with George, but personally I admire the way that Victoria and Daniel deal with them as a part of "the job" type of thing even if they don't like it.
I agree, I have always cited Victoria and Daniel as an example of gracefully acknowledging theirs and their daughter's position, William and Kate may have the right to do as they wish, but they are not being as graceful and realistic about reconciling their privacy with their public role as Victoria and Daniel. They are preserving their familial privacy while at the same time, presenting their family to their subjects thoughtfully and gracefully, subjects who feel appreciated because they are sharing their family with them while maintaining their privacy, unlike the UK subjects who are thrown the crumbs of a picture three or four times a year.
Yeah, I mean realistically William and Kate can do whatever they want with their child, i mean it's *their* child and I would never presume to tell them what is right or wrong. But personally speaking, I admire people that look at the situation and say "man, this blows, but let's get on with it". I was watching Modern Family and Jay (the father) said the best quote ever: "I've always seen life like a series of doors. Sometimes you get to choose the door you go through, and sometimes you don't get that choice. But you still have to walk through it. So either you can go through kicking and screaming, or walk through with your head held high." And personally I think that's the way Daniel and Victoria do it even though Daniel hates the press game and I'm assuming so does Victoria cause it is annoying.
Admiring the way in which certain people do things through your personal values is not telling someone that does it differently that they're wrong and they need to change.
Remember the headline in the Washington Post when Kate was pregnant? "The World's most famous baby". To compare what the BRF must put up with and endure both in Britain and around the world with what the Swedish royals deal with is no comparison.
London is one of the major media hubs in the world, with all due respect to Victoria and Daniel, practically no one outside of Sweden cares about their family and isn't going to pay a million £ for long lens photos of Estelle.
It wouldn't matter how many photos are released or how many photo ops are arranged the tabloids and paps would still stalk Prince George in hopes to get the 'candid' money shots.
^Your opinion, and totally cool.
Good points Daisy.
Once again, we go to the other extreme. I am not knocking you, Xenia, but just wanting to bring balance back .
There is some entitlement with the Royals which is fair . Fair for them. Fair for their media which is their subjects to bring forth to their sbujects of their Kingdom.
NO, no one is they have no rights as humans, as aprents to havea private family.
They do. Of course they and they will.
They MUST be phootgraphed at times .
It gives them the much needed good pr they want to show their subjects to keep this dog and pony show going for their gain.
PG is a baby. He being photgraphed from a long distance away with his mother is not harmful to him as a baby.
His playtime with his friends are private. As he grows, he will , see Daisy's post, learn about his role, his world, his Kingdom, how the world works, etc. When he enters school , first days , as PD did with PH and PW, there will be if PW and K allow it and should be photographs. Inside the school, no. Now rumor is K will not to the park with a stroller so he cannot be photographed. So will they think keeping him in a bubble is good? The park is different from the grounds of KP which is like a park, private park.
And so it goes.
When even as adults, PW and PH were allowed to live free of the press during his college years. Press at the first day or something and graduation.
It is a give and take. there is a balance. PK is not like PD in fame . When on one of the annual ski trips, remember PD tried to block the press and asked for them after they took the pics, to please leave the kids alone. In fairness, some pics. Done. At first, start of vacation. Private vacation time after should be honored by the press and the PO's, TPTB should ensure it for WnK and should have been for PD and kids.
PW and K really WANT less press. Lessas possible for their child(ren).
I do not agree and do not see how they can get away with the media like this, but they are and will it seems. I do not think they are going to have their child(ren) photographed that much and no way near like PH and PW were.
I think they want the same life with the media for their children as D/D Wessex have for their kids.
Ridiculous demand but with this Golden couple, it seems, what they want, they get!
YES, the child was photographed on the tour. He was not there for all things with them and not the whole time either at the zoo, etc.
They ,I am sure, had family time there too away from the wombat cage whatever it was. Fair enough.
They really have given him far less media press than PW rec'd. Photogs took pics at PW ,although respectfully and from a distance, but at the home.
PW and PK released a still picture of their child.
PK 's dad took a still picture to send of the child as an infant. They did not even have offical press members or one of official photogs take the honor for his/her career.
There are a few other still pics of PW nK's child.
PW was photographed far more and had many more still pictures out there too.
Well, it's only been a year since Prince George was born, so it's hard to say exactly how much Wil land Kate plan to share him during his childhood. That said, so far there's been:
-hospital steps photocall
-two pictures of him with W&K in the first month after his birth
-christening pictures and video
-mothers' day family photo
-two official engagements during the Aus/NZ tour
-five embarking/disembarking plane photocalls during the Aus/NZ tour
-fathers' day polo outing
-three pictures for his first birthday
(And that's leaving aside the unofficial photos of him: in the park with Kate and then with the nanny, those taken through car windows, on the tarmac with Kate on vacation, etc.)
So in terms of official exposure to the public: there have been ten events/outings where the press could take photos and video, and four occasions on which the BRF has released their own pictures of him. In one year--especially his first year--I just don't agree that's insufficient.
Maybe Victoria/Daniel have chosen to do more or different things, but nothing says their method is the one that every Royal family must follow. Especially since the BRF generally does things differently than the continental Royals, and especially since there is WAY more worldwide media attention on W&K than there is on Victoria and Daniel.
^^ Remember, the christening was not open to the press. We were even wondering if they'd release photos.
Out of the nine of the events open to the press, 7 of those were in Aus/NZ...doesn't that seem unfair to England?
^^Agreed. The British Press and paps especially are probably a thousand times more feral in terms of chasing a story/photo than elsewhere in Continental Europe and Scandinavia.
Quote from: Lady Adams on August 03, 2014, 09:29:56 PM
^^ Remember, the christening was not open to the press. We were even wondering if they'd release photos.
Out of the nine of the events open to the press, 7 of those were in Aus/NZ...doesn't that seem unfair to England?
BRF christenings are always private affairs and at least for me I don't really care where George is photographed. He looks the same in Australia and he does in England and with 70 million people in Britain almost no one will see him in person anyway even if he accompanied W&K everywhere they go.
Before/after the Christening was open to the press, which is how we got all the videos and candid photos. I don't blame them for wanting to have a small ceremony free of a bunch of photographers -- AFAIK, the BRF never allows the media into the ceremony itself.
And yes, many of the appearances were in Aus/NZ. But they were open to press from all over, and certainly the British press published a ton of pictures and videos. I don't really see why it matters where those events were, they were part of Royal duties and they allowed all of the public to see George.
Quote from: Canuck on August 03, 2014, 09:19:01 PM
Well, it's only been a year since Prince George was born, so it's hard to say exactly how much Wil land Kate plan to share him during his childhood. That said, so far there's been:
-hospital steps photocall (In person)
-two pictures of him with W&K in the first month after his birth (Pictures)
-christening pictures and video (Pictures)
-mothers' day family photo (Picture)
-two official engagements during the Aus/NZ tour(ABROAD PR TOUR)
-five embarking/disembarking plane photocalls during the Aus/NZ tour (ABROAD PR TOUR)
-fathers' day polo outing (Unofficial papped photos at a closed upper-class event)
-three pictures for his first birthday (Pictures)
So, basically, the UK public saw him the day he was born and then they were thrown photos.
Quote from: Canuck on August 03, 2014, 09:19:01 PM
Maybe Victoria/Daniel have chosen to do more or different things, but nothing says their method is the one that every Royal family must follow. Especially since the BRF generally does things differently than the continental Royals, and especially since there is WAY more worldwide media attention on W&K than there is on Victoria and Daniel.
That still leaves Daniel and Victoria more thoughtful, and graceful about sharing the family with the public who are their subjects than William and Kate.
Yes, if you ignore everything else I listed, then that's accurate. :orchid:
If someone can explain to me why it matters that some outings were in Aus/NZ rather than the UK, I'm all ears. Maybe a few hundred people ever actually get a glimpse of the BRF on an official outing; the other 70 million or so see it in pictures and videos. I just fail to understand why it matters that the pictures/videos were shot overseas rather than in the UK. They were still at official engagements for the BRF and covered exhaustively in the UK press.
The only other thing you listed were papped photos, are William and Kate to be credited for those?
Quote from: Canuck on August 03, 2014, 09:19:01 PM
Well, it's only been a year since Prince George was born, so it's hard to say exactly how much Wil land Kate plan to share him during his childhood. That said, so far there's been:
-hospital steps photocall
-two pictures of him with W&K in the first month after his birth
-christening pictures and video
-mothers' day family photo
-two official engagements during the Aus/NZ tour
-five embarking/disembarking plane photocalls during the Aus/NZ tour
-fathers' day polo outing
-three pictures for his first birthday
(And that's leaving aside the unofficial photos of him: in the park with Kate and then with the nanny, those taken through car windows, on the tarmac with Kate on vacation, etc.)
So in terms of official exposure to the public: there have been ten events/outings where the press could take photos and video, and four occasions on which the BRF has released their own pictures of him. In one year--especially his first year--I just don't agree that's insufficient.
Maybe Victoria/Daniel have chosen to do more or different things, but nothing says their method is the one that every Royal family must follow. Especially since the BRF generally does things differently than the continental Royals, and especially since there is WAY more worldwide media attention on W&K than there is on Victoria and Daniel.
I missed this earlier before I posted :goodpost:
Only once is live in the UK, the rest are papped, abroad and photos released. :shrug:
Quote from: Canuck on August 03, 2014, 09:39:05 PM
Before/after the Christening was open to the press, which is how we got all the videos and candid photos. I don't blame them for wanting to have a small ceremony free of a bunch of photographers -- AFAIK, the BRF never allows the media into the ceremony itself.
And yes, many of the appearances were in Aus/NZ. But they were open to press from all over, and certainly the British press published a ton of pictures and videos. I don't really see why it matters where those events were, they were part of Royal duties and they allowed all of the public to see George.
Another :goodpost:
Quote from: Limabeany on August 03, 2014, 09:42:57 PM
That still leaves Daniel and Victoria more thoughtful, and graceful about sharing the family with the public who are their subjects than William and Kate.
That depends on two things: how Daniel and Victoria would act were they in William's and Kate's shoes; and how William and Kate would act if they were in Daniel's and Victoria's shoes.
Cindy
^^ I'm not sure what you mean, Cindy...I think they're both in very similar situations.
The UK public saw him on every occasion I listed. And even if you're only counting things on UK soil (which, as I said, I think makes absolutely no sense), there was also video at the Christening and the polo match was access for the press rather than photos released by the family.
As for being "thrown pictures" -- I don't understand the need to minimize what was done. Numerous photos have been released, some of which were more casual and some of which were professionally taken. They were all clearly quite thoughtfully chosen -- from choosing to do a photo shoot at one of Kate's patronages, to the extensive photo session with the whole family after the Christening, to the carefully composed mothers' day picture with Lupo. Whatever you think of the BRF, I think it's extremely clear they aren't just throwing out random pictures of anyone, and least of all of George.
They're not in the same position. Victoria is Crown Princess. William is not Prince of Wales. Daniel and Victoria are in Sweden where the press is not as intrusive as the press in the UK.
Cindy
That is incorrect, Canuck, the UK people saw photos of him on every occasion you listed, they were ONLY presented George outside the hospital.
Cindy, if William is high up enough to be deserving of a 6M pound home gift, he is certainly high enough to be as thoughtful as Victoria and Daniel.
The press are more intrusive in the UK, but both the press and the public are treated with much more thoughtfulness by Swedes Victoria and Daniel when it comes to sharing the future queen, and regardless of how low they are, George IS the future King.
There's also just far less interest in Victoria and Daniel, worldwide, than in W&K. The BRF are by far the best known of the Royal families, and receive the most press attention.
More interest gives William and Kate MORE reasons to be thoughtful and considerate NOT less...
Quote from: Canuck on August 03, 2014, 09:57:16 PM
There's also just far less interest in Victoria and Daniel, worldwide, than in W&K. The BRF are by far the best known of the Royal families, and receive the most press attention.
Who determines the level of interest in each family? The sun has been setting on the British Empire in the past half-century.
Also, Lima, :goodpost:
Sweden and the UK are different when comparing education, quality of life, socio-economics, etc.
More reason to be thoughtful and considerate, yes. More reason to release a larger number of photos and videos? Not necessarily.
Daisy, are you seriously suggesting that there's more or equal interest in the Swedish Royal family worldwide as there is in the BRF? Count the number of newspaper and magazine covers devoted to each and I think the difference will be clear. I don't think I have a single friend or relative who could name a member of the Swedish Royal family (and many who wouldn't even know there WAS a Swedish Royal family), while the vast majority of the world would know who Will, Kate, and George are.
Quote from: Canuck on August 03, 2014, 09:54:32 PM
The UK public saw him on every occasion I listed. And even if you're only counting things on UK soil (which, as I said, I think makes absolutely no sense), there was also video at the Christening and the polo match was access for the press rather than photos released by the family.
As for being "thrown pictures" -- I don't understand the need to minimize what was done. Numerous photos have been released, some of which were more casual and some of which were professionally taken. They were all clearly quite thoughtfully chosen -- from choosing to do a photo shoot at one of Kate's patronages, to the extensive photo session with the whole family after the Christening, to the carefully composed mothers' day picture with Lupo. Whatever you think of the BRF, I think it's extremely clear they aren't just throwing out random pictures of anyone, and least of all of George.
I agree and I think the BRF do an excellent job of of giving us access to photos of Prince George without overexposure. Like the saying goes, 'keep them wanting more'
Remember the words of Walter Bagehot - "We must not let daylight in upon the magic"
Quote from: cinrit on August 03, 2014, 09:55:10 PM
They're not in the same position. Victoria is Crown Princess. William is not Prince of Wales. Daniel and Victoria are in Sweden where the press is not as intrusive as the press in the UK.
Cindy
Are we talking about the same press that published accounts of Princess Madeline's then-fiance cheating on her? Or the press corps that reported widely on Victoria's eating disorder? I'd say they are much more intrusive than the British press, because they don't have the same sort of laws and honor codes British journalists need to abide by.
( Here's a good synopsis of the press coverage re: Madde, for anyone curious:
Royal wedding called off amid cheating claims - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/04/26/sweden.princess.wedding/) )
Quote from: Canuck on August 03, 2014, 10:05:37 PM
More reason to be thoughtful and considerate, yes. More reason to release a larger number of photos and videos? Not necessarily.
Daisy, are you seriously suggesting that there's more or equal interest in the Swedish Royal family worldwide as there is in the BRF? Count the number of newspaper and magazine covers devoted to each and I think the difference will be clear. I don't think I have a single friend or relative who could name a member of the Swedish Royal family (and many who wouldn't even know there WAS a Swedish Royal family), while the vast majority of the world would know who Will, Kate, and George are.
No, I'm saying both have different societies as a whole, which their monarchies are reflective of.
Who determines their interest?
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on August 03, 2014, 10:05:58 PM
Remember the words of Walter Bagehot - "We must not let daylight in upon the magic"
I seem to remember another quote:
"I must be seen to be believed."
--Queen Elizabeth II
Quote from: DaisyMeRollin on August 03, 2014, 10:09:26 PM
Quote from: Canuck on August 03, 2014, 10:05:37 PM
More reason to be thoughtful and considerate, yes. More reason to release a larger number of photos and videos? Not necessarily.
Daisy, are you seriously suggesting that there's more or equal interest in the Swedish Royal family worldwide as there is in the BRF? Count the number of newspaper and magazine covers devoted to each and I think the difference will be clear. I don't think I have a single friend or relative who could name a member of the Swedish Royal family (and many who wouldn't even know there WAS a Swedish Royal family), while the vast majority of the world would know who Will, Kate, and George are.
No, I'm saying both have different societies as a whole, which their monarchies are reflective of.
Who determines their interest?
I think we're talking about different things, Daisy. I'm not saying the BRF is more interesting, or that its place in society is more important. I'm saying there is more press attention focused on them than on the other Royal families. I don't think there's any serious argument to be made that's not true.
Look at RIF for example. I'm willing to wager there are more threads and comments dedicated to W&K and escpecially the BRF than all other royal families combined.
Thats a lot of interest.
Quote from: Canuck on August 03, 2014, 10:11:22 PM
Quote from: DaisyMeRollin on August 03, 2014, 10:09:26 PM
Quote from: Canuck on August 03, 2014, 10:05:37 PM
More reason to be thoughtful and considerate, yes. More reason to release a larger number of photos and videos? Not necessarily.
Daisy, are you seriously suggesting that there's more or equal interest in the Swedish Royal family worldwide as there is in the BRF? Count the number of newspaper and magazine covers devoted to each and I think the difference will be clear. I don't think I have a single friend or relative who could name a member of the Swedish Royal family (and many who wouldn't even know there WAS a Swedish Royal family), while the vast majority of the world would know who Will, Kate, and George are.
No, I'm saying both have different societies as a whole, which their monarchies are reflective of.
Who determines their interest?
I think we're talking about different things, Daisy. I'm not saying the BRF is more interesting, or that its place in society is more important. I'm saying there is more press attention focused on them than on the other Royal families. I don't think there's any serious argument to be made that's not true.
I never said that either or are more interesting either.
Who creates the demand for which the press obliges?
Well, I think of all the Royal families, the BRF naturally attracts more attention because the Queen is still the head of state in 16 countries. Additionally, the U.S. has a particular interest in the BRF (I suspect some of this is down to the country's fascination with Princess Diana, and some because of its own history with England). And then the BRF has probably the best known history of the various Royal families, from Richard III to Henry VIII to the Edward/Wallis Simpson episode to the BRF in WWII (much of which has been popularized in books, movies, Shakespeare, etc.). They do pageantry extremely well, which helps to keep interest up, and they're English speaking, which makes them easier to follow for the portions of the public in other countries that speak English. So I suspect it's a combination of a lot of different factors.
I think the interest in them helps keep them running to be honest so I'd wager that they'd rather have the situation of being the most popular house. Media attention is not a faucet; you can't just turn it on or off whenever you feel like it. It would be nice if you could, but you can't. There is either demand or there isn't, there is either notoriety or there's not.
Oh, absolutely. But they don't need to be pushing George down the street in a stroller every week or releasing hundreds of photos for media attention to stay focused on the family--the past year has made that clear, and is in line with what was done with Will and Harry as babies.
I think the BRF as a whole does a good job of balancing the need for exposure of family members and events with the need to avoid overexposing the real people in the family. There is such a thing as too much media attention--Princess Diana is evidence of that.
They don't need to take George anywhere they don't want to and I agree that if a law is broken to get a picture the photographer should be dealt with. But complaining about photographers in public places or where a law is not broken, and acting as if the photographer or journalist should be ashamed of himself is ridiculous. I'll never forget that rude comment that William made to that journalist during the floods.
Quote from: DaisyMeRollin on August 03, 2014, 10:15:58 PM
Who creates the demand for which the press obliges?
The buying public creates the demand. And the media knows their customers and what will sell. If they didn't know that, they wouldn't last very long.
Cindy
Quote from: Canuck on August 03, 2014, 10:24:50 PM
Well, I think of all the Royal families, the BRF naturally attracts more attention because the Queen is still the head of state in 16 countries. Additionally, the U.S. has a particular interest in the BRF (I suspect some of this is down to the country's fascination with Princess Diana, and some because of its own history with England). And then the BRF has probably the best known history of the various Royal families, from Richard III to Henry VIII to the Edward/Wallis Simpson episode to the BRF in WWII (much of which has been popularized in books, movies, Shakespeare, etc.). They do pageantry extremely well, which helps to keep interest up, and they're English speaking, which makes them easier to follow for the portions of the public in other countries that speak English. So I suspect it's a combination of a lot of different factors.
There's a very simple answer to this.
Anyway, when comparing the BRF and the SRF, I think you have took take a look at their respective societies to find a few answers also. Monarchists can't even come to a consensus on whether they want a minimalist monarchy or what the definition of a modern monarchy should be when it comes to the BRF.
Quote from: Canuck on August 03, 2014, 10:24:50 PM
They do pageantry extremely well, which helps to keep interest up
Is it necessary? If people stopped sitting in slack-jawed awe of the parades, would we see more worthwhile contributions? On the outside looking in, I think Monarchists and Republicans say a lot even when saying so little when it comes to their observations of their own or other respective monarchies. Sometimes I think, if the public themselves weren't intrusive, bloodthirsty, and showed even an iota of consistency, then the BRF could actually have a modern monarchy. There's a compromise, but it starts with the people. Until Britain finds that compromise, I sympathize with people with Republican sentiments. It's antiquated and it's a waste.
Sweden's national holiday seems more subdued, and the weddings are more subdued. The Nobel ceremony and dinner allots a little glitz and glamour. I think it's more of a progressive and pragmatic approach to monarchy that is reflective of the people of Sweden.
Quote from: cinrit on August 03, 2014, 11:06:27 PMThe buying public creates the demand. And the media knows their customers and what will sell. If they didn't know that, they wouldn't last very long.
Cindy
DING DING DING! Give that lady a cookie!
Can't really complain about "intrusiveness" when you eagerly lap it up and continue the cycle.
^Completely agree on the last portion with the comparison to the SRF.
I feel like we're talking past each other, Daisy. Like cinrit, I'm saying the BRF attracts the most attention because they're the family the general public is most interested in and will buy/pay attention to news about. I was just trying to explain some of the reasons I thought that might be the case.
I think what Daisy is saying is that the people that complain about intrusiveness are part of the problem. (of course, my impression could be totally wrong and if it is I apologize lol)
If so, HistoryGirl, then I disagree. I like to follow the BRF, but I don't buy the tell-all books or seek out the paparazzi pictures (I made a particular point of avoiding the sunbathing pictures of Kate, which I thought were an appalling breach of privacy). Yes, being a monarchy people have interest in creates demand for privacy violations; but it is not the case that all fame necessitates privacy violations. There are various ways that those privacy violations can be curtailed: the UK's laws, members of the public choosing not to consume privacy-violating pictures, the media self-regulating, and the BRF itself setting limits on the extent to which they are exposed and in the public eye. I think W&K are simply trying to do the latter.
But then that goes back to the issue of fame not being a faucet. It can't be that ppl only buy the papers when they go out on engagements because it's all a cycle. People want to see them because they somehow feel closeness to them. As if seeing pictures of George makes ppl feel part of his childhood. That "personal" connection will then transfer when George does engagements later on.
If the whole hoopla with Diana and Charles had never occurred and we hadn't seen her be so loving to the princes and teaching them to be "normal" and then the unfortunate and tragic death that then created sympathy and interest which led us to care about their private lives and uplifted their status as far as intrigue from media because ppl cared about them. They were princes so it would have happened anyway, but perhaps not to that extent.
The point, however, is that the media cares because the public wants to see. And the public want to see because they somehow feel like they "know" the family, which is part of the game that royals need to play because popularity is what they crave and need.
Quote from: Canuck on August 03, 2014, 11:16:06 PM
I feel like we're talking past each other, Daisy. Like cinrit, I'm saying the BRF attracts the most attention because they're the family the general public is most interested in and will buy/pay attention to news about. I was just trying to explain some of the reasons I thought that might be the case.
It's not a problem. I understand the "why". I just wanted to see who would point the finger to themselves, too.
What I'm wondering is, what would make the situation better? We're talking about the compromise that Victoria and Daniel have, maybe the BRF should actually harness a more stream-lined and austere approach to be a progressive monarchy. Unfortunately, will the British public allow that since they have expectations of pomp and pageantry that surpass that of other monarchies?
Quote from: HistoryGirl on August 03, 2014, 11:19:29 PM
I think what Daisy is saying is that the people that complain about intrusiveness are part of the problem. (of course, my impression could be totally wrong and if it is I apologize lol)
Got it!
Well yes, fame isn't a faucet you can turn on and off, and the BRF relies on the public feeling a connection to them. But at the same time, it's about striking a balance. I don't think releasing hundreds more pictures or taking George to a dozen public engagements a year would reduce the intrusiveness of the press; I don't think that W&K's efforts to protect their child's privacy are turning off the general public or reducing the popularity of George or the BRF (quite the opposite, according to public opinion polls).
HG, :goodpost:
Whenever I mull this over, I start wondering at what point are they celebrities? Where's the divide really?
No, but like I said I don't care what they do with George, it's not my kid lol the difference is the hostility that they seem to have as opposed to Victoria and Daniel. And I realize that Diana was harassed and William and Harry hold a grudge toward the press. But Daniel absolutely hated the attention too when the relationship first started and I've never had an eating disorder, but I'm willing to bet having to admit you have one to the press must have been hard for Victoria, but she sucked it up and talked to them about it, not held all journalists accountable for reporting on it.
Again, William and Kate and the BRF can do it anyway they want, but from my personal standpoint I just think the Swedes have achieved a version of a modern monarchy quite well.
Double post auto-merged: August 03, 2014, 11:55:47 PM
Quote from: DaisyMeRollin on August 03, 2014, 11:48:35 PM
HG, :goodpost:
Whenever I mull this over, I start wondering at what point are they celebrities? Where's the divide really?
In this day and age you can't really tell anymore. Even politicians are starting to seem like celebrities. Probably because of the growth of celebrity culture in general with social media.
Haha! The last portion! Too true.
I was fumbling with the idea of making the comparison to a few politicians (both US Republican and Democrat), but I thought that maybe we should avoid it. What a mess!
Quote from: DaisyMeRollin on August 03, 2014, 11:09:20 PM
DING DING DING! Give that lady a cookie!
Can't really complain about "intrusiveness" when you eagerly lap it up and continue the cycle.
Ah, but I wasn't complaining, though personally, I could since I'm not into buying magazines and books (or especially tabloids) about the Royals. I was simply answering a question put forth by you. I don't think anyone has actually "complained" about the media. So, no, I didn't point fingers at anyone.
Cindy
^^^I think I need to avoid using the royal "you". That's causing confusion. I wasn't specifically talking about "you" as in you, Cinrit, I was speaking generally.^^^
Forum misinterpretations. What are you going to do? :shrug:
Daniel and Victoria do not make the cut in the 100, nor 200 most searched people in yahoo, google, bing, any search engine, but William, Kate and George are, that to publicist and marketing is pictures worth thousands.
Estelle pic is very likely worth penny's or for free to keep them in centre fold, as cruel as it may sound.
Of course, the oldest firm in the planet, the BRF know what they're doing. George very likely already has his piggy bank, his website name taken, etc. they control the pics to be distributed, embargoed until date/time, the press are mad, no money. Just read them in twitter, pist. And still the press places them front page news, because the masses buy and click. The BRF has the pulse.
It is quite a mess. I don't think it's necessary to buy books to contribute though, clicking on articles is the same thing; watching their weddings on tv; joining a forum about them. I think it just is what it is, people are interested and that's how it'll remain. Id say they should look at the way the Swedes do it, but I don't think they want to. They rather enjoy being the most prominent house, just not when it doesnt suit them lol as with everyone I suppose. I do think Daisy's point of Swedish ppl's culture is a big factor. The Swedes have a value for moderation and focus on education and a state that is there to help the people (truly, not just the lip service) and that then translates to their monarchy being more modest and thoughtful towards their public.
I think there are sensible Brits that want this focus to shift to the welfare of the people and education, but not enough to actually change which is why their House reflects that same hold on tradition and pomp and circumstance. That's their choice entirely though.
Quote from: cinrit on August 04, 2014, 12:02:49 AM
Quote from: DaisyMeRollin on August 03, 2014, 11:09:20 PM
DING DING DING! Give that lady a cookie!
Can't really complain about "intrusiveness" when you eagerly lap it up and continue the cycle.
Ah, but I wasn't complaining, though personally, I could since I'm not into buying magazines and books (or especially tabloids) about the Royals. I was simply answering a question put forth by you. I don't think anyone has actually "complained" about the media. So, no, I didn't point fingers at anyone.
Cindy
:goodpost: I don't buy the trashier titles but I do admit to buying commemorative issues on William's and Kate's wedding and of course little Prince George on his birthday :vday2:
Quote from: wannable on August 04, 2014, 12:15:26 AM
Daniel and Victoria do not make the cut in the 100, nor 200 most searched people in yahoo, google, bing, any search engine, but William, Kate and George are, that to publicist and marketing is pictures worth thousands.
Estelle pic is very likely worth penny's or for free to keep them in centre fold, as cruel as it may sound.
Of course, the oldest firm in the planet, the BRF know what their doing. George very likely already has his piggy bank, his website name taken, etc. they control the pics to be distributed, the press are mad, no money. Just read them in twitter, pist.
If this is in reference to the conversation at hand, as far as "intrusion". Posting here and the bolded:
<----- the point
you ----->
Quote from: HistoryGirl on August 04, 2014, 12:15:46 AM
It is quite a mess. I don't think it's necessary to buy books to contribute though, clicking on articles is the same thing; watching their weddings on tv; joining a forum about them. I think it just is what it is, people are interested and that's how it'll remain. Id say they should look at the way the Swedes do it, but I don't think they want to. They rather enjoy being the most prominent house, just not when it doesnt suit them lol as with everyone I suppose. I do think Daisy's point of Swedish ppl's culture is a big factor. The Swedes have a value for moderation and focus on education and a state that is there to help the people (truly, not just the lip service) and that then translates to their monarchy being more modest and thoughtful towards their public.
I think there are sensible Brits that want this focus to shift to the welfare of the people and education, but not enough to actually change which is why their House reflects that same hold on tradition and pomp and circumstance. That's their choice entirely though.
The bolded is exactly what I've suspected too. It's all circular.
Quote from: wannable on August 04, 2014, 12:15:26 AM
Daniel and Victoria do not make the cut in the 100, nor 200 most searched people in yahoo, google, bing, any search engine, but William, Kate and George are, that to publicist and marketing is pictures worth thousands.
Estelle pic is very likely worth penny's or for free to keep them in centre fold, as cruel as it may sound.
Of course, the oldest firm in the planet, the BRF know what they're doing. George very likely already has his piggy bank, his website name taken, etc. they control the pics to be distributed, embargoed until date/time, the press are mad, no money. Just read them in twitter, pist. And still the press places them front page news, because the masses buy and click. The BRF has the pulse.
I agree. :goodpost:
The media would like to make more money out of George yes, not through only the controlled embargoes from the BRF.
I think the Cambridge's are doing the right thing.
I think Daisy and I are discussing something completely different to everyone else lol where would one create a thread to compare the SRF and the BRF?
Quote from: HistoryGirl on August 04, 2014, 12:51:44 AM
I think Daisy and I are discussing something completely different to everyone else lol where would one create a thread to compare the SRF and the BRF?
I wouldn't mind it. It gets a little dicey in the compare and contrast when it starts degenerating into the "Go team!" mentality. That's my only apprehension.
^True, maybe it's better to just leave it there.
Clear what in their calendar, when there is nothing there to being with???? What!! :notamused:
Quote from: wannable on August 04, 2014, 12:15:26 AM
Daniel and Victoria do not make the cut in the 100, nor 200 most searched people in yahoo, google, bing, any search engine, but William, Kate and George are, that to publicist and marketing is pictures worth thousands.
Daniel and Vidtoria aren't among the most searched people, but I consider them among the most thoughtful royal parents with their subjects and William and Kate, the most selfish and entitled. No one is claiming the entitled pair should be more thoughtful for the pr, pr is what parading their son through Oz like his mother tour looked like, thoughtfulness is what Estelle's upbringing looks like.
IMHO Daniel and Victoria are forging their own path with Estelle which is different from the typical route that many royals have been taking with their children. William and Kate are following a more traditional one which is similar to the one Charles and Diana had with their children.
Each set of parents has to decide what they believe will be best for their own families. Victoria had her issues with the press during her youth and is likely to try and protect Estelle from that type of intense coverage.
W&K's path is not traditional, simply reclusive, and not like Diana's with the sole exception of the trip to Oz. Diana, did carve her own path, Kate and William are simply playing reclusive hermits. Even more admirable of Victoria to be doing this with such Grace, William is not the only one who has had a difficult relationship with the press, he needs to learn from people who are handling themselves as exquisitely as Victoria, instead of playing "normally hiding in my bunker... I'll sen you a pic when and if I feel like it."
Quote from: TLLK on August 04, 2014, 06:05:04 AM
IMHO Daniel and Victoria are forging their own path with Estelle which is different from the typical route that many royals have been taking with their children. William and Kate are following a more traditional one which is similar to the one Charles and Diana had with their children.
Each set of parents has to decide what they believe will be best for their own families. Victoria had her issues with the press during her youth and is likely to try and protect Estelle from that type of intense coverage.
I remember reports saying that the Victoria's father put pressure on her and her sister to step aside for their brother.
Quote from: Canuck on July 30, 2014, 07:04:40 PM
I agree the phrasing is silly, but it's not like the BRF or W&K said it.
I had to remind myself of that as I stared in indignation at the article. I'd love to ask Katie Nicholl what on earth William and Kate have done that makes her think this month off is so "well deserved?"
And yes, the August hibernation is nothing new for the Royal family, but seriously - it's like Katie is trying to outrage her readers on purpose or something. She isn't doing Will and Kate any favors with statements like that.
Jenee, I suspect she is trying to anger her readers. She often writes stuff so over the top that I think it can only be serving the purpose of trying to generate outrage. Whatever causes more page clicks...
Quote from: PaulaB on August 04, 2014, 10:35:42 AM
Quote from: TLLK on August 04, 2014, 06:05:04 AM
IMHO Daniel and Victoria are forging their own path with Estelle which is different from the typical route that many royals have been taking with their children. William and Kate are following a more traditional one which is similar to the one Charles and Diana had with their children.
Each set of parents has to decide what they believe will be best for their own families. Victoria had her issues with the press during her youth and is likely to try and protect Estelle from that type of intense coverage.
I remember reports saying that the Victoria's father put pressure on her and her sister to step aside for their brother.
Yes CG was not happy about the Swedish parliament's decision to follow full primogeniture.
Quote from: Limabeany on August 04, 2014, 09:15:37 AM
W&K's path is not traditional, simply reclusive, and not like Diana's with the sole exception of the trip to Oz. Diana, did carve her own path, Kate and William are simply playing reclusive hermits. Even more admirable of Victoria to be doing this with such Grace, William is not the only one who has had a difficult relationship with the press, he needs to learn from people who are handling themselves as exquisitely as Victoria, instead of playing "normally hiding in my bunker... I'll sen you a pic when and if I feel like it."
On this we'll have to disagree. I see them behaving like the other members of the BRF and other royal families with infants and toddlers when establishing a relationship with the media. We'll just have to see what the future brings.
I agree, TLLK.
Quote from: TLLK on August 04, 2014, 01:28:23 PM
Quote from: Limabeany on August 04, 2014, 09:15:37 AM
W&K's path is not traditional, simply reclusive, and not like Diana's with the sole exception of the trip to Oz. Diana, did carve her own path, Kate and William are simply playing reclusive hermits. Even more admirable of Victoria to be doing this with such Grace, William is not the only one who has had a difficult relationship with the press, he needs to learn from people who are handling themselves as exquisitely as Victoria, instead of playing "normally hiding in my bunker... I'll sen you a pic when and if I feel like it."
On this we'll have to disagree. I see them behaving like the other members of the BRF and other royal families with infants and toddlers when establishing a relationship with the media. We'll just have to see what the future brings.
I agree to disagree, I see Victoria and Daniel being thoughtful in sharing their family and maintaining their privacy with grace, I see William and Kate, taking George out for pr when it suits them (Australia for the Diana comparison), or where no one is allowed, and sending out pictures two or three times a year... :truce:
Quote from: Lady Adams on August 02, 2014, 11:28:11 PM
QuoteThe Duchess no longer walks Prince George through Kensington after she was snapped in the Royal park last year.
Zara and Mia routinely get photographed when they're out at horse events. And guess what? Zara ignores them and goes about her business! Sensible thing to do. Kate is sounding obsessed with privacy, to the point of detriment.
Kate was photographed just last week taking a walk through Kensington with Prince George. I always take Katie Nicholl's attempts to paint the Duchess as paranoid with a grain of salt
Twitter / POPSUGAR: We are OBSESSED with these ... (https://twitter.com/POPSUGAR/status/496389640954597378/photo/1)
Kate Middleton Pushing Prince George in a Stroller | POPSUGAR Celebrity (http://www.popsugar.com/Kate-Middleton-Pushing-Prince-George-Stroller-35403801#photo-5)
I think taking a daily walk, especially for the baby is a good thing. I think she still does occasionally but doesn't like getting papped which is clear that she does regularly from those pictures. A lot of times too I think George is just walked by the nanny so as to avoid the disturbance from the photographers. It's not the most fun situation to be in but there's no need to complain if she already knew going in what it would be like.
Quote from: Lady Adams on August 03, 2014, 10:08:50 PM
Quote from: cinrit on August 03, 2014, 09:55:10 PM
They're not in the same position. Victoria is Crown Princess. William is not Prince of Wales. Daniel and Victoria are in Sweden where the press is not as intrusive as the press in the UK.
Cindy
Are we talking about the same press that published accounts of Princess Madeline's then-fiance cheating on her? Or the press corps that reported widely on Victoria's eating disorder? I'd say they are much more intrusive than the British press, because they don't have the same sort of laws and honor codes British journalists need to abide by.
( Here's a good synopsis of the press coverage re: Madde, for anyone curious:
Royal wedding called off amid cheating claims - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/04/26/sweden.princess.wedding/) )
The british press has reported on similar cases and much more. Have the Swedish press hacked phones and published private conversations? If not then they are no where ad bad as the British.
Double post auto-merged: August 04, 2014, 11:00:21 PM
Quote from: FanDianaFancy on August 03, 2014, 09:17:42 PM
Good points Daisy.
Once again, we go to the other extreme. I am not knocking you, Xenia, but just wanting to bring balance back .
There is some entitlement with the Royals which is fair . Fair for them. Fair for their media which is their subjects to bring forth to their sbujects of their Kingdom.
NO, no one is they have no rights as humans, as aprents to havea private family.
They do. Of course they and they will.
They MUST be phootgraphed at times .
It gives them the much needed good pr they want to show their subjects to keep this dog and pony show going for their gain.
PG is a baby. He being photgraphed from a long distance away with his mother is not harmful to him as a baby.
His playtime with his friends are private. As he grows, he will , see Daisy's post, learn about his role, his world, his Kingdom, how the world works, etc. When he enters school , first days , as PD did with PH and PW, there will be if PW and K allow it and should be photographs. Inside the school, no. Now rumor is K will not to the park with a stroller so he cannot be photographed. So will they think keeping him in a bubble is good? The park is different from the grounds of KP which is like a park, private park.
And so it goes.
When even as adults, PW and PH were allowed to live free of the press during his college years. Press at the first day or something and graduation.
It is a give and take. there is a balance. PK is not like PD in fame . When on one of the annual ski trips, remember PD tried to block the press and asked for them after they took the pics, to please leave the kids alone. In fairness, some pics. Done. At first, start of vacation. Private vacation time after should be honored by the press and the PO's, TPTB should ensure it for WnK and should have been for PD and kids.
PW and K really WANT less press. Lessas possible for their child(ren).
I do not agree and do not see how they can get away with the media like this, but they are and will it seems. I do not think they are going to have their child(ren) photographed that much and no way near like PH and PW were.
I think they want the same life with the media for their children as D/D Wessex have for their kids.
Ridiculous demand but with this Golden couple, it seems, what they want, they get!
YES, the child was photographed on the tour. He was not there for all things with them and not the whole time either at the zoo, etc.
They ,I am sure, had family time there too away from the wombat cage whatever it was. Fair enough.
They really have given him far less media press than PW rec'd. Photogs took pics at PW ,although respectfully and from a distance, but at the home.
PW and PK released a still picture of their child.
PK 's dad took a still picture to send of the child as an infant. They did not even have offical press members or one of official photogs take the honor for his/her career.
There are a few other still pics of PW nK's child.
PW was photographed far more and had many more still pictures out there too.
The Cambridge are getting on with it and acknowledging who they are and their roles. They gave a press conference right after he was born and released personal family pictures then had him on display for the royal tour for the entire world to see. The last time we saw him was a month before he was 1 at the Polo match, I'm sure William knows and this thread proves that no matter what the public and media are given they always want more more more. As public figures they have to put their son on display but not all the time.
Quote from: HsHCharlene on August 04, 2014, 08:56:51 PM
I think taking a daily walk, especially for the baby is a good thing. I think she still does occasionally but doesn't like getting papped which is clear that she does regularly from those pictures. A lot of times too I think George is just walked by the nanny so as to avoid the disturbance from the photographers. It's not the most fun situation to be in but there's no need to complain if she already knew going in what it would be like.
I think my confusion comes from the fact that I hear people saying she complains ("sources close to...") and I hear bitter complaints that she complains "constantly" (mostly on other forums), but when I go to look for proof of actual complaints, I can really find only a few, primarily about things I'd complain about too. Mostly, she herself just seems to live her life, and while we can debate, seemingly endlessly, about whether or not the choices she makes in terms of public service in that life are acceptable, that is completely tangential to my point, and I'd really rather not because at this point it's deathly dull. But there's all this FUD around her, and I see a lot of reaction to the FUD, and not a lot of reaction to what she actually does.
So is it that she doesn't put enough of herself out there (and I'm not talking time, I'm talking openness, because I do think she has a very carefully curated image and it's one designed to be not terribly interesting), thus leading people to just make things up? Because I really see her as something of a Rorschach blot. More than anything else, that's what interests me about her.
Wow!
https://38.media.tumblr.com/370701157f0fd290029c0a93287e9d13/tumblr_n9ynctLaFx1sbfyy8o1_500h.jpg
So added together that is 41 days representing the BRF as someone who is not on the full time royal list. At this point in time she's ahead of her total for 2013.
Those are not added together, the tour was a spree and the rest of the year, she was abysmal. It is depressing that people think Kate's workload is admirable...
IMO it is what I would expect for a part time royal in the BRF. There are full time royals in other nations who work fewer days than the Duchess of Cambridge.
So counting the tour and the days in the UK we have 41 days as of 8-7-14. August is a very slow month in the royal world and there is still Sept., Oct., Nov., and Dec. Will she match Charles, Anne, Camilla no, but she's considered part time like her husband and brother-in-law. :)
Quote from: Limabeany on August 07, 2014, 11:55:16 PM
Those are not added together, the tour was a spree and the rest of the year, she was abysmal. It is depressing that people think Kate's workload is admirable...
Harry's numbers are less than Kate
And he does have a military job so he's part time like his sister-in-law. Also his Invictus Games work prior to the event's opening is not being listed in the CC. I'm hoping that when it begins that it will be noted.
Quote from: Limabeany on August 07, 2014, 11:47:46 PM
Wow!
https://38.media.tumblr.com/370701157f0fd290029c0a93287e9d13/tumblr_n9ynctLaFx1sbfyy8o1_500h.jpg
Why would anyone be surprised? Royalist will justify the numbers, saying she is a mother and a wife; both of which require no work on her part as she has tons of help. She is WAG. I guess a lot of WAGs work harder than her. She is a very very lazy WAG and after this age, she will never step up and learn to work. I think her values in terms of working are all settled.
Quote from: psm on August 08, 2014, 12:50:42 AM
Quote from: Limabeany on August 07, 2014, 11:47:46 PM
Wow!
https://38.media.tumblr.com/370701157f0fd290029c0a93287e9d13/tumblr_n9ynctLaFx1sbfyy8o1_500h.jpg
Why would anyone be surprised? Royalist will justify the numbers, saying she is a mother and a wife; both of which require no work on her part as she has tons of help. She is WAG. I guess a lot of WAGs work harder than her. She is a very very lazy WAG and after this age, she will never step up and learn to work. I think her values in terms of working are all settled.
For those who insist that a 32 year old who doesn't, in their opinion, work enough will never change her ways, I can only say that history suggests otherwise.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1946&dat=19851023&id=nxUyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=-6UFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2363,876626
I think you make an interesting comparison, Adrienne. However, when predicting future habits, it is helpful to look at their past. And there is a key difference: in their 20s, Kate never held a full-time job while Anne was an Olympic athlete, requiring at least, if not possibly more, work than a full-time job.
Quote from: Lady Adams on August 08, 2014, 03:26:48 AM
I think you make an interesting comparison, Adrienne. However, when predicting future habits, it is helpful to look at their past. And there is a key difference: in their 20s, Kate never held a full-time job while Anne was an Olympic athlete, requiring at least, if not possibly more, work than a full-time job.
My point was mostly that predicting future habits is a mug's game. :wink:
(Edited for proper apostrophe usage)
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on August 08, 2014, 12:17:57 AM
Quote from: Limabeany on August 07, 2014, 11:55:16 PM
Those are not added together, the tour was a spree and the rest of the year, she was abysmal. It is depressing that people think Kate's workload is admirable...
Harry's numbers are less than Kate
Harry has an actual job, Kate does not
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on August 08, 2014, 12:17:57 AM
Quote from: Limabeany on August 07, 2014, 11:55:16 PM
Those are not added together, the tour was a spree and the rest of the year, she was abysmal. It is depressing that people think Kate's workload is admirable...
Harry's numbers are less than Kate
Kate is an
UNEMPLOYED 32 year old adult... Your counter argument is that a man who has a job, however dismissive you may be about it, does less handshaking than Kate? That is your defense... :hmm:
Kate is a mother, which is probably the most important job in the world, whether you have a nanny or not.
Cindy
Kate is a mother with a job she neglects shamelessly, that makes her irresponsible and lazy.
She's doing royal duties, will represent the Queen in Malta.
When she gets to be the Princess of Wales, she will have a full schedule. And perhaps like the consort Prince Philip to the Queen will be the boss of the household, Dutchy of Lancaster, she to Cornwall, whilst Charles will be to Lancaster.
I understand some people want them to do more, but factually the SG and Dutchy of Cornwall doesn't have the funds, whilst the Queen will have none of it by retiring. Although she seems to have been inching some responsibilities by way of representation to commonwealth and other country visits.
^No funds to pay for logistics to do royal duties but enough funds to pay for the logistics (security, helicopter commuting) to live at Amner?
I haven't read that in the annual reports yet.
Edit to add, although the SG does say the Queen leased for 1 year a new helicopter, said contract at a cost of £8m. I understand Princess Beatrice was the first one to use it.
Quote from: wannable on August 10, 2014, 12:19:50 PM
She's doing royal duties, will represent the Queen in Malta.
One? Is she a toddler?
:clap: :clap: :notworthy: :notworthy:
Quote from: Lady Adams on August 10, 2014, 12:23:37 PM
^No funds to pay for logistics to do royal duties but enough funds to pay for the logistics (security, helicopter commuting) to live at Amner?
Quote from: wannable on August 10, 2014, 12:19:50 PM
She's doing royal duties, will represent the Queen in Malta.
When she gets to be the Princess of Wales, she will have a full schedule. And perhaps like the consort Prince Philip to the Queen will be the boss of the household, Dutchy of Lancaster, she to Cornwall, whilst Charles will be to Lancaster.
I understand some people want them to do more, but factually the SG and Dutchy of Cornwall doesn't have the funds, whilst the Queen will have none of it by retiring. Although she seems to have been inching some responsibilities by way of representation to commonwealth and other country visits.
I am not so sure she or Will will have a full schedule when they are elevated to Prince and Princess of Wales. Kate's royal duties are few and far between.
Yes, they're few and far between now, the don't even have their own annual report, it's included in the duchy of Cornwall report, hence one day as William and her are PoW, they will have the "income" to have a full schedule. As Charles will have the SG and Lancaster income.
I suppose by that time, Charles will be paying via the Lancaster for Harry and wife?! Not sure about this out of topic but curious point.
Quote from: sandy on August 10, 2014, 07:18:43 PM
Quote from: wannable on August 10, 2014, 12:19:50 PM
She's doing royal duties, will represent the Queen in Malta.
When she gets to be the Princess of Wales, she will have a full schedule. And perhaps like the consort Prince Philip to the Queen will be the boss of the household, Dutchy of Lancaster, she to Cornwall, whilst Charles will be to Lancaster.
I understand some people want them to do more, but factually the SG and Dutchy of Cornwall doesn't have the funds, whilst the Queen will have none of it by retiring. Although she seems to have been inching some responsibilities by way of representation to commonwealth and other country visits.
I am not so sure she or Will will have a full schedule when they are elevated to Prince and Princess of Wales. Kate's royal duties are few and far between.
I think Charles will not find it easy to accommodate William's desire to avoid royal duties in favor of other pursuits after the Queen passes, so WIlliam will not be happy, but he will have to work more and I think leisure and comfort are the strongest foundations for that marriage, so we will see how they manage. Regarding Kate, I have begun to think she is fragile emotionally or otherwise, I cannot find any other reason for the kid gloves treatment this able-bodied woman in her thirties is receiving. She graduated Uni, so she can't be thick enough to necessitate being under lock and key to keep the public from finding how thick she is. but they are treating her as if working would affect her emotional health...
Now we are to think Kate is emotionally fragile?! She can't be thick enough to be kept under lock and key?! It must be a problem with her emotional health?! This is the *exact* same treatment Diana received from Charles' friends and family, trying to undermine her with innuendo.
Why can't it be because she wants to stay with her son, doing engagements when asked to, all the while with the approval of the rest of the royal family? It makes more sense than alluding she must be emotionally fragile, and of course there is no evidence whatsoever that she is.
Agreed, Rebound.
Quote from: Rebound on August 11, 2014, 02:50:19 AM
Now we are to think Kate is emotionally fragile?! She can't be thick enough to be kept under lock and key?! It must be a problem with her emotional health?! This is the *exact* same treatment Diana received from Charles' friends and family, trying to undermine her with innuendo.
Why can't it be because she wants to stay with her son, doing engagements when asked to, all the while with the approval of the rest of the royal family? It makes more sense than alluding she must be emotionally fragile, and of course there is no evidence whatsoever that she is.
No one is telling you what to think, Rebound. :hug: We're all allowed to have different opinions about why the public doesn't see much of Kate. :flower:
However, as far as the Queen's approval.... I'll believe it when I see Kate awarded her Royal Order.
Quote from: Rebound on August 11, 2014, 02:50:19 AM
Now we are to think Kate is emotionally fragile?! She can't be thick enough to be kept under lock and key?! It must be a problem with her emotional health?! This is the *exact* same treatment Diana received from Charles' friends and family, trying to undermine her with innuendo.
Why can't it be because she wants to stay with her son, doing engagements when asked to, all the while with the approval of the rest of the royal family? It makes more sense than alluding she must be emotionally fragile, and of course there is no evidence whatsoever that she is.
And before she married, what was it, she wanted to daydream about her future son? And, after she married, she wanted to cook for William all day... And, after she got pregnant, she wanted to rub her belly all day... Isn't Kate precious... With the approval of the royal family members who work their buns off, but they don't want Kate to work much, because they don't believe working mothers are capable of raising children well, like Anne and Sophie... :sigh:
Lady Adams, with all due respect, of course I understand we are allowed different opinions. However, implying Kate is emotionally unstable is beyond the pale. It's the exact sort of suggestion Diana was and still is plagued with. And it's because I respect Diana so much, and feel she has been unfairly maligned, both before and after her death, that it bothers me greatly to see the same treatment of Kate.
And Limabeany, I didn't think I needed to make a defense of Kate's entire life. You said you had begun to think that Kate was emotionally fragile, and I responded to that particular issue. Apparently it is still your opinion that Kate must be unhealthy emotionally. I vehemently disagree.
I am not and never have told you what to think. I am sharing what I think, and you are most welcome to disagree vehemently. I accept that you feel differently. I can find no sensible explanation for a woman smart enough to graduate Uni and physically fit to be coddled thus, the question springs forward, what are they afraid would happen if they made Kate work more? I wouldn't say unhealthy, Perhaps, delicate. I have no idea but, the coddling of healthy Kate is simply baffling... She doesn't like working as she has never done it regularly, so it will be quite a shock to her system if she ever has to, especially as she won't be young anymore. Teaching an old dog new tricks and all... But, why are hardworking people like theQueen and Charles expecting nothing from her but a few days a year...
What other reasons are others prepared to offer up with regard to Kate and 'work'? Surely we've heard them all?
I'm with Lima...she seems to have problems in the work dept. Can she not cope? Is it all too much for her. What?
Personally, I think if the Queen and Charles wanted her to be doing more, she'd be doing more. I find it hard to believe that the entire monarchy is being ruled by a 32-year-old girl who's been in the Family only three years, who tells them what she will and won't do.
Cindy
I'm with you, Cindy.
We keep hearing that excuse. Before it was....two years to get used to married life.....which is it?
I think the Queen doesn't want another high profile divorce, and doesn't force Kate to work, because she never has, and what matters to her is that she and William portray a happy family, there is no way that the Queen and Charles are singlehandedly taking care of everything on their plates at this point, without the heir who should be helping simply because they don't want William to exert himself or don't want him to work at this age. The Queen was in her 20s when she ascended the throne, why would she think William is a young lad who should be running carefree as long as he wishes when he is nearly ten years older than she was?
Oh for the love of backstreet WILLIAM WORKS! He has been working for years, whether you like his job or not it is a job, a valued important job. He is not running around carefree. I believe William Charles and E2 started working around the same age.
Totally agreed, KaTerina. Will was in the military in various capacities from January 2006 until September 2013. Then he took one year off (during which he did, in fact, perform Royal duties and undertake a 10 week course) and he's just announced he's taking on a full-time job with the air ambulance service, where he will once again be working.
If people don't think he does the right type of work, that's one thing. But to pretend he's never done any work in his life is kind of silly.
Cleared calendar, happy end of August and long weekend this coming. Don't get stuck in traffic.
For the LOLs
Captain America (@NicoBTW) tweeted at 8:21am - 21 Aug 14:
Did I just spot Prince William @ McDonald's? pic.twitter.com/1rkD7fKAL7 (Captain America on Twitter: Did I just spot Prince William @ McDonald's? http://t.co/1rkD7fKAL7 (https://twitter.com/NicoBTW/status/502437757973970944))
It is rather insulting to all the other people in RAF and SAR pilots to say that William doesn't work when he is flying. As Canuck said, just because it isn't what some people want him to be doing doesn't mean he isn't occupied.
^^I'm seeing more of a discussion on Kate's work, not William's.
Quote from: KaTerina Montague on August 12, 2014, 10:20:28 PM
Oh for the love of backstreet WILLIAM WORKS! He has been working for years, whether you like his job or not it is a job, a valued important job. He is not running around carefree. I believe William Charles and E2 started working around the same age.
He works but he does very little work. How much or how little he does as a copter flyer will not be known by the public. He does a lot of running around carefree. Charles worked while he was in the military services and Elizabeth was helping her ailing father when she was in her early twenties. She did not rush off and say she wanted to fly a copter and let her ailing father try to do it all himself.
Quote from: wannable on August 21, 2014, 04:49:43 PM
Cleared calendar, happy end of August and long weekend this coming. Don't get stuck in traffic.
For the LOLs
Captain America (@NicoBTW) tweeted at 8:21am - 21 Aug 14:
Did I just spot Prince William @ McDonald's? pic.twitter.com/1rkD7fKAL7 (Captain America on Twitter: Did I just spot Prince William @ McDonald's? http://t.co/1rkD7fKAL7 (https://twitter.com/NicoBTW/status/502437757973970944))
:lol: