In addition to the Royal foundation
The Duchess of Cambridge holds a number of charitable patronages, which complement these three key areas.
On the 5th January 2012 it was announced that The Duchess of Cambridge had taken on the patronage of four charities. They are:
Patron of Action on Addiction
Royal Patron of East Anglia's Children's Hospices
Royal Patron of The Art Room
Patron of the The National Portrait Gallery, London
The Duchess of Cambridge became a volunteer in the Scout Association, and has volunteered time privately with groups in North Wales and elsewhere as opportunities arise.
On 19th April 2013, it was announced that The Duchess of Cambridge had taken on the patronage of a further three organisations:
Patron of Place2Be;
Patron of SportsAid;
Patron of The Natural History Museum.
Charities (http://www.dukeandduchessofcambridge.org/the-duchess-of-cambridge/charities)
Below are HRH's individual patronages:
100 Women in Hedge Funds Philanthropic Initiatives
Joint Patron (from 01/01/2013)
100 Women in Hedge Funds (http://www.100womeninhedgefunds.org)
Action on Addiction
Patron (from 05/01/2012)
www.actiononaddiction.org.uk
East Anglia Children's Hospices (EACH)
Royal Patron (from 05/01/2012)
East Anglia's Children's Hospices | Home (http://www.each.org.uk)
National Portrait Gallery
Patron (from 05/01/2012)
National Portrait Gallery - Home (http://www.npg.org.uk)
Natural History Museum
Patron (from 19/04/2013)
Natural History Museum (http://www.nhm.ac.uk)
The Art Room
Royal Patron (from 05/01/2012)
The Art Room: Learning and achieving through art (http://www.theartroom.org.uk)
The Royal Foundation of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry
Patron (from 05/01/2012)
The Royal Foundation (http://www.royalfoundation.com)
Place2Be
Patron (from 19/04/2013)
Place2Be - Making a lifetime of difference to children in schools (http://www.place2be.org.uk)
The Scout Association
Volunteer (from 05/01/2012)
www.scouts.org.uk
SportsAid
Patron (from 19/04/2013)
Welcome to the future of British sport - SportsAid (http://www.sportsaid.org.uk)
The Duchess of Cambridge (http://www.dukeandduchessofcambridge.org/the-duchess-of-cambridge)
Just to add that the PoW site also has similar pages for Charles, Camilla, William and Harry. A good source for all things Wales in the BRF.
ALL WORHTY CAUSES. All needy.ALl important.
No doubts there.
There are so,so many causes. Important things.
The list is endless.
How many does she have?
How much time does she spend with each..what consistentcy? Visits twice a year?
Visits once a year?
Exactly! She could have a list as long as her arm....but if she does not visit the charities...what's the point?
We know about the public visits in which the press is invited. Private visits remain...private.
^ The Public vistis are very few and far between.
Quote from: TLLK on June 28, 2014, 09:16:00 PM
We know about the public visits in which the press is invited. Private visits remain...private.
Oh yeah, that old chestnut. I'm not contributing towards "private visits". I want them out there..."Working" :shrug:
Do you have a problem with that, TLLK?
From what has been reported here and elsewhere Charles covers her public visit costs ie: transportation but not her security. He does the same for his wife and sons too.
^ So? Are you trying to alter the conversation?
The mythological private visits! That's still a fiction best-seller?
Quote from: SophieChloe on June 28, 2014, 09:25:10 PM
^ So? Are you trying to alter the conversation?
Nope. Just enhancing what PoP has shared with us. Glad to see that so many are interested in the Duchess' work and want to discuss it.
All well and good... but, why bother with a list of patronages if not much work is being carried out. :shrug:
The exhausting list of nine charities she dedicates all her free time to. Excuse me while I gag! :orchid:
QuoteThe Royal Foundation of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry was legally established in September 2009 and became fully operational in 2011. Along with The Duchess of Cambridge who became a Patron in 2012, they intend to use the Foundation as the main vehicle for their philanthropic activities.
Although their Foundation is not limited to these three areas of focus, The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry aim to make the following their early areas of focus:
1) Armed Forces - Promoting the welfare of those who are serving or who have served their country in the Armed Forces;
2) Young People - Helping children and young people to build their skills, confidence and aspirations;
3) Conservation - Supporting communities to protect and conserve their natural resources for future generations.
More information is available at The Royal Foundation (http://www.royalfoundation.com)
More: Charities (http://www.dukeandduchessofcambridge.org/the-duchess-of-cambridge/charities)
These are charities of THE foundation, not hers specifically...
^^^^ Charities (http://www.dukeandduchessofcambridge.org/the-duchess-of-cambridge/charities)
Those are her charities. Including the Foundation among the woman's charities is just fluffing her up, she does nothing at all for the foundation except sit in a meeting or two once a year, for the Armed Forces (except parade in a new dress at the MIL Awards) or Conservation (except recycle her clothes) or for Children in general (except visit her children charities once a year and visit the scouts once in a blue moon).
Quote
The Duchess of Cambridge holds a number of charitable patronages, which complement these three key areas.
On the 5th January 2012 it was announced that The Duchess of Cambridge had taken on the patronage of four charities. They are:
Patron of Action on Addiction
Royal Patron of East Anglia's Children's Hospices
Royal Patron of The Art Room
Patron of the The National Portrait Gallery, London
In addition, The Duchess of Cambridge became a volunteer in the Scout Association, and has volunteered time privately with groups in North Wales and elsewhere as opportunities arise.
On 19th April 2013, it was announced that The Duchess of Cambridge had taken on the patronage of a further three organisations:
Patron of Place2Be;
Patron of SportsAid;
Patron of The Natural History Museum.
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on July 01, 2014, 03:30:27 AM
QuoteThe Royal Foundation of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry was legally established in September 2009 and became fully operational in 2011. Along with The Duchess of Cambridge who became a Patron in 2012, they intend to use the Foundation as the main vehicle for their philanthropic activities.
Although their Foundation is not limited to these three areas of focus, The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry aim to make the following their early areas of focus:
1) Armed Forces - Promoting the welfare of those who are serving or who have served their country in the Armed Forces;
2) Young People - Helping children and young people to build their skills, confidence and aspirations;
3) Conservation - Supporting communities to protect and conserve their natural resources for future generations.
More information is available at The Royal Foundation (http://www.royalfoundation.com)
More: Charities (http://www.dukeandduchessofcambridge.org/the-duchess-of-cambridge/charities)
Thank you for the information PoP.
Not bad, I think she has a decent amount of patronages for the time she has been in the family. Pippa is coming up on those numbers with her ambassadorships though. :teehee:
I disagree, she has only nine charities and last year she visited each once, so nine in total for the ENTIRE year... :orchid: She should have more or be VISIBLE much more involved... That is pathetic, considering she is a woman in her thirties and it is not rocket science...
But have you seen every time she consistently comes out she looks exhausted ?
She never works so even 15 minutes of pretending to be interested must be draining... <_<
Quote from: Limabeany on July 01, 2014, 07:17:43 PM
I disagree, she has only nine charities and last year she visited each once, so nine in total for the ENTIRE year...
This is not true, AFAIK. Looking at the Court Circular for 2013, I count the following:
-National Portrait Gallery visit in January
-The Art Room event in April (held at the National Portrait Gallery, in her role as patron there as well)
-Action on Addiction events in February (Hope House) and October (dinner at KP)
-Place2Be event in November (forum)
-M-PACT event in April (for both Action on Addiction and Place2Be)
-SportsAid workshop in October and dinner in November
-EACH visits and events in April (Naomi House) and December (Shooting Star House), as well as the video released for Children's Hospice Week
-National History Museum film event in December
-Scouts events in March and in April
-Event at Warner Brothers Studio (the Harry Potter tour) for which children from her patronages were brought as guests
She also attended a number of events, including several private meetings or receptions, for the Foundation (at least one of which included hosting the heads of her patronages, and a separate one which related to palliative care for children). And of course attended events at worthy causes outside her patronages but in related fields, such as Only Connect or a meeting with Scouts in Scotland.
People can of course disagree over whether the amount of work she is doing is sufficient. I, personally, think that it's worth remembering that she was pregnant for the first half of last year and on at least partial maternity leave for the second half of the year. But regardless, it is not true that she only did nine events for her patronages in 2013.
Quote from: Limabeany on July 01, 2014, 08:06:38 PM
She never works so even 15 minutes of pretending to be interested must be draining... <_<
I think it is for her , she has spent time only with the immediate people she knows when she meets others outside her circle of friends she gets anxious and puts on the fake expressions and weird accent , that must be draining .
Quote from: Canuck on July 01, 2014, 08:13:39 PM
Quote from: Limabeany on July 01, 2014, 07:17:43 PM
I disagree, she has only nine charities and last year she visited each once, so nine in total for the ENTIRE year...
This is not true, AFAIK. Looking at the Court Circular for 2013, I count the following:
-National Portrait Gallery visit in January
-The Art Room event in April (held at the National Portrait Gallery, in her role as patron there as well)
-Action on Addiction events in February (Hope House) and October (dinner at KP)
-Place2Be event in November (forum)
-M-PACT event in April (for both Action on Addiction and Place2Be)
-SportsAid workshop in October and dinner in November
-EACH visits and events in April (Naomi House) and December (Shooting Star House), as well as the video released for Children's Hospice Week
-National History Museum film event in December
-Scouts events in March and in April
-Event at Warner Brothers Studio (the Harry Potter tour) for which children from her patronages were brought as guests
She also attended a number of events, including several private meetings or receptions, for the Foundation (at least one of which included hosting the heads of her patronages, and a separate one which related to palliative care for children). And of course attended events at worthy causes outside her patronages but in related fields, such as Only Connect or a meeting with Scouts in Scotland.
People can of course disagree over whether the amount of work she is doing is sufficient. I, personally, think that it's worth remembering that she was pregnant for the first half of last year and on at least partial maternity leave for the second half of the year. But regardless, it is not true that she only did nine events for her patronages in 2013.
I trust Lima. The rest are padding out engagements.
Quote from: georgiana996 on July 01, 2014, 08:18:35 PM
Quote from: Limabeany on July 01, 2014, 08:06:38 PM
She never works so even 15 minutes of pretending to be interested must be draining... <_<
I think it is for her , she has spent time only with the immediate people she knows when she meets others outside her circle of friends she gets anxious and puts on the fake expressions and weird accent , that must be draining .
I agree, Georgie!
Quote from: SophieChloe on July 01, 2014, 08:22:57 PM
Quote from: Canuck on July 01, 2014, 08:13:39 PM
Quote from: Limabeany on July 01, 2014, 07:17:43 PM
I disagree, she has only nine charities and last year she visited each once, so nine in total for the ENTIRE year...
This is not true, AFAIK. Looking at the Court Circular for 2013, I count the following:
-National Portrait Gallery visit in January
-The Art Room event in April (held at the National Portrait Gallery, in her role as patron there as well)
-Action on Addiction events in February (Hope House) and October (dinner at KP)
-Place2Be event in November (forum)
-M-PACT event in April (for both Action on Addiction and Place2Be)
-SportsAid workshop in October and dinner in November
-EACH visits and events in April (Naomi House) and December (Shooting Star House), as well as the video released for Children's Hospice Week
-National History Museum film event in December
-Scouts events in March and in April
-Event at Warner Brothers Studio (the Harry Potter tour) for which children from her patronages were brought as guests
She also attended a number of events, including several private meetings or receptions, for the Foundation (at least one of which included hosting the heads of her patronages, and a separate one which related to palliative care for children). And of course attended events at worthy causes outside her patronages but in related fields, such as Only Connect or a meeting with Scouts in Scotland.
People can of course disagree over whether the amount of work she is doing is sufficient. I, personally, think that it's worth remembering that she was pregnant for the first half of last year and on at least partial maternity leave for the second half of the year. But regardless, it is not true that she only did nine events for her patronages in 2013.
I trust Lima. The rest are padding out engagements.
I'm not really sure what trust has to do with it?
Everything I listed is in the Court Circular, and I believe every single one was a public engagement from which we saw pictures at the time. As I said, you might think that 15 events for her patronages is not enough (again, I would disagree since I think she was a little busy giving birth and with the first few months of having George!), but the number of events she did is objectively verifiable.
I trust Lima's figures. As I said the rest is padding out. And I stand by that.
She had no problem disappearing off on holiday, before, during and after George. However, she can't commit to a decent work schedule? It's hardly taxing now it it?
What could be more official than the Court Circular?
Cindy
Oh yeah..let's bow down to the CC. Sorry, not being funny, but an hour here, and an hour there, does not a productive person make. Girl is a lazy joke, sorry but she is, IMO of course!
You can believe that dross - I choose not to.
SophieChloe, I didn't say that she was a productive person or that all of these engagements were taxing, full day affairs. I just took issue with the specific statement that she visited each of her patronages once last year, for a total of nine visits. That isn't true.
As I said in my first post, whether you think she's doing enough or not is a matter of opinion and we all have different ones. But how many times she visited those causes is a factual statement, and that was what I was disputing.
Quote from: Canuck on July 01, 2014, 08:13:39 PM
Quote from: Limabeany on July 01, 2014, 07:17:43 PM
I disagree, she has only nine charities and last year she visited each once, so nine in total for the ENTIRE year...
This is not true, AFAIK. Looking at the Court Circular for 2013, I count the following:
-National Portrait Gallery visit in January
-The Art Room event in April (held at the National Portrait Gallery, in her role as patron there as well)
-Action on Addiction events in February (Hope House) and October (dinner at KP)
-Place2Be event in November (forum)
-M-PACT event in April (for both Action on Addiction and Place2Be)
-SportsAid workshop in October and dinner in November
-EACH visits and events in April (Naomi House) and December (Shooting Star House), as well as the video released for Children's Hospice Week
-National History Museum film event in December
-Scouts events in March and in April
-Event at Warner Brothers Studio (the Harry Potter tour) for which children from her patronages were brought as guests
She also attended a number of events, including several private meetings or receptions, for the Foundation (at least one of which included hosting the heads of her patronages, and a separate one which related to palliative care for children). And of course attended events at worthy causes outside her patronages but in related fields, such as Only Connect or a meeting with Scouts in Scotland.
People can of course disagree over whether the amount of work she is doing is sufficient. I, personally, think that it's worth remembering that she was pregnant for the first half of last year and on at least partial maternity leave for the second half of the year. But regardless, it is not true that she only did nine events for her patronages in 2013.
Cannuck-This is from the BRF total list that is recorded each year by Mr. Tim O'Donovan. (Another royal site tallies them as well and shares them.) The total number listed for the Duchess in 2013 was 44 according to the Court Circular. Anything not listed in the Court Circular ie: private visits would not be included. Hope that this information helps you. BTW I have started a thread for the BRF's engagements for 2014 in the Royalty Today section. You can see the numbers there listed up to 6/26/14. Kate is currently at 64 engagements. They're listed in the order of succession. Begins with the Queen and ends with Princess Alexandra.
Quote from: Canuck on July 01, 2014, 08:55:04 PM
SophieChloe, I didn't say that she was a productive person or that all of these engagements were taxing, full day affairs. I just took issue with the specific statement that she visited each of her patronages once last year, for a total of nine visits. That isn't true.
You are counting her video and the Harry Potter tour. That is dedication... Videos are NOT visits...
I count none (gala dinners and video announcement aside...) and Harry Potter, really???
Pregnant women work, she was fine enough to travel halfway around the world, she was fine enough to work, she is a woman not a porcelain Barbie...
QuoteCannuck-This is from the BRF total list that is recorded each year by Mr. Tim O'Donovan. (Another royal site tallies them as well and shares them.) The total number listed for the Duchess in 2013 was 44 according to the Court Circular. Anything not listed in the Court Circular ie: private visits would not be included. Hope that this information helps you.
Sorry, TLLK, I'm a little confused -- do you mean that Tim O'Donovan's list shows she only did 9 events with her patronages last year? I know he keeps stats on total visits, but I didn't think he broke them down by type of event (or at least not by patronages), so I went straight to the Court Circular for that.
I do find O'Donovan's stats very helpful for looking at total engagements -- no way do I want to count all of those myself! :cry:
:goodpost:
Quote from: SophieChloe on July 01, 2014, 08:46:00 PM
Oh yeah..let's bow down to the CC. Sorry, not being funny, but an hour here, and an hour there, does not a productive person make. Girl is a lazy joke, sorry but she is, IMO of course!
You can believe that dross - I choose not to.
Quote from: Limabeany on July 01, 2014, 08:57:08 PM
Quote from: Canuck on July 01, 2014, 08:55:04 PM
SophieChloe, I didn't say that she was a productive person or that all of these engagements were taxing, full day affairs. I just took issue with the specific statement that she visited each of her patronages once last year, for a total of nine visits. That isn't true.
You are counting her video and the Harry Potter tour. That is dedication...
I count none (gala dinners and video announcement aside...) and Harry Potter, really???
Pregnant women work, she was fine enough to travel halfway around the world, she was fine enough to work, she is a woman not a porcelain Barbie...
I did count her video, since it was for EACH, and the Harry Potter tour, since it included 500 children from her (and Will and Harry's) patronages. If you don't want to include those, it's still 13 events with her patronages and not 9.
Quote from: Canuck on July 01, 2014, 09:01:00 PM
QuoteCannuck-This is from the BRF total list that is recorded each year by Mr. Tim O'Donovan. (Another royal site tallies them as well and shares them.) The total number listed for the Duchess in 2013 was 44 according to the Court Circular. Anything not listed in the Court Circular ie: private visits would not be included. Hope that this information helps you.
Sorry, TLLK, I'm a little confused -- do you mean that Tim O'Donovan's list shows she only did 9 events with her patronages last year? I know he keeps stats on total visits, but I didn't think he broke them down by type of event (or at least not by patronages), so I went straight to the Court Circular for that.
I do find O'Donovan's stats very helpful for looking at total engagements -- no way do I want to count all of those myself! :cry:
Sorry about that. Tim O'Donovan's list states that she did a total of 44 engagements in 2013 but he did not break them down by patronage or type of event ie: gala evening event or visit to EACH. Hope that I've not confused you any further.
:thanks: for the clarification!
Quote from: Canuck on July 01, 2014, 08:13:39 PM
Quote from: Limabeany on July 01, 2014, 07:17:43 PM
I disagree, she has only nine charities and last year she visited each once, so nine in total for the ENTIRE year...
This is not true, AFAIK. Looking at the Court Circular for 2013, I count the following:
1--National Portrait Gallery visit in January
2--The Art Room event in April (held at the National Portrait Gallery, in her role as patron there as well)
3--Action on Addiction events in February (Hope House) and October (dinner at KP)
4--Place2Be event in November (forum)
5--M-PACT event in April (for both Action on Addiction and Place2Be)
6--SportsAid workshop in October and dinner in November
7&8--EACH visits and events in April (Naomi House) and December (Shooting Star House), as well as the video released for Children's Hospice Week
9--National History Museum film event in December
She is not Patron of the Scouts... And, if we talk about VISITS to her charities themselves, even less...
Quote from: Limabeany on July 01, 2014, 09:26:38 PM
Quote from: Canuck on July 01, 2014, 08:13:39 PM
Quote from: Limabeany on July 01, 2014, 07:17:43 PM
I disagree, she has only nine charities and last year she visited each once, so nine in total for the ENTIRE year...
This is not true, AFAIK. Looking at the Court Circular for 2013, I count the following:
1--National Portrait Gallery visit in January
2--The Art Room event in April (held at the National Portrait Gallery, in her role as patron there as well)
3--Action on Addiction events in February (Hope House) and October (dinner at KP)
4--Place2Be event in November (forum)
5--M-PACT event in April (for both Action on Addiction and Place2Be)
6--SportsAid workshop in October and dinner in November
7&8--EACH visits and events in April (Naomi House) and December (Shooting Star House), as well as the video released for Children's Hospice Week
9--National History Museum film event in December
She is not Patron of the Scouts... And, if we talk about VISITS to her charities themselves, even less...
I included the Scouts because I thought you had done so, since you said she was patron of nine groups (with the Scouts it would be eight, and with the Foundation -- which had a number of additional events I didn't bother to count -- it would be nine). If you're only counting seven patronages, then she did eleven events (not including the video or WB visit).
If you don't count the dinners, then yes, it was nine (though I'm not really sure why those should be excluded, when they're for the same causes), but at any rate
it's still more than one visit per patronage, which was my only point.I'm not trying to be difficult or controversial here. As I said in my very first point, everyone is absolutely free to their own opinion. I just think that if you don't like Kate or don't think she does enough, there's no need to rely on exaggerated versions of the facts to support that opinion.
Visits are visits and galas are galas...Even so, from nine to eleven would be nitpicking, to prove it was 2 more than 9??? For the 365 day year? Not including Barbie dinners and galas, nine visits...
Quote from: Canuck on July 01, 2014, 09:45:54 PM
Quote from: Limabeany on July 01, 2014, 09:26:38 PM
Quote from: Canuck on July 01, 2014, 08:13:39 PM
Quote from: Limabeany on July 01, 2014, 07:17:43 PM
I disagree, she has only nine charities and last year she visited each once, so nine in total for the ENTIRE year...
This is not true, AFAIK. Looking at the Court Circular for 2013, I count the following:
1--National Portrait Gallery visit in January
2--The Art Room event in April (held at the National Portrait Gallery, in her role as patron there as well)
3--Action on Addiction events in February (Hope House) and October (dinner at KP)
4--Place2Be event in November (forum)
5--M-PACT event in April (for both Action on Addiction and Place2Be)
6--SportsAid workshop in October and dinner in November
7&8--EACH visits and events in April (Naomi House) and December (Shooting Star House), as well as the video released for Children's Hospice Week
9--National History Museum film event in December
She is not Patron of the Scouts... And, if we talk about VISITS to her charities themselves, even less...
I included the Scouts because I thought you had done so, since you said she was patron of nine groups (with the Scouts it would be eight, and with the Foundation -- which had a number of additional events I didn't bother to count -- it would be nine). If you're only counting seven patronages, then she did eleven events (not including the video or WB visit).
If you don't count the dinners, then yes, it was nine (though I'm not really sure why those should be excluded, when they're for the same causes), but at any rate it's still more than one visit per patronage, which was my only point.
I'm not trying to be difficult or controversial here. As I said in my very first point, everyone is absolutely free to their own opinion. I just think that if you don't like Kate or don't think she does enough, there's no need to rely on exaggerated versions of the facts to support that opinion.
So 13 hours as opposed to 9? Wow she is such a trooper.
Quote from: Limabeany on July 01, 2014, 09:48:20 PM
Visits are visits and galas are galas...Even so, from nine to eleven would be nitpicking, to prove it was 2 more than 9??? For the 365 day year? Not including Barbie dinners and galas, nine visits...
Those galas are what bring in a lot of money for charities.
Cindy
Quote from: Limabeany on July 01, 2014, 09:48:20 PM
Visits are visits and galas are galas...Even so, from nine to eleven would be nitpicking, to prove it was 2 more than 9??? For the 365 day year? Not including Barbie dinners and galas, nine visits...
She got to have dinners with BARBIE?????? :happy15:
Quote from: cinrit on July 01, 2014, 10:35:13 PM
Quote from: Limabeany on July 01, 2014, 09:48:20 PM
Visits are visits and galas are galas...Even so, from nine to eleven would be nitpicking, to prove it was 2 more than 9??? For the 365 day year? Not including Barbie dinners and galas, nine visits...
Those galas are what bring in a lot of money for charities.
Cindy
Oh yes they do.
Fancy galas should not go hand in hand with kitchens galore and then begging for charity funds.
When in a hole...sack the digger.
Quote from: TLLK on July 01, 2014, 10:46:19 PM
Quote from: Limabeany on July 01, 2014, 09:48:20 PM
Visits are visits and galas are galas...Even so, from nine to eleven would be nitpicking, to prove it was 2 more than 9??? For the 365 day year? Not including Barbie dinners and galas, nine visits...
She got to have dinners with BARBIE?????? :happy15:
Surely you know what Lima, means?
Upmteeth time, LIMABEANY, cinrit, and anyone else here....sports, galas, ANYTHING event, charity,cause supported by D/D is important. Worthy. Worthwile. Of substance. They might open a supermarket , well that is important.
Come on guys, we all have said this and WE ALL KNOW and have said this over and over.
WE ALL KNOW galas bring in funding, attention,etc.
WE HAVE ALL BEEN to and/or participated in galas, fundraisers, etc.
Galas was not the point.
:computer:
Well my experience with viewing gala events is that the participants are typically wearing black or white tie for the gentlemen and long gowns and on occasion tiaras for the ladies. The Spanish court held one for the State Visit by the President of Mexico. Tiaras and orders were present that eventing. Gala events may include concerts, receptions, film premieres, state dinners etc..but I've never considered them "Barbie dinners." :)
If all she did was visit patronages, then no, that would not be very much work. But she also does and will continue to do a lot of things that have nothing to do with her patronages, like military and BRF ceremonial events, visits overseas and to other parts of the UK, visits to organizations she's not a patron of, etc. And of course, things related to the Foundation.
With regard to just the patronages: 13 events for 7 patronages is just about 2 each, which sounds about right to me. As she adds more patronages, it would be difficult to do any more than that with them each year. As an example, the Queen has more than 600 patronages, and the DoE more than 700. I don't expect Kate will ever have that many -- frankly, I think it kind of loses all meaning when there are SO many patronages for each member of the BRF -- but if she had say 50 or so I don't expect she'd be able to do much more than 100 events with them each year, since she will also have a lot of non-patronage-related events.
If I was running things (which I'm not, obviously!) I'd want Kate to slowly ramp up her patronages, adding a few each year, and continue to try to do 1 or 2 things with each patronage each year and some extra events with ones she is particularly interested in (so far, I'd say EACH seems to be in that category, and I suspect something sports-related will also be a focus for her as she develops her role). That would give her patronages a lot more meaning and support than just sticking her name on hundreds of organizations.
Canuck - Thanks for your well thought out posts. However, only Kate can change my opinion of her. And three years in....see ain't doing much to to that.
Quote from: TLLK on July 01, 2014, 10:54:38 PM
Well my experience with viewing gala events is that the participants are typically wearing black or white tie for the gentlemen and long gowns and on occasion tiaras for the ladies. The Spanish court held one for the State Visit by the President of Mexico. Tiaras and orders were present that eventing. Gala events may include concerts, receptions, film premieres, state dinners etc..but I've never considered them "Barbie dinners." :)
You have not considered them Barbie Dinners.
I am and taking the liberty of explaining TLLK here, that she just meant it as a term. Her own little term. Barbie dinners-get dressed up like Babrie...plastic smile...press the flesh ( shake some hands)...make an appearance.
K looks like a Barbie. LOL!!!
As a tangential note, based on the timing last year, the 2013 annual report of the Royal Foundation should be issued shortly (news stories about the 2012 report hit in the first week of July last year).
It should be interesting to see if they've been able to increase their grantmaking (2012 was a 64% increase over 2011, which was their first year of grantmaking).
The annual report is also an interesting look into what the Foundation itself thinks of the efforts of all three of its Patrons, in the way it frames the activities it lists.
Quote from: FanDianaFancy on July 01, 2014, 11:07:19 PM
Quote from: TLLK on July 01, 2014, 10:54:38 PM
Well my experience with viewing gala events is that the participants are typically wearing black or white tie for the gentlemen and long gowns and on occasion tiaras for the ladies. The Spanish court held one for the State Visit by the President of Mexico. Tiaras and orders were present that eventing. Gala events may include concerts, receptions, film premieres, state dinners etc..but I've never considered them "Barbie dinners." :)
You have not considered them Barbie Dinners.
I am and taking the liberty of explaining TLLK here, that she just meant it as a term. Her own little term. Barbie dinners-get dressed up like Babrie...plastic smile...press the flesh ( shake some hands)...make an appearance.
K looks like a Barbie. LOL!!!
:nod: :thumbsup: :happy15: :hug:
Quote from: Adrienne on July 01, 2014, 11:27:10 PM
As a tangential note, based on the timing last year, the 2013 annual report of the Royal Foundation should be issued shortly (news stories about the 2012 report hit in the first week of July last year).
It should be interesting to see if they've been able to increase their grantmaking (2012 was a 64% increase over 2011, which was their first year of grantmaking).
The annual report is also an interesting look into what the Foundation itself thinks of the efforts of all three of its Patrons, in the way it frames the activities it lists.
Replying to my own post, as I predicted the 2013 Annual Report of the foundation has now been published (http://www.royalfoundation.com/assets/pdf/Accounts_2013.pdf)
Looks like an increase of 26% in grantmaking, 38% in "charitable activities", and a slight increase in income. Also of note, 2013 marked a move from SJP to KP for the Foundation's offices, and saw some new hires in project management and fundraising.
There's also some info about the collaboration with Comic Relief and about the Invictus Games.
Excellent numbers for the Royal Foundation. Thanks Adrienne
So what did W&K do?
Quote from: Adrienne on July 11, 2014, 08:59:44 PM
Quote from: Adrienne on July 01, 2014, 11:27:10 PM
As a tangential note, based on the timing last year, the 2013 annual report of the Royal Foundation should be issued shortly (news stories about the 2012 report hit in the first week of July last year).
It should be interesting to see if they've been able to increase their grantmaking (2012 was a 64% increase over 2011, which was their first year of grantmaking).
The annual report is also an interesting look into what the Foundation itself thinks of the efforts of all three of its Patrons, in the way it frames the activities it lists.
Replying to my own post, as I predicted the 2013 Annual Report of the foundation has now been published (http://www.royalfoundation.com/assets/pdf/Accounts_2013.pdf)
Looks like an increase of 26% in grantmaking, 38% in "charitable activities", and a slight increase in income. Also of note, 2013 marked a move from SJP to KP for the Foundation's offices, and saw some new hires in project management and fundraising.
There's also some info about the collaboration with Comic Relief and about the Invictus Games.
And, this is all attributed to the Duchess of Cambridge alone?
Quote from: Limabeany on July 12, 2014, 12:59:04 AM
Quote from: Adrienne on July 11, 2014, 08:59:44 PM
Quote from: Adrienne on July 01, 2014, 11:27:10 PM
As a tangential note, based on the timing last year, the 2013 annual report of the Royal Foundation should be issued shortly (news stories about the 2012 report hit in the first week of July last year).
It should be interesting to see if they've been able to increase their grantmaking (2012 was a 64% increase over 2011, which was their first year of grantmaking).
The annual report is also an interesting look into what the Foundation itself thinks of the efforts of all three of its Patrons, in the way it frames the activities it lists.
Replying to my own post, as I predicted the 2013 Annual Report of the foundation has now been published (http://www.royalfoundation.com/assets/pdf/Accounts_2013.pdf)
Looks like an increase of 26% in grantmaking, 38% in "charitable activities", and a slight increase in income. Also of note, 2013 marked a move from SJP to KP for the Foundation's offices, and saw some new hires in project management and fundraising.
There's also some info about the collaboration with Comic Relief and about the Invictus Games.
And, this is all attributed to the Duchess of Cambridge alone?
Limabeany, with respect, I find it very difficult to engage with you when I regularly feel strawmanned by your responses. I made absolutely zero claims about who the increase is attributable to, let alone making any claims that it was attributable to the DuchoC, and yet I'm feeling accused of making that claim. It would be much easier for me to discuss this with you if you'd address the things I actually say, rather than things I didn't say but that are easier to argue against.
Thanks and best regards, A
I am sorry you feel that way, but this thread is called the Duchess' Charities, I don't think it was such a stretch to wonder and I made no personal comment beyond the question posed... I don't see how else I could have asked this question nor do I find it offensive but your sensitivities are duly noted. :flower:
Quote from: Limabeany on July 12, 2014, 01:37:30 AM
I am sorry you feel that way, but this thread is called the Duchess' Charities, I don't think it was such a stretch to wonder... :shrug:
- I had brought up the annual report in the thread earlier, mentioning that the annual report is also an interesting look into what the Foundation itself thinks of the efforts of all three of its Patrons, in the way it frames the activities it lists. That is, I drew the line from the topic of the thread (what *we* think of the Patrons', and in particular the Duchess', efforts) to my own tangent (what the Foundation thinks).
- I started that earlier post with "on a tangential note...", which a) clearly indicates that while the topic of the Duchess' charities are related to the annual report, it is not directly so, and b) I quoted, indicating that the second post was on the same tangent.
- Rather than making a new thread, I replied to my own post... I'm also a new member, I've never made a new thread before.
Honestly, I think a charitable reading of my post would take all of those factors into account.
For the record, I generally try to use words quite precisely, since my livelihood depends on it; if I had wanted to make the claim that the Duchess was directly responsible for the increase, you wouldn't have to wonder.
Adrienne, I did not have any trouble understanding your posts.
Quote from: Adrienne on July 11, 2014, 08:59:44 PM
Quote from: Adrienne on July 01, 2014, 11:27:10 PM
As a tangential note, based on the timing last year, the 2013 annual report of the Royal Foundation should be issued shortly (news stories about the 2012 report hit in the first week of July last year).
It should be interesting to see if they've been able to increase their grantmaking (2012 was a 64% increase over 2011, which was their first year of grantmaking).
The annual report is also an interesting look into what the Foundation itself thinks of the efforts of all three of its Patrons, in the way it frames the activities it lists.
Replying to my own post, as I predicted the 2013 Annual Report of the foundation has now been published (http://www.royalfoundation.com/assets/pdf/Accounts_2013.pdf)
Looks like an increase of 26% in grantmaking, 38% in "charitable activities", and a slight increase in income. Also of note, 2013 marked a move from SJP to KP for the Foundation's offices, and saw some new hires in project management and fundraising.
There's also some info about the collaboration with Comic Relief and about the Invictus Games.
Adriene-thank you for posting this information regarding the Royal Foundation. Glad to know that there is an increase in the areas mentioned. It's still a relatively new charitable foundation compared to others ie: Prince's Trust, but appears to be one with a bright future for helping young people, wounded veterans and more.
How are they doing with the no show Duchess? When was the last time she showed her face?
Well she seems to be working less and less it's no wonder she was quick to have her second child! We shall be calling her the no show Duchess for quite some time.
I did some digging and listed the last times she visited charities. (PS: If you find errors in the below, please let me know. I tried my best, mainly using Twitter Advanced Search and What Kate Wore, along with the charities websites, but there could be errors)
The Royal Foundation: June 23, 2014 (private reception at The Orangery in Kensington Palace); last previous event: May 30, 2014 (private biannual meeting of their Charities Forum)
Patron of Action on Addiction: July 1, 2014 (M-PACT Plus visit *joint event with Place2Be); last non-joint event: October 24, 2013 (Women in Hedge Fund Gala)
Royal Patron of East Anglia's Children's Hospices: June 2014 (private visit to EACH); last previous event: June 13, 2013 (official naming of new cruise liner 'Royal Princess')
Royal Patron of The Art Room: February 14, 2014 (open The ICAP Art Room); last previous event: April 14, 2013 (The Art Room/National Portrait Gallery Reception)
Patron of the The National Portrait Gallery, London: February 11, 2014 (the annual Portrait Gala); last previous event: : April 14, 2013 (The Art Room/National Portrait Gallery Reception)
Patron of Place2Be: July 1, 2014 (M-PACT Plus visit *joint event with Action on Addition); last non-joint event: November 20, 2013 (forum on "Resilience and Emotional Strength in Schools)
Patron of SportsAid: July 29, 2014 (SportsAid reception at Commonwealth Games); last previous event: November 28, 2013 (SportsAid SportsBall)
Patron of The Natural History Museum: July 2, 2014 (Prince George birthday portrait at Sensational Butterflies exhibit); December 11, 2013 (Gala)
Other fun notes:
Last shopping trip: August 10, 2014 (multiple different stores at Bicester Village)
Last sport event: July 6, 2014 & July 2, 2014 (Wimbledon)
Last date night: August 28, 2014 (dinner)
I'd argue that the two childrens' hospices she visited in Aus/NZ were in her capacity as patron of EACH; not only was she there to bring attention to childrens' hospices in general, they've stated that she talks to the administrators of the hospices she visits (as in Singapore) and discusses any different techniques or ideas they're benefiting from with the administration of EACH.
^^^I agree Adrienne.
Quote from: Adrienne on September 10, 2014, 12:29:34 AM
I'd argue that the two childrens' hospices she visited in Aus/NZ were in her capacity as patron of EACH; not only was she there to bring attention to childrens' hospices in general, they've stated that she talks to the administrators of the hospices she visits (as in Singapore) and discusses any different techniques or ideas they're benefiting from with the administration of EACH.
I think that's a great argument, and I thought about that too...but EACH doesn't list them in their DoC events page (even though they did in Asia). :shrug:
East Anglia's Children's Hospices | Home | HRH The Duchess of Cambridge (http://www.each.org.uk/about_us/hrh_the_duchess_of_cambridge)
The EACH website was how I found out about the Royal Caribbean naming benefited them.
Quote from: SophieChloe on September 09, 2014, 08:42:41 PM
How are they doing with the no show Duchess? When was the last time she showed her face?
I prefer either Lazy Katie or Duchess of Dolittle.
Oh SophieChloe you joker you! It involves work and there are no celebrities at charities why would Kate make an appearance! We're just expecting far too much of Kate going to charities would mean spending less time here:
Quote
Kate Middleton Visits Bicester Designer Outlet Village 14th August 2014
Kate Middleton 'hunts for bargain baby clothes during visit to designer outlet village' - Mirror Online (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/kate-middleton-hunts-bargain-baby-4047419)
Kate apparently had her purchases - which included a bath mat - couriered to Kensington palace.
and that just wouldn't do. Bath mats just don't buy themselves and even carrying a bath mat home would be too much like work. I thought I would include that link just in case you have been wondering what Kate has been doing as recently as August 2014 instead of important things like visiting charities. She's a super busy celebrity socialite.
And hair, that hair won't style itself £6k hair! Imagine £6000 to spend on hair what a charity could do with that money!
Kate Middleton?s Hair On Royal Tour ? Cost $10,000 To Style In Australia - Hollywood Life (http://hollywoodlife.com/2014/04/28/kate-middleton-hair-royal-tour-cost-style-australia/)
She's just too busy her diary is packed - shopping, hair maintenance, shopping! I mean how does this 'average working mother' cope! With two nannies, and a staff and another progeny on the way which just so happens to be timed perfectly before any real 'work' like a trip to Malta or visiting charities would occur...
I really wouldn't have a problem with how Kate chooses to spend her time - if the taxpayer were not her employer. Just don't feel like we're getting much of a return on the investment here all the dimes seem to be going towards Bicester. I'm a really ditzy vacuous airhead it's one of my major personal flaws SophieChloe so you will have to bear with me please could you explain something to me here, is Bicester like a charity or something because that would explain a whole lot! A lot of taxpayer money seems to be flowing in to their coffers and it would be totes amazing if some of that money or time could just visit - I actually can't name any of the charities associated with Kate. If she visited more I could probably name at least one of those charities. So I am beginning to feel as if Bicester Shopping Village is Kate's personal charity project and if that is the case she must be the most charitable hard working person not only in the UK but globally. Or not...
how about merging these two threads ? :flower:
Duchess of Cambridge: Her image and future role/s? - Part 2 (http://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=71731.0)
Charities is a more specific theme. :)
We do have an existing charities thread for Kate. Perhaps this one could be merged with the original?
Here is the thread that I mentioned.
[mod]Thanks, TLLK. I'll merge the threads now. [/mod]
Perhaps we should send a little reminder to Kate?
Here are your charities, Kate, please start supporting them.
Double post auto-merged: September 10, 2014, 07:15:33 PM
Quote from: Minerva on September 10, 2014, 10:01:43 AM
Oh SophieChloe you joker you! It involves work and there are no celebrities at charities why would Kate make an appearance! We're just expecting far too much of Kate going to charities would mean spending less time here:
Quote
Kate Middleton Visits Bicester Designer Outlet Village 14th August 2014
Kate Middleton 'hunts for bargain baby clothes during visit to designer outlet village' - Mirror Online (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/kate-middleton-hunts-bargain-baby-4047419)
Kate apparently had her purchases - which included a bath mat - couriered to Kensington palace.
and that just wouldn't do. Bath mats just don't buy themselves and even carrying a bath mat home would be too much like work. I thought I would include that link just in case you have been wondering what Kate has been doing as recently as August 2014 instead of important things like visiting charities. She's a super busy celebrity socialite.
And hair, that hair won't style itself £6k hair! Imagine £6000 to spend on hair what a charity could do with that money!
Kate Middleton?s Hair On Royal Tour ? Cost $10,000 To Style In Australia - Hollywood Life (http://hollywoodlife.com/2014/04/28/kate-middleton-hair-royal-tour-cost-style-australia/)
She's just too busy her diary is packed - shopping, hair maintenance, shopping! I mean how does this 'average working mother' cope! With two nannies, and a staff and another progeny on the way which just so happens to be timed perfectly before any real 'work' like a trip to Malta or visiting charities would occur...
I really wouldn't have a problem with how Kate chooses to spend her time - if the taxpayer were not her employer. Just don't feel like we're getting much of a return on the investment here all the dimes seem to be going towards Bicester. I'm a really ditzy vacuous airhead it's one of my major personal flaws SophieChloe so you will have to bear with me please could you explain something to me here, is Bicester like a charity or something because that would explain a whole lot! A lot of taxpayer money seems to be flowing in to their coffers and it would be totes amazing if some of that money or time could just visit - I actually can't name any of the charities associated with Kate. If she visited more I could probably name at least one of those charities. So I am beginning to feel as if Bicester Shopping Village is Kate's personal charity project and if that is the case she must be the most charitable hard working person not only in the UK but globally. Or not...
Well said! Perhaps we do not know of her "secret" charity causes... Kensington High Street and Bicestor Village :windsor1:
Quote from: Lady Adams on September 09, 2014, 11:21:21 PM
I did some digging and listed the last times she visited charities. (PS: If you find errors in the below, please let me know. I tried my best, mainly using Twitter Advanced Search and What Kate Wore, along with the charities websites, but there could be errors)
The Royal Foundation: June 23, 2014 (private reception at The Orangery in Kensington Palace); last previous event: May 30, 2014 (private biannual meeting of their Charities Forum)
Patron of Action on Addiction: July 1, 2014 (M-PACT Plus visit *joint event with Place2Be); last non-joint event: October 24, 2013 (Women in Hedge Fund Gala)
Royal Patron of East Anglia's Children's Hospices: June 2014 (private visit to EACH); last previous event: June 13, 2013 (official naming of new cruise liner 'Royal Princess')
Royal Patron of The Art Room: February 14, 2014 (open The ICAP Art Room); last previous event: April 14, 2013 (The Art Room/National Portrait Gallery Reception)
Patron of the The National Portrait Gallery, London: February 11, 2014 (the annual Portrait Gala); last previous event: : April 14, 2013 (The Art Room/National Portrait Gallery Reception)
Patron of Place2Be: July 1, 2014 (M-PACT Plus visit *joint event with Action on Addition); last non-joint event: November 20, 2013 (forum on "Resilience and Emotional Strength in Schools)
Patron of SportsAid: July 29, 2014 (SportsAid reception at Commonwealth Games); last previous event: November 28, 2013 (SportsAid SportsBall)
Patron of The Natural History Museum: July 2, 2014 (Prince George birthday portrait at Sensational Butterflies exhibit); December 11, 2013 (Gala)
A couple of additions:
Place2Be: her last event before the July 29 one was on June 30, 2014, when she and Will went to the Place2Reflect Conference.
Natural History Museum: her last event before the July 2 pictures was on May 30, 2014, when she, Will, and Harry attended the Royal Charities Forum at the Natural History Museum.
EACH: I would count the visit to Bear Cottage in Australia (since it is partnering with EACH, as Kate mentioned in her speech there). She also visited a children's hospice (Shooting Star House) on December 6, 2013, and one in New Zealand (Rainbow House) in April; although these are not EACH hospices (of which there are only a few), I think the visits are worth a mention as they raise awareness about children's hospices and allow her to learn more about how those organizations are run elsewhere and what EACH might be able to learn from them.
Worth noting, as well, that the Royal Charities Forum is made up of all of the charities that Kate and Will and Harry are patrons of, with the aim of promoting co-operation and idea exchange. It meets biannually, and Kate was at both of the meetings it had this past year.
Thanks Canuck-- I just wanted to respond to these. :hug: I think, like the Court Circular, things can be classified many ways by many people.
Quote from: Canuck on September 10, 2014, 08:04:28 PM
A couple of additions:
Place2Be: her last event before the July 29 one was on June 30, 2014, when she and Will went to the Place2Reflect Conference.
That's a good point, but it was a "private" event, so I didn't include it, but I could see why you would count it.
Quote from: Canuck on September 10, 2014, 08:04:28 PM
Natural History Museum: her last event before the July 2 pictures was on May 30, 2014, when she, Will, and Harry attended the Royal Charities Forum at the Natural History Museum.
I personally wouldn't count that one. It was the simply the location for their meeting, not anything related to the Natural History Museum. :shrug:
Quote from: Canuck on September 10, 2014, 08:04:28 PM
EACH: I would count the visit to Bear Cottage in Australia (since it is partnering with EACH, as Kate mentioned in her speech there). She also visited a children's hospice (Shooting Star House) on December 6, 2013, and one in New Zealand (Rainbow House) in April; although these are not EACH hospices (of which there are only a few), I think the visits are worth a mention as they raise awareness about children's hospices and allow her to learn more about how those organizations are run elsewhere and what EACH might be able to learn from them.
I agree that these are very valuable. Like I said earlier, I didn't include it because EACH's own website didn't list it for her events.
Quote from: Canuck on September 10, 2014, 08:04:28 PM
Worth noting, as well, that the Royal Charities Forum is made up of all of the charities that Kate and Will and Harry are patrons of, with the aim of promoting co-operation and idea exchange. It meets biannually, and Kate was at both of the meetings it had this past year.
I included the last meeting, which was May 30, as well as the private recption. :hug:
Another child means another 2-3yrs of doing absolutely nothing. But you can be sure with her 2mos of no work and 1 month of some work she will still be taking vacations. I know people complain about William, but he Harry, Michael, Carole Pippa almost everyone around her at least works a little if not a whole lot. And isn't Uncle Gary a self made millionaire as well?
Her history of work with her charities is pretty sad. Even if we added all the "private" visits and loose connections that other members have mentioned in this thread, she's still only visiting each charity once every 6-12 months. I don't understand why she doesn't work more.
Because she does not have to. Answering Jenee here.
To answer the thread, Katies charities....? Ans. They can and will wait.
It is what it is . I hate that term. It is so common and sounds rude.
This is the pattern for her and PW, the golden couple, and it will remain so.
Quote from: Jenee on September 11, 2014, 01:39:32 AM
Her history of work with her charities is pretty sad. Even if we added all the "private" visits and loose connections that other members have mentioned in this thread, she's still only visiting each charity once every 6-12 months. I don't understand why she doesn't work more.
To true, she does nothing all day so why not go to her charities, similarly to how any other house wife does volume work in her community, it truly is coming off that she is just lazy and a kept woman. Her hard working mother must be proud.
A kept woman.......??
Cindy
She ain't.
kept woman
Noun, 1. kept woman - an adulterous woman kept woman - an adulterous woman ; a woman who has an ongoing extramarital sexual relationship with a man.
Woo Hoo I'm a "kept" woman!!!! :happy20: Part time work, supported by my spouse, it sounds so glamorous. :P Now if you will excuse me I have a merit badge to attach to my son's sash.
^^Now, if only you got a mansion rent-free, you'd be set, TLLK!
Kate doesnt work part time :happycry: I can see the reasoning behind "kept woman" I understood what katerina montague was trying to say , so far prince william is her greatest accomplishment amirite ??? :P
Most mothers would probably say their greatest accomplishment is their child(ren). :thumbsup:
Cindy
Quote from: Jenee on September 11, 2014, 01:39:32 AM
Her history of work with her charities is pretty sad. Even if we added all the "private" visits and loose connections that other members have mentioned in this thread, she's still only visiting each charity once every 6-12 months. I don't understand why she doesn't work more.
Because shes' not very into tehm? and has a small child, and is now pregntant again.
Quote from: Lady Adams on September 11, 2014, 03:18:10 PM
^^Now, if only you got a mansion rent-free, you'd be set, TLLK!
LOL In SoCal I don't think that the taxpayers could really afford it. Now if we were in the Mid-West... LOL
Quote from: amabel on September 11, 2014, 06:01:46 PM
Quote from: Jenee on September 11, 2014, 01:39:32 AM
Her history of work with her charities is pretty sad. Even if we added all the "private" visits and loose connections that other members have mentioned in this thread, she's still only visiting each charity once every 6-12 months. I don't understand why she doesn't work more.
Because shes' not very into tehm? and has a small child, and is now pregntant again.
I agree. IMO she never was and now more excuses not to bother with the pesky little charities.
There is a thread about Kate marrying for Love or the Lifestyle. I'll see if I can find it....
Here : Did Kate Marry for Love or the Lifestyle? (http://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=70602.0)
She sure as heck did not marry to make a difference IMO.
Quote from: amabel on September 11, 2014, 06:01:46 PM
Quote from: Jenee on September 11, 2014, 01:39:32 AM
Her history of work with her charities is pretty sad. Even if we added all the "private" visits and loose connections that other members have mentioned in this thread, she's still only visiting each charity once every 6-12 months. I don't understand why she doesn't work more.
Because shes' not very into tehm? and has a small child, and is now pregntant again.
She married at 29, not an early bird, and was never charitably inclined before then. So, it is fair to say that she is not a person who is naturally charitably inclined.
Quote from: KaTerina Montague on September 11, 2014, 09:49:08 AM
Quote from: Jenee on September 11, 2014, 01:39:32 AM
Her history of work with her charities is pretty sad. Even if we added all the "private" visits and loose connections that other members have mentioned in this thread, she's still only visiting each charity once every 6-12 months. I don't understand why she doesn't work more.
To true, she does nothing all day so why not go to her charities, similarly to how any other house wife does volume work in her community, it truly is coming off that she is just lazy and a kept woman. Her hard working mother must be proud.
Her hard-working mother has a huge chip on her shoulder because she had to work hard and raised Kate and her children, to find a wealthy/aristocratic spouse. She made sure they didn't have to work, by purchasing an apartment and paying their expenses so they could be free to roam around with the aristocrats in leisure and never had to work, to the credit of the other two, they have tried to do something, perhaps after tiring of waiting for their wealthy aristocrat dream spouse, but their mother is the reason Kate has an aversion to work, IMO. Of course, there are people who despite having it all set a high standard for themselves, clearly not Kate Middleton, but those people do exist.
I believe Kate can think for herself. Her mother may have raised her with certain values, but Kate is very well educated and can certainly think for herself. If she wanted to use her position to make a difference in this world, she would. It's not laziness folks, it's indifference. Kare only cares about herself.
I don't think she has a chip on her shoulder or has a problem with working hard because she still does, as do her 2 youngest children especially James. There is no proof she trained her daughters 5o get aristocratic husbands just because they went to expensive schools and socialized with them? And even if she did it would be no different than aristocratic mothers who do the same thing. I don't see anyone in the middleton family who are as lazy as Kate.
Quote from: Jenee on September 12, 2014, 06:07:03 PM
I believe Kate can think for herself. Her mother may have raised her with certain values, but Kate is very well educated and can certainly think for herself. If she wanted to use her position to make a difference in this world, she would. It's not laziness folks, it's indifference. Kare only cares about herself.
Agree that she can think for herself and is well educated, but she does need to follow the traditions, guidelines and rules set by the senior royals and government officials like any other member of the BRF. HM is the head of the BRF and IMHO has the final say so on who does what, where, when and how often among the working members of the family.
^^ But that doesn't mean HM is always right. She has shown herself to be disconnected from the public before (late 80s-mid 90s).
I hardly doubt that if Kate came to her with ideas to reinvigorate her role, HM would turn her down-- after all, look at what Harry did with the Invictus Games!! HM did not tell him or ask him to do it-- he came to her, and by all accounts, they've already been a great success!
I dont care if her parents bought her the apartment :shrug: they were helping her out , now from there on it was her responsibility to use those resources and do something worthwhile ,at a job or volunteering ;)
I think kate sees her role as her husbands supporter only , like this is Williams job not mine so I have nothing to do with it , that's the vibe I get off of her .
Quote from: Lady Adams on September 13, 2014, 02:36:06 AM
^^ But that doesn't mean HM is always right. She has shown herself to be disconnected from the public before (late 80s-mid 90s).
I hardly doubt that if Kate came to her with ideas to reinvigorate her role, HM would turn her down-- after all, look at what Harry did with the Invictus Games!! HM did not tell him or ask him to do it-- he came to her, and by all accounts, they've already been a great success!
Yes, I have read that the Queen was a bit dubious about Diana getting involved in Aids charities as they were controversial at the time. I doubt that Diana consulted her about the land mines campaign, but I don't think she would have approved anyway, as it involved an implicit criticism of overseas governments.
Quote from: Lady Adams on September 13, 2014, 02:36:06 AM
^^ But that doesn't mean HM is always right. She has shown herself to be disconnected from the public before (late 80s-mid 90s).
I hardly doubt that if Kate came to her with ideas to reinvigorate her role, HM would turn her down-- after all, look at what Harry did with the Invictus Games!! HM did not tell him or ask him to do it-- he came to her, and by all accounts, they've already been a great success!
Oh HM is just like any other human being. Sometimes she's right and other times not. Harry's involvement with Invictus was perfect for a member of the nation's military. William has his conservation program. Kate has the children's hospice. IMHO these are safe, government and palace approved. Anything that would challenge official government positions is not likely to be permitted or encouraged in a constitutional monarchy.
Quote from: tiaras on September 13, 2014, 02:38:06 AM
I dont care if her parents bought her the apartment :shrug: they were helping her out , now from there on it was her responsibility to use those resources and do something worthwhile ,at a job or volunteering ;)
I think kate sees her role as her husbands supporter only , like this is Williams job not mine so I have nothing to do with it , that's the vibe I get off of her .
I agree with this. Just cause your parents can help you out and pay things for you doesn't mean you're not someone that desires to work or help. That deals with the individual's personality and the truth is some people just don't care to really do much. She's a wife and if the Queen is okay with that then I guess that's that. To me, that speaks volumes about her as well.
Quote from: HistoryGirl on September 13, 2014, 02:13:04 PM
Quote from: tiaras on September 13, 2014, 02:38:06 AM
I dont care if her parents bought her the apartment :shrug: they were helping her out , now from there on it was her responsibility to use those resources and do something worthwhile ,at a job or volunteering ;)
I think kate sees her role as her husbands supporter only , like this is Williams job not mine so I have nothing to do with it , that's the vibe I get off of her .
I agree with this. Just cause your parents can help you out and pay things for you doesn't mean you're not someone that desires to work or help. That deals with the individual's personality and the truth is some people just don't care to really do much. She's a wife and if the Queen is okay with that then I guess that's that. To me, that speaks volumes about her as well.
IMO that is the supporter role has been quietly emphasised by the BRF after Diana and Fergie departed. Sophie, Camilla, and Kate were likely told that the royal spouse can not be "outshone."
^Oh I agree. So sad that the family's so insecure that there can't be two strong people in a relationship. But like I said, if that's what the Queen wants, it all goes down on her.
:goodpost:
@HistoryGirl , it speaks volumes about their take on the "modern royal family" image they are trying to portray .
Quote from: HistoryGirl on September 13, 2014, 04:55:43 PM
^Oh I agree. So sad that the family's so insecure that there can't be two strong people in a relationship. But like I said, if that's what the Queen wants, it all goes down on her.
??
Yes?
I meant that I can't see what it has to do with "2 Strong people in a relationship". The "important royal" is the one who will be king or queen, and their spouse has a supportive role. The queen is the important one, but P Philip is a very strong character... but in public he has been willing ot being a supportive role.
You just said it. And Tiaras also said it. They try to promote a modern royalty but there's nothing modern there at all.
Again Im bewildered. Royal life is traditional. there are changes but they are usually behind the rest of the world. the important person is the actual monarch, not his or her consort, and while they are not Unimportant, they are supposed to paly a supporting role.
You're right; the English are not a modern monarchy...but what is perplexing to me is that they are dubbed as such. And simply because their role for a spouse is to stand behind the royal doesn't mean that people have to agree with it; Some might, but it's not a necessity and I happen to be one that does not.
yes it is a modern monarchy. But that does not mean that they are acting in the same way as other people, in many ways. Changes take place but more slowly than they do outside the monarchy and that's perfectly right because one function of a monarchy is to preserve tradition.
I can't see what's wrong with the idea that the actual king or queen is more imptoratn than their partner. if a man or woman is CEO of a business, it does not mean that their partner has ANY role In the firm. Same with the King or queen. Their partner DOES have a role but it is not the same as the king or queens
and not to be picky but it is a BRITISH monarcy, not just an Enlgish one.
Oh, I humbly beg your pardon, I did not mean to diminish Her Majesty's vast territories. And that's fine if you feel that way, but I do not.
Its not a case of "vast territories", but the queen is not just queen of England, but of the United Kingdom of great Britain and Norther Ireland. Hardly Vast Territories. But many non English Brits get very cross at the implication that tHe UK is simply England. Its nothing to me as Im not British but Many people do take offence about it...
I sincerely and profoundly apologize to any *British* person that has taken offense to my careless and rude generalization. I can only hope that you all can find it in your hearts to forgive me and we may move forward with my new found understanding of my folly.
Double post auto-merged: September 13, 2014, 10:57:24 PM
Oh, but darn...turns out Scots like to be referred to as Scottish and not British...same for the Welsh and Irish. jeez, I'm gonna have to regroup and come up with a better apology.
I do think they are modernizing - they are certainly with PC, Will, Harry etc more accessible and even more casual - it was a big deal for example - when Di hugged an AIDS patient - Harry and even Will are seen hugging people now and it is not a huge deal. Jeez - Harry has been hugging away at these Invictus games. There sure is a whole lot less curtseying - you rarely see anyone curtsey to Kate or Will or even PC. And PC sure is involved in issues some find controversial - climate change, religious tolerance among Muslims and Christians, GM and organic foods. That may not be as dramatic as HIV was back in the day - but it is absolutely controversial and gets him criticized.
Will getting a job with this air ambulance company is unprecedented - I think he will be the first so close to the throne to actually work for a private company. Of course - Will is getting seriously criticized for doing this but it is a sign of a more modern RF. Will married a commoner who had clearly slept with him for years before marriage - that sure is a big change and is "modern". And there are people who still object to Kate for those reasons,
I guarantee when PC gets to the throne we will see major changes. He has already indicated he wants to give Balmoral away. He has made it clear the size of the official RF will be smaller. He will also make those modern changes - and there will be push back. Already people complain about Bea and Eugenie being pushed out of official roles. So modernizing is not going to be easy. While on one hand people say they want a more modern monarchy - there are then those who will bitterly complain about every step in that direction.
Perhaps it is those that want no monarchy.
Quote from: cate1949 on September 13, 2014, 11:03:22 PM
I do think they are modernizing - they are certainly with PC, Will, Harry etc more accessible and even more casual - it was a big deal for example - when Di hugged an AIDS patient - Harry and even Will are seen hugging people now and it is not a huge deal. Jeez - Harry has been hugging away at these Invictus games. There sure is a whole lot less curtseying - you rarely see anyone curtsey to Kate or Will or even PC. And PC sure is involved in issues some find controversial - climate change, religious tolerance among Muslims and Christians, GM and organic foods. That may not be as dramatic as HIV was back in the day - but it is absolutely controversial and gets him criticized.
Will getting a job with this air ambulance company is unprecedented - I think he will be the first so close to the throne to actually work for a private company. Of course - Will is getting seriously criticized for doing this but it is a sign of a more modern RF. Will married a commoner who had clearly slept with him for years before marriage - that sure is a big change and is "modern". And there are people who still object to Kate for those reasons,
I guarantee when PC gets to the throne we will see major changes. He has already indicated he wants to give Balmoral away. He has made it clear the size of the official RF will be smaller. He will also make those modern changes - and there will be push back. Already people complain about Bea and Eugenie being pushed out of official roles. So modernizing is not going to be easy. While on one hand people say they want a more modern monarchy - there are then those who will bitterly complain about every step in that direction.
Charles always IMO looks at concepts rather than realities. He has an elder son who is avoiding full time royal duties. His daughter in law is workshy.His younger son Harry is trying to carve out a role. Camilla has not exactly been a powerhouse in the work department. So who will do the work if he "scales down." Concepts don't often mean they work in reality. I think Charles may need Bea and Eugenie to pull their weight and help out.
I would call what will doing "lazy" and not modern. He's in avoidance mode. How little or how much he actually does will most likely never be known by the general public. Will is the future of the monarchy and a future King he can't ostrich forever and play normal.
Double post auto-merged: September 13, 2014, 11:17:12 PM
Quote from: TLLK on September 13, 2014, 04:53:03 PM
Quote from: HistoryGirl on September 13, 2014, 02:13:04 PM
Quote from: tiaras on September 13, 2014, 02:38:06 AM
I dont care if her parents bought her the apartment :shrug: they were helping her out , now from there on it was her responsibility to use those resources and do something worthwhile ,at a job or volunteering ;)
I think kate sees her role as her husbands supporter only , like this is Williams job not mine so I have nothing to do with it , that's the vibe I get off of her .
I agree with this. Just cause your parents can help you out and pay things for you doesn't mean you're not someone that desires to work or help. That deals with the individual's personality and the truth is some people just don't care to really do much. She's a wife and if the Queen is okay with that then I guess that's that. To me, that speaks volumes about her as well.
IMO that is the supporter role has been quietly emphasised by the BRF after Diana and Fergie departed. Sophie, Camilla, and Kate were likely told that the royal spouse can not be "outshone."
I think the outshone business is nonsense. Charles whined about being "outshone" by Diana. Andrew never griped about Fergie "outshining" him. It was Charles that did this. Kate does little work so she is not outshining but does it mean that the wife has to appear rarely. Arguably the Queen Mum when Queen Consort outshone her husband but did he get all petty like his grandson. No way. Had the Queen Mum not had charisma she would not have been able to go out among the public after bombings and comfort and support them. Charisma is not a bad thing. And George VI clearly appreciated her.
I doubt even the anachronistic royals had the women folk be told that they must not "outshine." So antiquarian.
It was Charles hangups that brought about this talk. He was even jealous of the nervous young 20 year old wife who clearly was trying to help out.
Quote from: HistoryGirl on September 13, 2014, 10:55:08 PM
I sincerely and profoundly apologize to any *British* person that has taken offense to my careless and rude generalization. I can only hope that you all can find it in your hearts to forgive me and we may move forward with my new found understanding of my folly.
Double post auto-merged: September 13, 2014, 10:57:24 PM
Oh, but darn...turns out Scots like to be referred to as Scottish and not British...same for the Welsh and Irish. jeez, I'm gonna have to regroup and come up with a better apology.
some Scots do but, that does not mean that they are not British as well. as for the Irish, if you mean the Northern Irish, loyalists are very Keen usually to be seen as British, not Irsih. But the monarchy is not simply an English monarchy it covers England, Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland
Well not all the people in those countries are royalist and I wouldn't mean to presume, but I understand fully, now....thanks so much for the lesson. I'm almost positive that I might be able to be forgiven since I'm but a fool. And, hopefully, one wrong person may always find a friend.
Quote from: cate1949 on September 13, 2014, 11:03:22 PM
I do think they are modernizing - they are certainly with PC, Will, Harry etc more accessible and even more casual - it was a big deal for example - when Di hugged an AIDS patient - Harry and even Will are seen hugging people now and it is not a huge deal. Jeez - Harry has been hugging away at these Invictus games. There sure is a whole lot less curtseying - you rarely see anyone curtsey to Kate or Will or even PC. And PC sure is involved in issues some find controversial - climate change, religious tolerance among Muslims and Christians, GM and organic foods. That may not be as dramatic as HIV was back in the day - but it is absolutely controversial and gets him criticized.
Will getting a job with this air ambulance company is unprecedented - I think he will be the first so close to the throne to actually work for a private company. Of
I give
They are always modernising. Philip made changes In the 50s that many saw as dangerously radical, but this happens. every generation of royals have their improvements and changes but change is naturally slower than in the rest of the world. When Charles married Diana, it was largely because it was felt that the heir could only marry a girl from a Protestant aristocratic background, who had no past. Now things are different, Will has as you say married a girl outside the aristocratic group and who has presumably had previous boyfriends and who lived with Will ash his live in "wife" for years before they married, So did Edward and Sophie
In the rest of the world, Therr would be nothing strange about a man marrying a divorced woman, in middle age, after he had been divorced himself, but ti was highly "new" when Charles did it a few years ago. Changes happen, its the law of life but they happen slowly.... usually a minor royal will do something, like marry a divorcee, and then it has worked its way up to the top of the royal family....
Yeah, the Queen is also Queen of Australia, New Zealand and Canada as well as the United Kingdom (Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland not forgotten) and many more. :D The last time I looked Australia and Canada, at least, were pretty 'vast' territories and New Zealand's not a tiny dot! :P
I doubt future heirs will marry non-Protestants.
Kate and William never lived together that is setting up housekeeping together. They even had cooling off periods and a major breakup.
I don't think Charles' situation is ideal--I doubt that marrying divorcees will be looked upon as the "norm".
I think Charles situation was more of a lowering of the bar and not necessarily a good thing. He did not have his heirs with the divorced woman.
Damn...I also forgot the Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders...ugh, Idk how I'll ever forgive myself now. And me...a history major. I should be ashamed; I should become a physics major, maybe they can look past it.
Quote from: HistoryGirl on September 13, 2014, 11:04:26 PM
Perhaps it is those that want no monarchy.
No there aer people who want things to remain the same all the time. When Ed and Sophie started living together there were people who disapproved, but it was probably a sensible decision.. Equally there are people who didn't approve of Charles and Cam marrying, because they had a conservative viewpoint that they felt the monarchy should uphold
Double post auto-merged: September 13, 2014, 11:37:56 PM
Quote from: Curryong on September 13, 2014, 11:30:50 PM
Yeah, the Queen is also Queen of Australia, New Zealand and Canada as well as the United Kingdom (Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland not forgotten) and many more. :D The last time I looked Australia and Canada, at least, were pretty 'vast' territories and New Zealand's not a tiny dot! :P
True, but in the UK context, although she's referred to as the queen of Engladn, she's also queen of the other parts of the UK.
Did mnt William and Kate live together for years. First in college then leading into the emgagement.
^^Im not sure quite what youre referring to but I was responding to the part of the post that said that those that want modernization are never happy with it as the steps are taken. Oh and also, I personally don't care about their personal lives enough to get up in arms about it so originally when I mentioned modernization I was referring to their royal roles not who they sleep with and when.
Edward had absolutely no chance of being King and Sophie his Queen Consort. So they had more freedom and even held jobs outside the Palace (for a time) after they married. I don't recall moral outrage that they shared an apartment at BP. They were both single.
Quote from: TLLK on September 13, 2014, 03:52:42 AM
Quote from: Lady Adams on September 13, 2014, 02:36:06 AM
^^ But that doesn't mean HM is always right. She has shown herself to be disconnected from the public before (late 80s-mid 90s).
I hardly doubt that if Kate came to her with ideas to reinvigorate her role, HM would turn her down-- after all, look at what Harry did with the Invictus Games!! HM did not tell him or ask him to do it-- he came to her, and by all accounts, they've already been a great success!
Oh HM is just like any other human being. Sometimes she's right and other times not. Harry's involvement with Invictus was perfect for a member of the nation's military. William has his conservation program. Kate has the children's hospice. IMHO these are safe, government and palace approved. Anything that would challenge official government positions is not likely to be permitted or encouraged in a constitutional monarchy.
I think we can hardly compare Kate's patronage in the children's hospice or William's conservation program to the Invictus Games.
The Invictis Games were a new program, and involved global participants, including high profile guest (SLOTUS, for one) at the peak of diplomacy. This new-to-the-UK and expanded program is one which required ingenuity, and campaigning (for approval from HM and funding).
What I meant is that HM is not going to come up with new ideas for William, Kate or Harry to do-- she's in a role of tradition. Rather, Kate could (like Harry) come up with a new idea to invigorate her role, and pitch it to HM. HM has shown, through the Invictus Games, she's open to these ideas.
Quote from: HistoryGirl on September 13, 2014, 11:40:34 PM
^^Im not sure quite what youre referring to but I was responding to the part of the post that said that those that want modernization are never happy with it as the steps are taken. Oh and also, I personally don't care about their personal lives enough to get up in arms about it so originally when I mentioned modernization I was referring to their royal roles not who they sleep with and when.
I was referring to Sandy who said William and Kate never lived together; I honestly don't know what you are diecussing. I'm actually surprised that a Mette Marit situation hasn't popped up again. I think any institution can be modern but still have archaic rules they go by, some of those rules will most likely slowly become obscure.
Oh sorry, that wasn't directed at you.
Quote from: KaTerina Montague on September 13, 2014, 11:39:27 PM
Did mnt William and Kate live together for years. First in college then leading into the emgagement.
They did not set up housekeeping together and formally live together. They lived in a flat with other students. Kate was mostly living with her parents and never formally moved in with William. And then there was the big breakup and the cooling off periods.
They did live together in Anglesey.
Cindy
Kate was reported to be spending weekends with William in Anglesey. She never formally "moved in" and it never became her official residence until after they got married. She was primarily at her parents home.
Quote from: KaTerina Montague on September 14, 2014, 12:02:13 AM
Quote from: HistoryGirl on September 13, 2014, 11:40:34 PM
^^Im not sure quite what youre referring to but I was responding to the part of the post that said that those that want modernization are never happy with it as the steps are taken. Oh and also, I personally don't care about their personal lives enough to get up in arms about it so originally when I mentioned modernization I was referring to their royal roles not who they sleep with and when.
I was referring to Sandy who said William and Kate never lived together; I honestly don't know what you are diecussing. I'm actually surprised that a Mette Marit situation hasn't popped up again. I think any institution can be modern but still have archaic rules they go by, some of those rules will most likely slowly become obscure.
They spent time together and weekends but never formally moved in and never lived together in every sense of the word. Even when she was in London working at Jigsaw she was living in a home her parents owned. Of course they spent time together and weekends and she vacationed with him but there was never a formal "living together."
Double post auto-merged: September 14, 2014, 12:07:55 AM
Quote from: HistoryGirl on September 13, 2014, 11:40:34 PM
^^Im not sure quite what youre referring to but I was responding to the part of the post that said that those that want modernization are never happy with it as the steps are taken. Oh and also, I personally don't care about their personal lives enough to get up in arms about it so originally when I mentioned modernization I was referring to their royal roles not who they sleep with and when.
Primarily Charles modernization ideas don't seem that practical considering he's giving the work of many to few and the few don't appear to have much of a work ethic.
Quote from: sandy on September 14, 2014, 12:03:00 AM
Quote from: KaTerina Montague on September 13, 2014, 11:39:27 PM
Did mnt William and Kate live together for years. First in college then leading into the emgagement.
They did not set up housekeeping together and formally live together. They lived in a flat with other students. Kate was mostly living with her parents and never formally moved in with William. And then there was the big breakup and the cooling off periods.
Yes but there was also 2007-2010 after the breakup.
She did not formally "move in" with William. It was not her official residence so they were not "living together" in the formal sense of the word sharing the same residence officially. She was living with her parents and reportedly working for Jigsaw. As the engagement got closer she spent weekends at Anglesey or so I read.
this is what becomes IMHO frustrating about having a discussion - pick an irrelevant detail and debate that whilst ignoring the broader argument
okay Sandy - you are right they did not technically live together - but they sure as heck were fornicating and she was no virgin as Diana reportedly was.. Which is the point of what I said.
I'd say that is evidence that the RF has modernized - they are now accepting more contemporary norms instead of forcing Will to find himself a virgin as PC was required and PoW's before him.
Cannot have it both ways - people cannot complain about the cost of the monarchy and then complain about the RF cutting costs. If costs must be cut - if the monarch must also share in the austerity of the British people - then Bea and Eugenie have to go - Balmoral will have to go. Private security will have to guard the palaces. Kate will have to recycle and wear High Street.
People cannot look for a more modern monarchy and then rip the wife of the Prince because she is a commoner and had sex with him prior to marriage. And you know that for some people those are things they hold against Kate.
I never said they did not spend time under the same roof nor were not intimate.
I often wonder if the "had to be a virgin" rule really applied to Charles back then. He was very serious about Anna Wallace and there were strong hints that they 'did it' and she actually got invited to lunch by the Queen. It took Anna Wallace being ignored by Charles in favor of Camilla to break them up. Charles was supposedly smitten with her. Some writers claim that Diana was one of three Charles was seriously considering to be his bride--the other two ca. 1979-80 were Amanda Knatchbull and Anna Wallace.
Kate and William were single and there were no other parties and they really had no past or serious exes hanging about.
If the monarchy IS scaled down the question is will those in it really pull their weight. I suspect Bea and Eugenie will need to be reinforcements.
So, speaking of Kate's charities......
When's the last time she did anything for them? Show up? Help organizing any sort of fundraising or publicity?
I thought the reason she only chose the ones she had was so she could focus all her energy on them, but I can't remember the last time she did anything for any one of her charities.
Quote from: Lothwen on September 14, 2014, 02:34:39 AM
So, speaking of Kate's charities......
When's the last time she did anything for them? Show up? Help organizing any sort of fundraising or publicity?
I thought the reason she only chose the ones she had was so she could focus all her energy on them, but I can't remember the last time she did anything for any one of her charities.
I think that was covered back on page 3? Kate's Charities... (http://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=69982.msg1301922#msg1301922)
^Apparently pregnancy means you can't do any sort of work whatsoever. Oh and she has extreme morning sickness, which apparently lasts all day. Oh and her Majesty the Queen doesn't want her to do any work that's not been assigned specifically. Sorry, it's been quite a day; I simply could not help myself :happy15:
The younger royals especially share in the mores and values of the society they live in now. They share these with their friends and those they went to school with. If they were isolated from society it would be different.
On the issue of costs, I agree with Cate. Someone, presumably Charles, is going to have to grasp the nettle, the bull by the horns, or whatever metaphor you'd like to come up with. I can definitely see a more stream-lined Scandinavian-style BRF in years to come.
The BRF's homes, leased, private and 'state-owned' are large and historic buildings that need maintenance and quite large staff when the royals are in residence. The cost of security certainly isn't going to go away. The family is wealthy, but not that wealthy.
If Balmoral and Sandringham could be leased out, (I'm talking about the main houses here) it could be a partial solution in the coming years. Though, I really can't imagine who would wish to live in gigantic premises in Scotland or Norfolk in the depths of winter. Any eccentric millionaires out there?
Double post auto-merged: September 14, 2014, 03:43:58 AM
Personally, I think Will and Kate will employ a second nanny when this new baby arrives. Maria's hands will be full with George for the next few years, and I can't see busy, busy Kate doing the honours fulltime. I wonder whether they'll get a British nanny this time?
Quote from: HistoryGirl on September 14, 2014, 02:41:02 AM
^Apparently pregnancy means you can't do any sort of work whatsoever. Oh and she has extreme morning sickness, which apparently lasts all day.
Whatever other criticisms you have of Kate, I think this is really unfair. Extreme morning sickness *does* last all day. HG is no joke, and being on bed rest on doctors' orders is a pretty good reason not to be working right now.
ITA, Canuck. Added to that, "morning sickness", even of the non-acute variety, is widely known to be something of a misnomer. It's often in the morning because of the effect of not eating for 8+ hours on the chemistry of a pregnant woman's body, but can hit at any time during the day. See Morning sickness: Causes, concerns, treatments | BabyCenter (http://www.babycenter.com/morning-sickness#articlesection1).
Quote from: HistoryGirl on September 14, 2014, 02:41:02 AM
^Apparently pregnancy means you can't do any sort of work whatsoever. Oh and she has extreme morning sickness, which apparently lasts all day. Oh and her Majesty the Queen doesn't want her to do any work that's not been assigned specifically. Sorry, it's been quite a day; I simply could not help myself :happy15:
She has HG which is a very severe form of pregnancy sickness. She was hostialised last time she was so ill and I can't see how shes' expected to do "public appearance" work when she is losing weight, dehydrated and possibly needing to be sick at times. I agree, this seems like a sharp and unfair dig at Kate, whom I certainly don't particularly like myself..
Double post auto-merged: September 14, 2014, 06:41:10 AM
Quote from: cate1949 on September 14, 2014, 12:52:41 AM
this is what becomes IMHO frustrating about having a discussion - pick an irrelevant detail and debate that whilst ignoring the broader argument
okay Sandy - you are right they did not technically live together - but they sure as heck were fornicating and she was no virgin as Diana reportedly was.. Which is the point of what I said.
I'd say that is evidence that the RF has modernized - they are now accepting more contemporary norms instead of forcing Will to find himself a virgin as PC was required and PoW's before him.
Cannot have it both ways - people cannot complain about the cost of the monarchy and then complain about the RF cutting costs. If costs must be cut - if the monarch must also share in the austerity of the British people -
I agree. She and Will IIRC shared a house when they were students, and were lovers.. which would have been unthinkable for a prince of Charles' generation. IIRC they DID live together in Anglesey.. She wasn't working full time and spent much of her time there, and this at least gave them a chance ot know each other as a normal couple in a way that previous royals hadn't been able to do with their partners. (albeit "fornicating" seems to me to be a rather old fashioned way to describe their relationship.. they were having sex, but it wasn't' the whole point of the living together I assume...).
It was very normal behavior for a couple in the 80s even, to get to know each other, have sex, live together as lovers before getting married. But it wasn't' till the 90s that it became acceptable for royals to do that with their SO's... so it is evidence that there is and always ill be a slow change in the way the RF do things.. I agree that it seems that people complain about things changing, but also complain about what leads things to change. The RF IS slimming down, which saves money.... which means that there are less young royals who are frustrated because they don't particularly want to be "on the royal treadmill".. but ti does mean that the RF will be less visilbe and rather less glamorous, but as you say Cate one can't have it both ways.
Kate's home was with her parents. She did not move in with William according to reports she spent time there but not on a full time basis. There were no reports of her setting up housekeeping with WIlliam on any sort of regular basis. Kate was supposedly working for Jigsaw and was at home with her parents but she had lots of spare time. She never officially moved in with William on any sort of permanent basis before they got married. Unmarried Couples having sex do not have to live together on a permanent basis. She and Will went on vacations together and she spent time with him at "his place."
There is no point in slimming down if the "chosen ones" are lazy.
Double post auto-merged: September 14, 2014, 10:56:48 AM
Quote from: Lothwen on September 14, 2014, 02:34:39 AM
So, speaking of Kate's charities......
When's the last time she did anything for them? Show up? Help organizing any sort of fundraising or publicity?
I thought the reason she only chose the ones she had was so she could focus all her energy on them, but I can't remember the last time she did anything for any one of her charities.
She seems to have given up on them. She did make token appearances including the photo ops with the scouts. But that seems to be over now.
Quote from: KaTerina Montague on September 14, 2014, 12:02:13 AM
Quote from: HistoryGirl on September 13, 2014, 11:40:34 PM
^^
I was referring to Sandy who said William and Kate never lived together; I honestly don't know what you are diecussing. I'm actually surprised that a Mette Marit situation hasn't popped up again. I think any institution can be modern but still have archaic rules they go by, some of those rules will most likely slowly become obscure.
I don't see a Mette Marit situation coming up all that soon for the British monarchy. that was controversial enough in Norway. but for a royal couple even a senior one, to divorce and remarry, or for a future king to marry a divorced woman, is maybe something that Will crop up In George's generation.
Correction to my earlier post. Kate was working at Party Pieces and worked for her parents. When she worked at Jigsaw she was living at a home in London that her parents had. Pippa and James also had spent time there. She never set up housekeeping on any regular basis with William, pre marriage.
Quote from: amabel on September 14, 2014, 06:33:43 AM
She has HG which is a very severe form of pregnancy sickness. She was hostialised last time she was so ill and I can't see how shes' expected to do "public appearance" work when she is losing weight, dehydrated and possibly needing to be sick at times.
The problem is, she is never expected to do public apprarances by her fans, she is excused from having barely pretended to work until 29 because she had to be available for Will, then she was excused on year 1 because she was a newly wed, thenn year 2 because the Queen had given her two years (a made up excuse that the Palace never signified with a response) then because she was pregnant, then because she was a new mother and now she is pregnant again, will she ever be expected to live as a functional adult instead of a royal Barbie brought out for royal show and tell?
Quote from: Curryong on September 14, 2014, 02:41:45 AM
Personally, I think Will and Kate will employ a second nanny when this new baby arrives. Maria's hands will be full with George for the next few years, and I can't see busy, busy Kate doing the honours fulltime. I wonder whether they'll get a British nanny this time?
What, in God's name, does Kate do all day?
Quote from: Limabeany on September 14, 2014, 11:28:16 AM
Quote from: amabel on September 14, 2014, 06:33:43 AM
She has HG which is a very severe form of pregnancy sickness. She was hostialised last time she was so ill and I can't see how shes' expected to do "public appearance" work when she is losing weight, dehydrated and possibly needing to be sick at times.
The problem is, she is never expected to do public apprarances by her fans, she is excused from having barely pretended to work until 29 because she had to be available for Will, then she was excused on year 1 because she was a newly wed, thenn year 2 because the Queen had given her two years (a made up excuse that the Palace never signified with a response) then because she was pregnant, then because she was a new mother and now she is pregnant again, will she ever be expected to live as a functional adult instead of a royal Barbie brought out for royal show and tell?
Then when she has the children and can't possibly leave them to do work because she wants to be a "good mother" and not leave her children. She wants to be "hands on" and raise them herself and heaven forbid work would get in the way. Being a full time Mum comes before work and it is her "work" to raise exceptional children.
Who said that work only has to be public appearances? So she is bed ridden all day every day? Is she is then I'll retract my previous statement, I didn't know she was an invalid.
Quote from: sandy on September 14, 2014, 11:36:05 AM
Quote from: Limabeany on September 14, 2014, 11:28:16 AM
Quote from: amabel on September 14, 2014, 06:33:43 AM
She has HG which is a very severe form of pregnancy sickness. She was hostialised last time she was so ill and I can't see how shes' expected to do "public appearance" work when she is losing weight, dehydrated and possibly needing to be sick at times.
The problem is, she is never expected to do public apprarances by her fans, she is excused from having barely pretended to work until 29 because she had to be available for Will, then she was excused on year 1 because she was a newly wed, thenn year 2 because the Queen had given her two years (a made up excuse that the Palace never signified with a response) then because she was pregnant, then because she was a new mother and now she is pregnant again, will she ever be expected to live as a functional adult instead of a royal Barbie brought out for royal show and tell?
Then when she has the children and can't possibly leave them to do work because she wants to be a "good mother" and not leave her children. She wants to be "hands on" and raise them herself and heaven forbid work would get in the way. Being a full time Mum comes before work and it is her "work" to raise exceptional children.
:goodpost: :goodpost: :goodpost:
@Limabeany @sandy @HistoryGirl I am waiting for those kids to turn 10 and go to boarding school and be home just 2-3 months a year while kate still doesnt work , lol wonder what she will come up with then .
Double post auto-merged: September 14, 2014, 02:53:22 PM
this isnt the job kate likes , personally pippa knows that and i see both sisters as very similar but only one knew what she really wanted and that's a carefree life , pippa is pursuing that while dabbling in few things I feel kate would have loved that too and enjoyed being a socialite but ..oh well she went for this :shrug: took allllllll the perks tho
Quote from: HistoryGirl on September 14, 2014, 02:02:13 PM
Who said that work only has to be public appearances? So she is bed ridden all day every day? Is she is then I'll retract my previous statement, I didn't know she was an invalid.
The royals are generally seen doing work according to their calendar. The work behind the scenes alibi can be a good cover for laziness.
I don't see her being a 'full-time' mom now since she isn't with George all the time. She was in Norfolk while George was in London with his nanny. That excuse is not valid to me; neither is this HG. I think she picks and chooses when she wants to be active and she clearly has people behind her making up stories to make her load light. If her future as a queen is based on her past as a full-time royal then I don't believe she will be very active in her role. JMO
I agree.
Why are some so surprised with her behaviour? Before marriage: Kate only seemed to show enthusiasm for being available to William, shopping, holidays and nightclubbing...oh and being available to William.
After marriage: shopping, beauty treatments, holidays and now doing up mansions... :shrug: Fireplaces do not buy themselves :random39:
If the latest DM story is true - she is copping out of looking after her next baby, too.
William picked a reflection of himself IMO.
If the latest DM story is true, then I really really hope that it means that the Queen is putting her foot down and telling William and Kate that they need to step up their work for the firm. If Kate is going to have both a nanny for Prince George, and a nurse for the new baby, then she has no excuse to not work more.
I mean, in my opinion, if she has the nanny and the nurse, and she also has limited royal duties, that does not look good. It looks indulgent, and extravagant, and makes her look lazier than she already does.
It does not look good for the Queen and Prince. Charles either in terms of being completely out of touch with the world today, even more out of touch than their attitude towards Kate and William make them appear already.
I totally agree with you both!
Kate seems to have them by the short and curlies - IMO. Why, is another question for another thread.
I think it's rather unrealistic to expect Kate to take on a full time engagement schedule in the time that the maternity nurse will be employed. I think it's unreasonable to expect any woman to work in the first three months after a baby is born.
There's a reason that most countries in the world have some form of mat leave. Even the US throws a bone of 12 weeks of unpaid leave to women lucky enough to be covered by FMLA. The first three months are hard; sleep schedules are largely non-existant, colic (if it happens) is worst, breastfeeding does *not* come naturally to a lot of women, and even the easiest babies have nights where you end up walking the floor for hours. It's why private maternity nurses exist, and why there are at least four companies in the UK that place private maternity nurses with families.
Given that there's every indication that George was colicky, it's not unreasonable to put measures in place to deal with it if the new baby is too. Added to that, George is a really active kid who will still need lots of time with mommy, with whom he clearly has a bond. You think he's going to care that she was up every two hours breastfeeding the new baby when he wants to play with mommy? I guarantee you he won't.
I think if you did a survey, most women would welcome the services of a private maternity nurse if money was no object.
^I don't think that's the issue here.
What is the issue is that we're being told that a woman, who barely works as it is, and who has barely worked since graduating from university, is in need of even more help to run a household and raise her children.
It's your right to view it that way, certainly.
Quote from: Lothwen on September 14, 2014, 05:10:53 PM
^I don't think that's the issue here.
What is the issue is that we're being told that a woman, who barely works as it is, and who has barely worked since graduating from university, is in need of even more help to run a household and raise her children.
Before she got pregnant I found it strange that she needed a full time nanny for George since she does nothing else. But maybe that's just the way the Royal Family do it. But then I see Zara Phillips not having a nanny and still being involved with her horses and that contradicts my theory...maybe it's because she's not "technically" a princess or because her mother actually taught her the value of work. With regards to Kate, I guess it's unreasonable to expect someone to change who they've always been.
HG's contributions on the last three pages.....Bravisima! :clap: Can I tell you how much I love your commentary? A metaphorical tip o' the hat and a literal raised coffee cup to you, ma'am! Cheers!
^ :blowkiss: Somehow I just knew you would appreciate it Daisy. In fact, your posts were what inspired it. When confronted with the ridiculous sometimes we just have to resort to good humor.
Quote from: DaisyMeRollin on September 14, 2014, 05:22:14 PM
HG's contributions on the last three pages.....Bravisima! :clap: Can I tell you how much I love your commentary? A metaphorical tip o' the hat and a literal raised coffee cup to you, ma'am! Cheers!
Oh Yes,
@HistoryGirl &
@DaisyMeRollin :notworthy: :notworthy:
Quote from: Adrienne on September 14, 2014, 04:48:27 PM
There's a reason that most countries in the world have some form of mat leave.
There is a reason it doesn't start when you graduate Uni as a single girl and continue well into your thirties...
@Limabeany :thumbsup: And so it continues....her whole life seems to be on "leave" :Lothwen:
Quote from: HistoryGirl on September 13, 2014, 10:40:26 PM
You're right; the English are not a modern monarchy...but what is perplexing to me is that they are dubbed as such. And simply because their role for a spouse is to stand behind the royal doesn't mean that people have to agree with it; Some might, but it's not a necessity and I happen to be one that does not.
I'd say that they are more modern than some of their counterparts ie: Japan, Middle Eastern monarchies. They've adopted the full primogeniture rule like most European houses, but their recent history (late 20th century) has made an impression. Each royal house has its own traditions and "rules."
Letizia Ortiz and Masako Owada were two well-educated and well-regarded professionals. They married into royal houses steeped in tradition which IMO had a somewhat negative effect for each lady. Letizia was not given the opportunity to undertake a solo engagement for years after marrying Felipe. I don't believe it wasn't because she couldn't handle the task, but that the royal house wanted to project a certain image. Had one of her two children been a boy, he would have been the heir no matter the birth order. The SRF requires deep curtsies from its female members. Even at her sister's memorial service a heavily pregnant Letizia dropped nearly to the floor when greeting the king. (Sofia was abroad.) Allegedly she's been told at events to stay quiet because "Everyone knows that you're intelligent."
Masako is IMHO one of the saddest stories of a modern day royal marriage. Despite Nahurito's promise to protect her, she has suffered terribly in adjusting to Imperial life. (One would have hoped that the IHA learned its lesson with Michiko's muteness due to their treatment.) This trained interpreter was not permitted to speak English to another guest but had to go through an Imperial translator. (Masako and her family lived in the U.S. for years. She is a fluent English speaker.)
Middle Eastern consorts like Rania have to also watch their perception at home. Rania has been noticeably absent on the world stage IMHO since the Arab Spring of 2011.
Quote from: Adrienne on September 14, 2014, 04:48:27 PM
I think it's rather unrealistic to expect Kate to take on a full time engagement schedule in the time that the maternity nurse will be employed. I think it's unreasonable to expect any woman to work in the first three months after a baby is born.
There's a reason that most countries in the world have some form of mat leave. Even the US throws a bone of 12 weeks of unpaid leave to women lucky enough to be covered by FMLA. The first three months are hard; sleep schedules are largely non-existant, colic (if it happens) is worst, breastfeeding does *not* come naturally to a lot of women, and even the easiest babies have nights where you end up walking the floor for hours. It's why private maternity nurses exist, and why there are at least four companies in the UK that place private maternity nurses with families.
Given that there's every indication that George was colicky, it's not unreasonable to put measures in place to deal with it if the new baby is too. Added to that, George is a really active kid who will still need lots of time with mommy, with whom he clearly has a bond. You think he's going to care that she was up every two hours breastfeeding the new baby when he wants to play with mommy? I guarantee you he won't.
I think if you did a survey, most women would welcome the services of a private maternity nurse if money was no object.
:goodpost: And yes I would have loved a maternity nurse at the beginning especially with the first one who gave us constant trouble when it came to feeding.
Quote from: Lady Adams on September 13, 2014, 11:58:21 PM
Quote from: TLLK on September 13, 2014, 03:52:42 AM
Quote from: Lady Adams on September 13, 2014, 02:36:06 AM
^^ But that doesn't mean HM is always right. She has shown herself to be disconnected from the public before (late 80s-mid 90s).
I hardly doubt that if Kate came to her with ideas to reinvigorate her role, HM would turn her down-- after all, look at what Harry did with the Invictus Games!! HM did not tell him or ask him to do it-- he came to her, and by all accounts, they've already been a great success!
Oh HM is just like any other human being. Sometimes she's right and other times not. Harry's involvement with Invictus was perfect for a member of the nation's military. William has his conservation program. Kate has the children's hospice. IMHO these are safe, government and palace approved. Anything that would challenge official government positions is not likely to be permitted or encouraged in a constitutional monarchy.
I think we can hardly compare Kate's patronage in the children's hospice or William's conservation program to the Invictus Games.
The Invictis Games were a new program, and involved global participants, including high profile guest (SLOTUS, for one) at the peak of diplomacy. This new-to-the-UK and expanded program is one which required ingenuity, and campaigning (for approval from HM and funding).
What I meant is that HM is not going to come up with new ideas for William, Kate or Harry to do-- she's in a role of tradition. Rather, Kate could (like Harry) come up with a new idea to invigorate her role, and pitch it to HM. HM has shown, through the Invictus Games, she's open to these ideas.
The scale of it ...No. Branching into a new charity area for the BRF...yes.
Quote from: TLLK on September 14, 2014, 08:53:50 PM
Quote from: HistoryGirl on September 13, 2014, 10:40:26 PM
You're right; the English are not a modern monarchy...but what is perplexing to me is that they are dubbed as such. And simply because their role for a spouse is to stand behind the royal doesn't mean that people have to agree with it; Some might, but it's not a necessity and I happen to be one that does not.
I'd say that they are more modern than some of their counterparts ie: Japan, Middle Eastern monarchies. They've adopted the full primogeniture rule like most European houses, but their recent history (late 20th century) has made an impression. Each royal house has its own traditions and "rules."
Letizia Ortiz and Masako Owada were two well-educated and well-regarded professionals. They married into royal houses steeped in tradition which IMO had a somewhat negative effect for each lady. Letizia was not given the opportunity to undertake a solo engagement for years after marrying Felipe. I don't believe it wasn't because she couldn't handle the task, but that the royal house wanted to project a certain image. Had one of her two children been a boy, he would have been the heir no matter the birth order. The SRF requires deep curtsies from its female members. Even at her sister's memorial service a heavily pregnant Letizia dropped nearly to the floor when greeting the king. (Sofia was abroad.) Allegedly she's been told at events to stay quiet because "Everyone knows that you're intelligent."
Masako is IMHO one of the saddest stories of a modern day royal marriage. Despite Nahurito's promise to protect her, she has suffered terribly in adjusting to Imperial life. (One would have hoped that the IHA learned its lesson with Michiko's muteness due to their treatment.) This trained interpreter was not permitted to speak English to another guest but had to go through an Imperial translator. (Masako and her family lived in the U.S. for years. She is a fluent English speaker.)
Middle Eastern consorts like Rania have to also watch their perception at home. Rania has been noticeably absent on the world stage IMHO since the Arab Spring of 2011.
Thanks for such a detailed post, TLLK. However, I'm not sure it belongs here.
Quote from: HistoryGirl on September 14, 2014, 02:41:02 AM
^Apparently pregnancy means you can't do any sort of work whatsoever. Oh and she has extreme morning sickness, which apparently lasts all day. Oh and her Majesty the Queen doesn't want her to do any work that's not been assigned specifically. Sorry, it's been quite a day; I simply could not help myself :happy15:
I'm going to guess that you are being facetious here. The HG will likely easy up in the next few weeks. Second trimester is typically easier on mothers. There are several photos of Kate and other royal ladies who were working through their pregnancies. :nod:
As for HM and the government approving of the charities, military work and trips undertaken by the BRF that is typical for all of the working members of the family. Other constitutional monarchies have similar policies. :)
Quote from: SophieChloe on September 14, 2014, 08:58:30 PM
Quote from: TLLK on September 14, 2014, 08:53:50 PM
Quote from: HistoryGirl on September 13, 2014, 10:40:26 PM
You're right; the English are not a modern monarchy...but what is perplexing to me is that they are dubbed as such. And simply because their role for a spouse is to stand behind the royal doesn't mean that people have to agree with it; Some might, but it's not a necessity and I happen to be one that does not.
I'd say that they are more modern than some of their counterparts ie: Japan, Middle Eastern monarchies. They've adopted the full primogeniture rule like most European houses, but their recent history (late 20th century) has made an impression. Each royal house has its own traditions and "rules."
Letizia Ortiz and Masako Owada were two well-educated and well-regarded professionals. They married into royal houses steeped in tradition which IMO had a somewhat negative effect for each lady. Letizia was not given the opportunity to undertake a solo engagement for years after marrying Felipe. I don't believe it wasn't because she couldn't handle the task, but that the royal house wanted to project a certain image. Had one of her two children been a boy, he would have been the heir no matter the birth order. The SRF requires deep curtsies from its female members. Even at her sister's memorial service a heavily pregnant Letizia dropped nearly to the floor when greeting the king. (Sofia was abroad.) Allegedly she's been told at events to stay quiet because "Everyone knows that you're intelligent."
Masako is IMHO one of the saddest stories of a modern day royal marriage. Despite Nahurito's promise to protect her, she has suffered terribly in adjusting to Imperial life. (One would have hoped that the IHA learned its lesson with Michiko's muteness due to their treatment.) This trained interpreter was not permitted to speak English to another guest but had to go through an Imperial translator. (Masako and her family lived in the U.S. for years. She is a fluent English speaker.)
Middle Eastern consorts like Rania have to also watch their perception at home. Rania has been noticeably absent on the world stage IMHO since the Arab Spring of 2011.
Thanks for such a detailed post, TLLK. However, I'm not sure it belongs here.
I disagree. HG was pointing out the descrepancies in the BRF claims to be a modern monarchy and I shared examples of other monarchies with modern ladies meeting. long standing traditions.
Quote from: TLLK on September 14, 2014, 08:55:38 PM
:goodpost: And yes I would have loved a maternity nurse at the beginning especially with the first one who gave us constant trouble when it came to feeding.
Did you only have one other child, no work, 27 staff? If not, I do not understand the comparision. I had 2, 13 months apart and held down a full time job and a home to boot.
I'm beginning to think there is something *wrong* with Kate
Quote from: TLLK on September 14, 2014, 09:03:13 PM
Quote from: SophieChloe on September 14, 2014, 08:58:30 PM
Quote from: TLLK on September 14, 2014, 08:53:50 PM
Quote from: HistoryGirl on September 13, 2014, 10:40:26 PM
You're right; the English are not a modern monarchy...but what is perplexing to me is that they are dubbed as such. And simply because their role for a spouse is to stand behind the royal doesn't mean that people have to agree with it; Some might, but it's not a necessity and I happen to be one that does not.
I'd say that they are more modern than some of their counterparts ie: Japan, Middle Eastern monarchies. They've adopted the full primogeniture rule like most European houses, but their recent history (late 20th century) has made an impression. Each royal house has its own traditions and "rules."
Letizia Ortiz and Masako Owada were two well-educated and well-regarded professionals. They married into royal houses steeped in tradition which IMO had a somewhat negative effect for each lady. Letizia was not given the opportunity to undertake a solo engagement for years after marrying Felipe. I don't believe it wasn't because she couldn't handle the task, but that the royal house wanted to project a certain image. Had one of her two children been a boy, he would have been the heir no matter the birth order. The SRF requires deep curtsies from its female members. Even at her sister's memorial service a heavily pregnant Letizia dropped nearly to the floor when greeting the king. (Sofia was abroad.) Allegedly she's been told at events to stay quiet because "Everyone knows that you're intelligent."
Masako is IMHO one of the saddest stories of a modern day royal marriage. Despite Nahurito's promise to protect her, she has suffered terribly in adjusting to Imperial life. (One would have hoped that the IHA learned its lesson with Michiko's muteness due to their treatment.) This trained interpreter was not permitted to speak English to another guest but had to go through an Imperial translator. (Masako and her family lived in the U.S. for years. She is a fluent English speaker.)
Middle Eastern consorts like Rania have to also watch their perception at home. Rania has been noticeably absent on the world stage IMHO since the Arab Spring of 2011.
Thanks for such a detailed post, TLLK. However, I'm not sure it belongs here.
I disagree. HG was pointing out the descrepancies in the BRF claims to be a modern monarchy and I shared examples of other monarchies with modern ladies meeting. long standing traditions.
OK, I understand. Maybe you would like to split the post/s and create another thread for discussion?
I have created this thread, TLLK : Modernising the British Monarchy (http://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=71818.0)
Please feel free to split and merge as you see fit :hug:
Quote from: TLLK on September 14, 2014, 09:01:39 PM
Quote from: HistoryGirl on September 14, 2014, 02:41:02 AM
^Apparently pregnancy means you can't do any sort of work whatsoever. Oh and she has extreme morning sickness, which apparently lasts all day. Oh and her Majesty the Queen doesn't want her to do any work that's not been assigned specifically. Sorry, it's been quite a day; I simply could not help myself :happy15:
I'm going to guess that you are being facetious here. The HG will likely easy up in the next few weeks. Second trimester is typically easier on mothers. There are several photos of Kate and other royal ladies who were working through their pregnancies. :nod:
As for HM and the government approving of the charities, military work and trips undertaken by the BRF that is typical for all of the working members of the family. Other constitutional monarchies have similar policies. :)
yes of coursse it is TLLK.. Any work they do has to be approved...as for her illness its variable, surely,. one can't predict how well she's going to feel int the future but then the amount of flak she' got during her last pregnancy for being ill, I seem to recollect that it was sadi she wasn't really ill etc.
Quote from: SophieChloe on September 14, 2014, 09:04:18 PM
Quote from: TLLK on September 14, 2014, 08:55:38 PM
:goodpost: And yes I would have loved a maternity nurse at the beginning especially with the first one who gave us constant trouble when it came to feeding.
Did you only have one other child, no work, 27 staff? If not, I do not understand the comparision. I had 2, 13 months apart and held down a full time job and a home to boot.
I'm beginning to think there is something *wrong* with Kate
Adrienne mentioned that many women would have loved to have a maternity nurse and I agreed. I would have liked one for the second too just to keep the first busy. If you were happy with your situation and didn't feel the need to have one that is excellent. :)
As for Kate, her situation sounds just like her fellow royal ladies (nanny, housekeeper,.) The Cambridges actually have fewer nursery staff members than other royals did with their first children. Diana opted to have a maternity nurse and a nanny at the beginning and from what I have read it was helpful.
Quote from: amabel on September 14, 2014, 09:08:07 PM
Quote from: TLLK on September 14, 2014, 09:01:39 PM
Quote from: HistoryGirl on September 14, 2014, 02:41:02 AM
^Apparently pregnancy means you can't do any sort of work whatsoever. Oh and she has extreme morning sickness, which apparently lasts all day. Oh and her Majesty the Queen doesn't want her to do any work that's not been assigned specifically. Sorry, it's been quite a day; I simply could not help myself :happy15:
I'm going to guess that you are being facetious here. The HG will likely easy up in the next few weeks. Second trimester is typically easier on mothers. There are several photos of Kate and other royal ladies who were working through their pregnancies. :nod:
As for HM and the government approving of the charities, military work and trips undertaken by the BRF that is typical for all of the working members of the family. Other constitutional monarchies have similar policies. :)
yes of coursse it is TLLK.. Any work they do has to be approved...as for her illness its variable, surely,. one can't predict how well she's going to feel int the future but then the amount of flak she' got during her last pregnancy for being ill, I seem to recollect that it was sadi she wasn't really ill etc.
I recall reading at more than one forum that there were those who believed that her HG was merely a stomach virus. :nod:
I seem to recall people saying she wasn't really pregnant or that she was lying about needing to be in hospital. the girl couldn't win, if she did any work during the pregnancy it was said that this proved she wasn't ill at all. If she did nothing, it was said that she was using the illness (or pretended illness) to avoid doing any duties....
It was the type of *work* she chose to do. Handing out gongs....really? She was as fit as a butcher's dog for a holiday in Mustique. Can you really not see a pattern emerging?
that's what royal work is. Does the Queen go to a Charity hostel and scrub floors? no, she hands out medals, goes to awards, says hello to people. that's what they do. Kate is no differnet...
Quote from: TLLK on September 14, 2014, 08:57:11 PM
Quote from: Lady Adams on September 13, 2014, 11:58:21 PM
Quote from: TLLK on September 13, 2014, 03:52:42 AM
Quote from: Lady Adams on September 13, 2014, 02:36:06 AM
^^ But that doesn't mean HM is always right. She has shown herself to be disconnected from the public before (late 80s-mid 90s).
I hardly doubt that if Kate came to her with ideas to reinvigorate her role, HM would turn her down-- after all, look at what Harry did with the Invictus Games!! HM did not tell him or ask him to do it-- he came to her, and by all accounts, they've already been a great success!
Oh HM is just like any other human being. Sometimes she's right and other times not. Harry's involvement with Invictus was perfect for a member of the nation's military. William has his conservation program. Kate has the children's hospice. IMHO these are safe, government and palace approved. Anything that would challenge official government positions is not likely to be permitted or encouraged in a constitutional monarchy.
I think we can hardly compare Kate's patronage in the children's hospice or William's conservation program to the Invictus Games.
The Invictis Games were a new program, and involved global participants, including high profile guest (SLOTUS, for one) at the peak of diplomacy. This new-to-the-UK and expanded program is one which required ingenuity, and campaigning (for approval from HM and funding).
What I meant is that HM is not going to come up with new ideas for William, Kate or Harry to do-- she's in a role of tradition. Rather, Kate could (like Harry) come up with a new idea to invigorate her role, and pitch it to HM. HM has shown, through the Invictus Games, she's open to these ideas.
The scale of it ...No. Branching into a new charity area for the BRF...yes.
New charity area? TLLK, you are often looking at the BRF with a long history lens, I'm surprised you think hospice or conservation are *new* charities! Prince Phillip champions wildlife conservation, and Princess Diana took hospice under her patronages.
Kate is hardly introducing new ideas and invigorating her role. Harry has done it successfully, and she would be wise to do the same. What about pairing Olympic athletes up with children with SportsAid for a mini-lypimics and make it an annual event with a evening fundraiser gala (we know Kate loves them and they get lots of media attention). Or what about as part of Place2Be's art therapy: the kiddos could paint canvases, and Kate could add some of her framed & signed photos-- then they could do an online auction for Place2Be.
Those two examples are just off the top of my head. Surely, if Kate looked at Harry's creative idea for these Games, she could be inspired to do something differently-- and pitch it to the Queen. We've seen that the Queen, despite being a tradtionalist, is open to these new ideas... Why not take advantage of having so many resources and convening power?
Personally, if they're going to claim she has HG again, then I'm glad we won't be seeing her very much this time around. The reason why it was so hard to believe she had it with George was because she was doing things like going to Cirque de Solei for her birthday, and Mustique, and cancelling some of her engagements that were maybe not as much "fun" or things that she wouldn't want to do.
So this time around, I think that if they want to go with her having HG, they (the palace PR) know that Kate can't been seen picking and choosing when she has it.
I mean, that's what I would do. I don't believe she had HG with George, and I doubt she has it now, but if I were her adviser and had control I would basically make it so she wasn't seen at all until the last half of her pregnancy. So no charity visits, no shopping trips, no vacations, no galas, etc. She'd be home, sick in bed. Because otherwise I'd be making her get her ass out of the house and back to her duties.
Do you really think that Kate's a thinker on those lines? She does just about what's expected of her and cleary has little interest in the charity side of the job...
Double post auto-merged: September 14, 2014, 09:35:50 PM
Quote from: Lothwen on September 14, 2014, 09:34:26 PM
Personally, if they're going to claim she has HG again, then I'm glad we won't be seeing her very much this time around. The reason why it was so hard to believe she had it with George was because she was doing things like going to Cirque de Solei for her birthday, and Mustique, and cancelling some of her engagements that were maybe not as much "fun" or things that she wouldn't want to do.
So this time around, I think that if they want to go with her having HG, they (the palace PR) know that Kate can't been seen picking and choosing when she has it.
I mean, that's what I would do. I don't believe she had HG with George, and I doubt she has it now, but if I were her adviser and had control I would basically make it so she wasn't seen at all until the last half of her pregnancy. So no charity visits, no shopping trips, no vacations, no galas, etc. She'd be home, sick in bed. Because otherwise I'd be making her get her ass out of the house and back to her duties.
so the hosptila was lying when they said that she was in hopstial for HG and that she hadn't been rrecthing???
[mod]I have created this thread to discuss Modernising the Monarchy : Modernising the British Monarchy (http://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=71818.msg1302844#msg1302844)
Please keep on track... :hug:[/mod]
@amabel - Honesty? Where W&K are concerned I believe Nutting!
Quote from: TLLK on September 14, 2014, 09:11:28 PMDiana opted to have a maternity nurse and a nanny at the beginning and from what I have read it was helpful.
Diana was working.
Quote from: amabel on September 14, 2014, 09:35:00 PM
Do you really think that Kate's a thinker on those lines? She does just about what's expected of her and cleary has little interest in the charity side of the job...
Double post auto-merged: September 14, 2014, 09:35:50 PM
Quote from: Lothwen on September 14, 2014, 09:34:26 PM
Personally, if they're going to claim she has HG again, then I'm glad we won't be seeing her very much this time around. The reason why it was so hard to believe she had it with George was because she was doing things like going to Cirque de Solei for her birthday, and Mustique, and cancelling some of her engagements that were maybe not as much "fun" or things that she wouldn't want to do.
So this time around, I think that if they want to go with her having HG, they (the palace PR) know that Kate can't been seen picking and choosing when she has it.
I mean, that's what I would do. I don't believe she had HG with George, and I doubt she has it now, but if I were her adviser and had control I would basically make it so she wasn't seen at all until the last half of her pregnancy. So no charity visits, no shopping trips, no vacations, no galas, etc. She'd be home, sick in bed. Because otherwise I'd be making her get her ass out of the house and back to her duties.
so the hosptila was lying when they said that she was in hopstial for HG and that she hadn't been rrecthing???
I don't recall the hospital issuing any sort of statement for what Kate was in the hospital for. The palace said that, and initially so did many of the reporters, but after a while they reverted back to calling it "Acute Morning Sickness."
I've read accounts from women who suffered from HG. It's terrible. It's not something that's diagnosed right away. When Kate was pregnant with George, she was shown playing field hockey and looked fine. Two days later, she drives herself to the hospital, in London (even though she was visiting her parents in Berkshire), and a few hours later she's diagnosed with HG. I believe that when she went into the hospital it was because she had a bad case of morning sickness, and that the doctors and nurses told her that they were going to keep an eye on her because it
could manifest into HG, and I think that the Palace PR just ran with the story, because it was a great way to excuse Kate from doing any more work.
@Lothwen Sometimes I think I'm going crazy...... :eyes: :crazylove:
Quote from: amabel on September 14, 2014, 09:32:50 PM
that's what royal work is. Does the Queen go to a Charity hostel and scrub floors? no, she hands out medals, goes to awards, says hello to people. that's what they do. Kate is no differnet...
HM does what she needs to do. She does not cry off with excuse after excuse ....It's getting rather boring now. Next excuse?....
Quote from: Lothwen on September 14, 2014, 09:54:25 PM
I don't recall the hospital issuing any sort of statement for what Kate was in the hospital for. The palace said that, and initially so did many of the reporters, but after a while they reverted back to calling it "Acute Morning Sickness."
I've read accounts from women who suffered from HG. It's terrible. It's not something that's diagnosed right away. When Kate was pregnant with George, she was shown playing field hockey and looked fine. Two days later, she drives herself to the hospital, in London (even though she was visiting her parents in Berkshire), and a few hours later she's diagnosed with HG. I believe that when she went into the hospital it was because she had a bad case of morning sickness, and that the doctors and nurses told her that they were going to keep an eye on her because it could manifest into HG, and I think that the Palace PR just ran with the story, because it was a great way to excuse Kate from doing any more work.
HG is said to come on quickly, so I can certainly believe Kate was fine one day and then ill the next. And actually, it was William who drove her to the hospital. And while the hospital issued no reports about her, I can't imagine someone at the Palace would have made up a story about her having HG. How many at the Palace would have had knowledge of HG to make up a story? As far as it later being called Acute Morning Sickness, that's probably what it was, once the HG was somewhat under control.
Cindy
She's spoilt and needs to grow the hell up.
@cinrit, the initial reports were that she drove herself, and that William had been on vacation with his friends.
^^ Yes, that's what the initial reports from the Daily Mail were. As it turned out, William was hunting with friends nearby, and he drove her to the hospital.
QuoteWorried Prince William drove Kate to the King Edward VII Hospital where she was diagnosed with hyperemesis gravidarum – a severe type of morning sickness.
Kate Middleton pregnant: Duchess of Cambridge to be in hospital for several days with hyperemesis gravidarum - Mirror Online (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/kate-middleton-pregnant-duchess-of-cambridge-1471674)
Cindy
Quote from: SophieChloe on September 14, 2014, 10:01:35 PM
Quote from: amabel on September 14, 2014, 09:32:50 PM
that's what royal work is. Does the Queen go to a Charity hostel and scrub floors? no, she hands out medals, goes to awards, says hello to people. that's what they do. Kate is no differnet...
HM does what she needs to do. She does not cry off with excuse after excuse ....It's getting rather boring now. Next excuse?....
I think HM is a couple years past the possibility of suffering from HG. Now when her back or her knees acted up (like several times this year) she has had Charles and William fill in. People do get sick.
She and her 90+yr old husband have more than proven that they are dedicated work minded people, if they need a break and send others in their place at times it is more than justifiable. They work more in a week that Kate has in the past year.
I also don't believe she faked HG, I don't know enough about it nor was she visible enough to make a logical conclusion on what was going on. I also don't want to believe that a lie would be told in that situation.
If Kate suffers from HG, I'm surprised she didn't do anything after her last pregnancy to draw attention to it. A PSA or fundraiser, or spotlight on NHS would have been a wonderful way to acknowledge other women aren't as fortunate as her (ie can't take off work without losing their salary, don't get private doctors, etc).
AND to help others, but asking anything of Kate is asking too much.
I actually think that dwindling the number of charities and having the young royals paying much more attention to those few is the way to go. That'll lower the amount of money that apparently they can't afford for public engagements and Kate and the others can actually be of use to the charities they choose.
Quote from: TLLK on September 14, 2014, 09:03:13 PM
Quote from: SophieChloe on September 14, 2014, 08:58:30 PM
Quote from: TLLK on September 14, 2014, 08:53:50 PM
Quote from: HistoryGirl on September 13, 2014, 10:40:26 PM
You're right; the English are not a modern monarchy...but what is perplexing to me is that they are dubbed as such. And simply because their role for a spouse is to stand behind the royal doesn't mean that people have to agree with it; Some might, but it's not a necessity and I happen to be one that does not.
I'd say that they are more modern than some of their counterparts ie: Japan, Middle Eastern monarchies. They've adopted the full primogeniture rule like most European houses, but their recent history (late 20th century) has made an impression. Each royal house has its own traditions and "rules."
Letizia Ortiz and Masako Owada were two well-educated and well-regarded professionals. They married into royal houses steeped in tradition which IMO had a somewhat negative effect for each lady. Letizia was not given the opportunity to undertake a solo engagement for years after marrying Felipe. I don't believe it wasn't because she couldn't handle the task, but that the royal house wanted to project a certain image. Had one of her two children been a boy, he would have been the heir no matter the birth order. The SRF requires deep curtsies from its female members. Even at her sister's memorial service a heavily pregnant Letizia dropped nearly to the floor when greeting the king. (Sofia was abroad.) Allegedly she's been told at events to stay quiet because "Everyone knows that you're intelligent."
Masako is IMHO one of the saddest stories of a modern day royal marriage. Despite Nahurito's promise to protect her, she has suffered terribly in adjusting to Imperial life. (One would have hoped that the IHA learned its lesson with Michiko's muteness due to their treatment.) This trained interpreter was not permitted to speak English to another guest but had to go through an Imperial translator. (Masako and her family lived in the U.S. for years. She is a fluent English speaker.)
Middle Eastern consorts like Rania have to also watch their perception at home. Rania has been noticeably absent on the world stage IMHO since the Arab Spring of 2011.
Thanks for such a detailed post, TLLK. However, I'm not sure it belongs here.
I disagree. HG was pointing out the descrepancies in the BRF claims to be a modern monarchy and I shared examples of other monarchies with modern ladies meeting. long standing traditions.
Can the BRF be defended using the BRF? I missed the press report where Japanese Emperor claimed to be modern... And, Rania twirls light years away in terms of modernization versus the BRF with their outdated websites and existing for the sole purpose of cutting ribbons and waving...
Quote from: Lady Adams on September 14, 2014, 11:15:02 PM
If Kate suffers from HG, I'm surprised she didn't do anything after her last pregnancy to draw attention to it. A PSA or fundraiser, or spotlight on NHS would have been a wonderful way to acknowledge it.
That requires initiative, courage and sincerity. She had the means to do so, and if she does have HG, maybe it is indicative of her nature to coast on the minimum or maybe she enjoys a subordinate role? I have no idea anymore.
I've always been under the impression that it's probably the latter. Which suits the BRF perfectly, sadly enough.
Quote from: HistoryGirl on September 14, 2014, 11:28:56 PM
I've always been under the impression that it's probably the latter. Which suits the BRF perfectly, sadly enough.
I've had the same feeling. One of the reasons I wholeheartedly agreed with your assertion that they are not the modern monarchy that they are trying to project.
I wonder what would happen if the Queen and Prince Charles decided to add monetary incentive rather than "gifting" properties and doling out allowances. That would certainly light some fires under people's posteriors!
Ha! Now that would be something. I'd surely admire that. It would bode well with the people. Kate seems so unsure of herself in public. She relies very heavily on William as if without him she's like a duckling without its mother. Her charities could be a way to get past that, but that's where the Firm come into play...I just don't think they'd like that at all. i think they want to keep the spouses down at a level where they're not threatening to their family's popularity which is odd considering the people marrying in would be a great selling point for their hoopla.
^^ But she could supplement her small number of public royal engagements by doing other things that have an impact publicly, but don't require leaving KP (or Amner...or Bucklebury), like an online auction I suggested upthread (http://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=69982.msg1302860#msg1302860).
A little creativity and commitment goes a long way.
^True and that'd be fabulous...but then we're back to the whole "does she actually have any commitment" argument lol I think she's fine just doing nothing and being his wife and a mother and obviously that's cool with the Queen otherwise it wouldn't be happening cause I don't buy that William and Kate run things. Which is what I find sad about the entire scenario.
^ Very well said, HG.
Again for HG. And can I add my tired old post.
It is has it ahs be and will be.
Done deal!!!!
10 ,more years of this at least.
QEII has a good 10 years left.
KC anbd QC , esp QC,will not have to worry about PK jumping in her spotlight.
Quote from: Lady Adams on September 14, 2014, 11:15:02 PM
If Kate suffers from HG, I'm surprised she didn't do anything after her last pregnancy to draw attention to it. A PSA or fundraiser, or spotlight on NHS would have been a wonderful way to acknowledge other women aren't as fortunate as her (ie can't take off work without losing their salary, don't get private doctors, etc).
HG isn't a chronic illness. It happens to about 2% of pregnant women. I'm not sure how highlighting it could be of benefit to women who are already pregnant or trying to get pregnant.
Cindy
It could go a long way towards generating more sympathy for morning sickness and other conditions affecting pregnant women.
Quote from: cinrit on September 15, 2014, 01:15:02 AM
Quote from: Lady Adams on September 14, 2014, 11:15:02 PM
If Kate suffers from HG, I'm surprised she didn't do anything after her last pregnancy to draw attention to it. A PSA or fundraiser, or spotlight on NHS would have been a wonderful way to acknowledge other women aren't as fortunate as her (ie can't take off work without losing their salary, don't get private doctors, etc).
HG isn't a chronic illness. It happens to about 2% of pregnant women. I'm not sure how highlighting it could be of benefit to women who are already pregnant or trying to get pregnant.
Cindy
Well, it doesn't need to focus on just HG...Kate could also do something like promoting NHS maternity wards, since they deal with everything from HG to premie babies. I'm sure Sophie would encourage her to help! Or she could focus on maternity care charity like Maternity Action. (http://www.maternityaction.org.uk/wp/)
I think it's about the recognition that if she has HG, this may be the most horrific thing of her life, but she is very fortunate. She can take time off work and has a staff to help her and take care of her son. By supporting NHS or a charity, she could draw from her personal experience and knowledge of its importance, and recognition that she is fortunate to have resources not everyone in her country has.
(For anyone wondering, from Maternity Action's website: "Maternity Action is the UK's leading charity committed to ending inequality and improving the health and well-being of pregnant women, partners and young children – from conception through to the child's early years.")
Quote from: cinrit on September 15, 2014, 01:15:02 AMHG isn't a chronic illness. It happens to about 2% of pregnant women. I'm not sure how highlighting it could be of benefit to women who are already pregnant or trying to get pregnant.
Cindy
Woah woah woah! Wait a minute! Are you wrong, is this 2% of women in the UK, or is this world-wide? I don't want to rain on a few parades, but the populous weighs on the probability unless this is an ethnic genotype. This is starting to sound a little.....
I may have to read up on this a little more, but this does give leeway to some apprehensions.
Cindy is pretty close.
QuoteThe reported incidence of hyperemesis gravidarum is 0.3 to 1.0%; this condition is characterized by persistent vomiting, weight loss of more than 5%, ketonuria, electrolyte abnormalities (hypokalemia), and dehydration (high urine specific gravity)."
http://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/730520
^^^Thanks, Macro.^^^
Read these:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2144788/pdf/canfamphys00030-0069.pdf
Recurrence of hyperemesis gravidarum across generations: population based cohort study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2862151/)
And one confirming its recurrence and upped severity for the second pregnancy.
Not much on the origins, but it is kind of interesting. I wonder if it might have been a bottleneck, segregated population that led to the mutation. It's a really REALLY small percentage, which is so strange. Forgive me, geekin' on genetics. It happens.
I don't think genetics are a big factor. I haven't read much on that being the case. But I have pulled up some articles from the Canadian OB/GYN society and I will let you know what I find.
Granted, there's still not a lot of information on it, there are genetic indicators, or at least that is what is being purported by some.
You don't have to, but much appreciated.
EDIT: I might have to mill through a couple more studies that I have bookmarked at another point. It's late, unfortunately.
Daisy - I read the one article you posted and my biggest concern is that Quebec is not genetic entity. I think where they are going with it is the idea of "pur laine" a Quebec ideology of being pure Quebecoise. Which again, is not genetic or racial. Being born from outside of Quebec doesn't mean the women are necessarily genetically different. WHAT I could see is a social difference. A different view of pregnancy based of the womans background.
And yes. It is late. I have already fallen asleep reading the forum once tonight. It was a lovely 2 hour nap. Now......wide awake :Lothwen:
Not the article I'm referring to. I have two in queue that I need to go through.
Quote from: Limabeany on September 15, 2014, 01:17:31 AM
It could go a long way towards generating more sympathy for morning sickness and other conditions affecting pregnant women.
why? Having it does not seme to have gained her much sympaty
Double post auto-merged: September 15, 2014, 06:14:22 AM
Quote from: HistoryGirl on September 14, 2014, 11:39:29 PM
Ha! Now that would be something. I'd surely admire that. It would bode well with the people. Kate seems so unsure of herself in public. She relies very heavily on William as if without him she's like a duckling without its mother. Her charities could be a way to get past that, but that's where the Firm come into play...I just don't think they'd like that at all. i think they want to keep the spouses down at a level where they're not threatening to their family's popularity which is odd considering the people marrying in would be a great selling point for their hoopla.
Yeah they had one wife who DID overshadow her husband greatly, who then left the RF in such a way that she did a lot of damage. I think that Kate could do more, but she'sd clearly NOT a very interesting person and not a natural charity worker. So I think she is doing a modest amount and the RF are happy with that, because they would rather someone who don't cause trouble, who did a small amount of work but didn't' do more and then cause major waves and leave many of her charities when she left the RF.
Double post auto-merged: September 15, 2014, 06:25:05 AM
Quote from: cinrit on September 14, 2014, 10:02:30 PM
Quote from: Lothwen on September 14, 2014, 09:54:25 PM
I don't recall the hospital issuing any sort of statement for what Kate was in the hospital for. The palace said that, and initially so did many of the reporters, but after a while they reverted back to calling it "Acute Morning Sickness."
I've read accounts from women who suffered from HG. It's terrible. It's not something that's diagnosed right away. When Kate was pregnant with George, she was shown playing field hockey and looked fine. Two days later, she drives herself to the hospital, in London (even though she was visiting her parents in Berkshire), and a few hours later she's diagnosed with HG. I believe that when she went into the hospital it was because she had a bad case of morning sickness, and that the doctors and nurses told her that they were going to keep an eye on her because it could manifest into HG, and I think that the Palace PR just ran with the story, because it was a great way to excuse Kate from doing any more work.
HG is said to come on quickly, so I can certainly believe Kate was fine one day and then ill the next. And actually, it was William who drove her to the hospital. And while the hospital issued no reports about her, I can't imagine someone at the Palace would have made up a story about her having HG. How many at the Palace would have had knowledge of HG to make up a story? As far as it later being called Acute Morning Sickness, that's probably what it was, once the HG was somewhat under control.
Cindy
no it didn't issue a report, but the nurses talking to the DJ made her symptoms quite clear. If they were all lying they were pretty dedicated to their role, since they thoguth they were talking to the queen and Even though in this scenario the queen must have known there was nothing wrong with Kate, she still rang the hospstial and they still kept up the fiction that Kate was ill. This is just Kate bashing.. and I'm out!!
^I understand that they're fine with it and that Kate doesn't care about much...its what I said.
I dont think doing a psa on HG or anything else related to it is such a good idea if indeed a very rare few suffer from it. And anything else in relation to motherhood might come off as a little condescending especially for working mothers and mothers who don't have nannies etc. The one good thing Kate did last year was show her still swollen belly.
Quote from: amabel on September 15, 2014, 06:11:26 AM
Quote from: Limabeany on September 15, 2014, 01:17:31 AM
It could go a long way towards generating more sympathy for morning sickness and other conditions affecting pregnant women.
why? Having it does not seme to have gained her much sympaty
Her leisure lifestyle is what hasn't gained her much sympathy.
^^ Neither has the fact that she has HG, in some quarters. There are still those who don't believe she has it. Would her speaking publicly about it convince them?
Cindy
A picture of her retching would do, in a royal duty that is.
Quote from: cinrit on September 15, 2014, 11:43:54 AM
^^ Neither has the fact that she has HG, in some quarters. There are still those who don't believe she has it. Would her speaking publicly about it convince them?
Cindy
Remember this March, when Sophie had tears when she spoke about her gratitude for the hospital who saved her life and Louise's? In my opinion, personal experiences shine through when doing events that person cares about. My suggestion is that Kate do an event or patronage that works with maternity care, not as a way of "proving" she has HG, but rarher as a way of recognizing there are still many dangers to expectant mothers and unborn babies-- and not everyone has the resources Kate does. That kind of empathy-- which Sophie showed-- is one of great wisdom: showing that out of your suffering, you can do a lot of good.
Quote from: cinrit on September 15, 2014, 01:15:02 AM
Quote from: Lady Adams on September 14, 2014, 11:15:02 PM
If Kate suffers from HG, I'm surprised she didn't do anything after her last pregnancy to draw attention to it. A PSA or fundraiser, or spotlight on NHS would have been a wonderful way to acknowledge other women aren't as fortunate as her (ie can't take off work without losing their salary, don't get private doctors, etc).
HG isn't a chronic illness. It happens to about 2% of pregnant women. I'm not sure how highlighting it could be of benefit to women who are already pregnant or trying to get pregnant.
Cindy
I have to agree Cindy. Bringing attention to an issue that affects a wider section of the population would be more practical IMO> TBH I believe it would be like asking Sophie to highlight ectopic pregnancies which is fortunately not that common. Kate and William are already involved with child/parent bereavement which would include those parents who loose a child through miscarriage. Now if a member of the BRF were to highlight issues that were a little more common to expectant mothers and their developing children ie: gestational diabetes, need for good nutrition and folic acid supplements etc..I could see that would be an excellent program to promote :thumbsup:
Quote from: wannable on September 15, 2014, 12:55:03 PM
A picture of her retching would do, in a royal duty that is.
TMI!!!! :eyes: :o I'll skip that photo. :nod:
Excellent points amabel! :thumbsup:
Quote from: TLLK on September 15, 2014, 04:42:54 PM
Quote from: cinrit on September 15, 2014, 01:15:02 AM
Quote from: Lady Adams on September 14, 2014, 11:15:02 PM
If Kate suffers from HG, I'm surprised she didn't do anything after her last pregnancy to draw attention to it. A PSA or fundraiser, or spotlight on NHS would have been a wonderful way to acknowledge other women aren't as fortunate as her (ie can't take off work without losing their salary, don't get private doctors, etc).
HG isn't a chronic illness. It happens to about 2% of pregnant women. I'm not sure how highlighting it could be of benefit to women who are already pregnant or trying to get pregnant.
Cindy
I have to agree Cindy. Bringing attention to an issue that affects a wider section of the population would be more practical IMO> TBH I believe it would be like asking Sophie to highlight ectopic pregnancies which is fortunately not that common. Kate and William are already involved with child/parent bereavement which would include those parents who loose a child through miscarriage. Now if a member of the BRF were to highlight issues that were a little more common to expectant mothers and their developing children ie: gestational diabetes, need for good nutrition and folic acid supplements etc..I could see that would be an excellent program to promote :thumbsup:
@TLLK did you miss my post about Kate supporting the NHS or other maternity charities? I wrote about it upthread here (http://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=69982.msg1302963#msg1302963). I wasn't suggesting she focus all on HG, but using her personal experience with two difficult pregnancies could make for an impactful patronage.
Quote from: Lady Adams on September 15, 2014, 04:06:35 PM
Quote from: cinrit on September 15, 2014, 11:43:54 AM
^^ Neither has the fact that she has HG, in some quarters. There are still those who don't believe she has it. Would her speaking publicly about it convince them?
Cindy
Remember this March, when Sophie had tears when she spoke about her gratitude for the hospital who saved her life and Louise's? In my opinion, personal experiences shine through when doing events that person cares about. My suggestion is that Kate do an event or patronage that works with maternity care, not as a way of "proving" she has HG, but rarher as a way of recognizing there are still many dangers to expectant mothers and unborn babies-- and not everyone has the resources Kate does. That kind of empathy-- which Sophie showed-- is one of great wisdom: showing that out of your suffering, you can do a lot of good.
Totally agree. Idk why the idea of bringing awareness to maternity issues would be negative if they included more than HG. The fact that suggesting a level of empathy or interest from Kate other than something having to do with shopping for clothes for her and George is thought of as "too much" speaks volumes. I guess it is too much to ask for someone to have any level of concern other than wifely duties from someone that has no interest in helping.
And before the criticisms come of me saying that "wifely" duties aren't important, I'll say that it's not that at all considering my own mother is a homemaker after she married...but then again my mom worked prior to that as well. It's about the fact that someone with a full time nanny and a husband that supposedly works would have time on her hands and it would be nice if she actually had more of an initiative in other areas that didnt have to do with public duties. And before the other criticism comes in that she has HG and she is physically bound to a bed, let me just say that this was a critique I had even before she was pregnant.
whoa. Before we throw Kate under the bus and praise Sophie for her show of empathy, lets remember that Sophie was invited to open the neonatal unit 10 years after the fact. Sophie isn't raising awareness for the medical issues she went through. She is acknowledging the wonderful work that the hospital did. All very worthy activities. But she hasn't been campaigning relentlessly. It has been only one year since George was born. For all we know, something is in the works for Kate and HG awareness. Maybe not. But maybe we should give her the same time gap that was displayed by Sophie.
BTW none of this is criticism towards Sophie. I think she is great. I think is was wonderful that she opened the unit. And I think that the emotion she showed at the opening was truly heartfelt.
I just don't think it is fair to use this event to try to paint Kate in a bad light considering it is so different.
I do think that supporting maternal and child health is a great idea for Kate in the future. And supporting NHS.
^Macro, I don't think anyone is throwing Kate under the bus. What I am and have been suggesting is that she get involved in a maternal care charity or the NHS. It is clearly something that she identifies with, and it would be good to see her give back in a personal way.
If pointing out ways to expand Kate's role, and praising other Royals as examples, is "throwing Kate under the bus," .... that is disapointing.
I must quibble with your statement though, on a second point: it did not, in fact, take Sophie ten years to get involved: she has been patron of the Royal Hospital of London, Leed's Children's Hospital, and Toronoto General Hospital for quite some time. She is also an honorary fellow of the Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists.
Quote from: HistoryGirl on September 15, 2014, 05:17:10 PM
Idk why the idea of bringing awareness to maternity issues would be negative if they included more than HG.
Just a mention that no one has said bringing awareness to maternity issues would be a negative thing.
Cindy
LA thanks for the list. I wondered if she was but didn't know. I am not surprised because Sophie is all kinds of wonderful.
But was she involved with all of that within the first 3 years of marriage? I am willing to give Kate time before comparing her to others who have been around a lot longer. Lets compare Kate to what the others were doing at year 3 of royal life.
^Macro, Sophie worked full-time at her PR firm during her first three years of marriage before becoming a full-time royal.
Also, Sophie is not a future Queen Consort, nor is she receiving a home from the taxpayer free of rent (the Wessexes pay 90,000/year for their home, Bagshot Park).
It seems I cannot compare Kate to anyone: not other European Crown Princesses because Kate is the wife if the heir-to-the-heir, and now other women in the BRF are, by your standard, not viable for comparison.
@Macrobug, Who do you think is most appropriate to compare Kate's charity work to?
Sophie is indeed pretty great, and she's associated with a variety of maternal health initiatives (including one related to infant mortality and low birth weight, and as others have mentioned several hospitals and the Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists).
Kate may get involved with similar causes over time, as Sophie did. Or it might be decided that maternal health is an issue that "belongs" to Sophie, and Kate will focus elsewhere. The BRF does try to spread its patronages around, and there are particular issues that tend to be associated with a particular Royal. Sophie has shown a real interest in maternal and children's health, and I would not be surprised if Kate largely stays away from that area (with the exception of her hospice work) as a result.
Quote from: Lady Adams on September 15, 2014, 04:53:31 PM
Quote from: TLLK on September 15, 2014, 04:42:54 PM
Quote from: cinrit on September 15, 2014, 01:15:02 AM
Quote from: Lady Adams on September 14, 2014, 11:15:02 PM
If Kate suffers from HG, I'm surprised she didn't do anything after her last pregnancy to draw attention to it. A PSA or fundraiser, or spotlight on NHS would have been a wonderful way to acknowledge other women aren't as fortunate as her (ie can't take off work without losing their salary, don't get private doctors, etc).
HG isn't a chronic illness. It happens to about 2% of pregnant women. I'm not sure how highlighting it could be of benefit to women who are already pregnant or trying to get pregnant.
Cindy
I have to agree Cindy. Bringing attention to an issue that affects a wider section of the population would be more practical IMO> TBH I believe it would be like asking Sophie to highlight ectopic pregnancies which is fortunately not that common. Kate and William are already involved with child/parent bereavement which would include those parents who loose a child through miscarriage. Now if a member of the BRF were to highlight issues that were a little more common to expectant mothers and their developing children ie: gestational diabetes, need for good nutrition and folic acid supplements etc..I could see that would be an excellent program to promote :thumbsup:
@TLLK did you miss my post about Kate supporting the NHS or other maternity charities? I wrote about it upthread here (http://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=69982.msg1302963#msg1302963). I wasn't suggesting she focus all on HG, but using her personal experience with two difficult pregnancies could make for an impactful patronage.
:blush: Oh my yes I did.
LA. We are obviously not on the same page. Compare Kate, if you wish. But at the same time frames. It is unfair to take, for example, Anne now and compare Kate. Or even Camilla now. Lets look at where they were at when they were 3 years into royal life, then compare.
But then again maybe we can't do it because every situation and woman is different. Maybe it is completely unfair to all of them to do a comparison when they all have different roles.
Quote from: Lady Adams on September 15, 2014, 09:34:03 PM
^Macro, Sophie worked full-time at her PR firm during her first three years of marriage before becoming a full-time royal.
Also, Sophie is not a future Queen Consort, nor is she receiving a home from the taxpayer free of rent (the Wessexes pay 90,000/year for their home, Bagshot Park).
It seems I cannot compare Kate to anyone: not other European Crown Princesses because Kate is the wife if the heir-to-the-heir, and now other women in the BRF are, by your standard, not viable for comparison. @Macrobug, Who do you think is most appropriate to compare Kate's charity work to?
I know question was for Macrobug, but I would compare Kate in her current role as wife of the heir-to-the-heir to the siblings of a crown prince/princess or part of the wider group of siblings,cousins, etc...spouses in large families ie: Jordan. Close to the throne but not there yet. IMHO Rania in the years prior to becoming Crown Princess of Jordan would be a good comparison match for expectations. Each had a spouse in the military/civil service who does part time royal work. While Uncle Hassan was the official CP from the time that Abdullah was in elementary school to just before King Hussein's death, who knows what was truly going to happen. The late King Hussein could have chosen any one of his sons to replace his brother, but he chose the eldest who had been the previous title holder. IMO he saw the potential in this team.
Quote from: Macrobug on September 15, 2014, 09:57:40 PM
LA. We are obviously not on the same page. Compare Kate, if you wish. But at the same time frames. It is unfair to take, for example, Anne now and compare Kate. Or even Camilla now. Lets look at where they were at when they were 3 years into royal life, then compare.
But then again maybe we can't do it because every situation and woman is different. Maybe it is completely unfair to all of them to do a comparison when they all have different roles.
I don't see anything really changing for awhile unless Charles' reign begins or his father is incapacitated/deceased and William is called up to the Major Leagues. Until then it is QEII's reign and if she wants the work done by her children/their spouses then so be it.
I think you're right that it's hard to compare any two individuals. Kate, for example, is going to give birth to two children in her first four years as a senior Royal (and is ill for at least a month or two at the beginning of each pregnancy); she's also stepping into the most high-profile "wife" role in the BRF, with Diana (and all of the trouble too many engagements too soon caused there) as her immediate predecessor. Her first few years are very different than Camilla's (who didn't have the children issue, but did have PR reasons to tread a very careful path) and Sophie's (who worked for the first three, and got caught in a big scandal in relation to that, and who had one ectopic pregnancy and gave birth to one child in that same period). Camilla and Sophie (and Diana and Fergie) married full-time Royals; Will was in the RAF the first two years of their marriage and is now returning to a public service job.
People can of course have their own views on what Kate should be doing. But IMO, it's been handled pretty well so far. I look to 2012 (the only full year on record, since she married in partway through 2011 and was out for a big chunk of 2013 with George's birth and immediately after), when she did about 120 engagements -- that seems like a good number to me when Will is not yet full-time and there are a lot of senior Royals sharing the duties. She obviously does much less when pregnant or on maternity leave, but giving birth to and raising the next generation of Royals is part of the job as well, and one that I think the BRF is happy to have her concentrate on right now.
I think she'll spend the next few years at about the 100-120 level, and will increase her duties when HM/DoE have to cut back/Will becomes a full-time Royal/the children are a bit older (which I think is likely to coincide, and is what the family is planning for). In the meantime, I think she'll continue to be deployed for foreign tours, and will focus on her current patronages and gradually adding new ones at a rate where she can be reasonably involved with each.
Double post auto-merged: September 15, 2014, 10:15:43 PM
To add to my prediction on her work numbers: Kate is currently at 78 engagements for the year, and by my count would have been over 90 by the end of this week had she not had to cancel several scheduled appearances (potentially including the Malta trip) because of her HG. Without the pregnancy, then, she would certainly have topped 100. Again, the 100-120 range is what I think we'll see in her non-pregnancy/maternity leave years until Will becomes a full-time Royal, and I think that's a pretty good area for her to be aiming for.
Quote from: Lady Adams on September 15, 2014, 09:34:03 PM
^Macro, Sophie worked full-time at her PR firm during her first three years of marriage before becoming a full-time royal.
Also, Sophie is not a future Queen Consort, nor is she receiving a home from the taxpayer free of rent (the Wessexes pay 90,000/year for their home, Bagshot Park).
It seems I cannot compare Kate to anyone: not other European Crown Princesses because Kate is the wife if the heir-to-the-heir, and now other women in the BRF are, by your standard, not viable for comparison. @Macrobug, Who do you think is most appropriate to compare Kate's charity work to?
I agree with the entire post. Sophie was a pt royal because she was a full time career woman. It s3ems everyone in the RF has more work ethic than Kate, exept perhaps Camilla who did nothing during her first marriage. But every time Kate is compared to others the excuse is, you can't compare her to Mary because she is next in line to be Queen, you can't compare her to Sophie because she is the wife of the sQueen's son, can't compare her to Letizia, Masako, Raina, of Mette Marit the working mother who also went to school.
Quote from: TLLK on September 15, 2014, 10:02:49 PM
Quote from: Lady Adams on September 15, 2014, 09:34:03 PM
^Macro, Sophie worked full-time at her PR firm during her first three years of marriage before becoming a full-time royal.
Also, Sophie is not a future Queen Consort, nor is she receiving a home from the taxpayer free of rent (the Wessexes pay 90,000/year for their home, Bagshot Park).
It seems I cannot compare Kate to anyone: not other European Crown Princesses because Kate is the wife if the heir-to-the-heir, and now other women in the BRF are, by your standard, not viable for comparison. @Macrobug, Who do you think is most appropriate to compare Kate's charity work to?
I know question was for Macrobug, but I would compare Kate in her current role as wife of the heir-to-the-heir to the siblings of a crown prince/princess or part of the wider group of siblings,cousins, etc...spouses in large families ie: Jordan. Close to the throne but not there yet. IMHO Rania in the years prior to becoming Crown Princess of Jordan would be a good comparison match for expectations. Each had a spouse in the military/civil service who does part time royal work. While Uncle Hassan was the official CP from the time that Abdullah was in elementary school to just before King Hussein's death, who knows what was truly going to happen. The late King Hussein could have chosen any one of his sons to replace his brother, but he chose the eldest who had been the previous title holder. IMO he saw the potential in this team.
I see the point you're making,
@TLLK, but Rania-- nor the Jordanian public, never expected her to be Queen. How would it be appropriate to compare early Rania's work with Kate's?
Quote from: Lady Adams on September 15, 2014, 04:06:35 PM
Quote from: cinrit on September 15, 2014, 11:43:54 AM
^^ Neither has the fact that she has HG, in some quarters. There are still those who don't believe she has it. Would her speaking publicly about it convince them?
Cindy
Remember this March, when Sophie had tears when she spoke about her gratitude for the hospital who saved her life and Louise's? In my opinion, personal experiences shine through when doing events that person cares about. My suggestion is that Kate do an event or patronage that works with maternity care, not as a way of "proving" she has HG, but rarher as a way of recognizing there are still many dangers to expectant mothers and unborn babies-- and not everyone has the resources Kate does. That kind of empathy-- which Sophie showed-- is one of great wisdom: showing that out of your suffering, you can do a lot of good.
Sophie raised the issue 6 years after
Double post auto-merged: September 15, 2014, 11:01:30 PM
Quote from: Lady Adams on September 15, 2014, 09:34:03 PM
^Macro, Sophie worked full-time at her PR firm during her first three years of marriage before becoming a full-time royal.
Also, Sophie is not a future Queen Consort, nor is she receiving a home from the taxpayer free of rent (the Wessexes pay 90,000/year for their home, Bagshot Park).
It seems I cannot compare Kate to anyone: not other European Crown Princesses because Kate is the wife if the heir-to-the-heir, and now other women in the BRF are, by your standard, not viable for comparison. @Macrobug, Who do you think is most appropriate to compare Kate's charity work to?
Sophie is a secretary grad, Kate is university grad. Sophie played being a PR, which companies did it only because she was royal, connections they thought she can give them access to the royal firm. Didn't happen, failed miserably, leaving 1.7 million debt to her MIL. Kate hasn't done none of that. The 90K comes from The combined salary HM pays to both Edward and Sophie.
Kate work with Jigsaw and Part Pieces, a little charity dipping with Starlight foundation didn't cause any scandal as Sophie did. Kate didn't leave a wake of debts to be paid by Her FIL. Much less her own family.
Kate is third generation of working royals, there isn't any other monarchy with three generations of working royals. Then there's the money issue, people still want to delete, no money no royal duties. We keep on touching this point, people still think they can just pass the gasoline bill and operations to Charles or the Queen, whom control the money's, just like that.
Quote from: Canuck on September 15, 2014, 10:10:51 PM
I think you're right that it's hard to compare any two individuals. Kate, for example, is going to give birth to two children in her first four years as a senior Royal (and is ill for at least a month or two at the beginning of each pregnancy); she's also stepping into the most high-profile "wife" role in the BRF, with Diana (and all of the trouble too many engagements too soon caused there) as her immediate predecessor. Her first few years are very different than Camilla's (who didn't have the children issue, but did have PR reasons to tread a very careful path) and Sophie's (who worked for the first three, and got caught in a big scandal in relation to that, and who had one ectopic pregnancy and gave birth to one child in that same period). Camilla and Sophie (and Diana and Fergie) married full-time Royals; Will was in the RAF the first two years of their marriage and is now returning to a public service job.
People can of course have their own views on what Kate should be doing. But IMO, it's been handled pretty well so far. I look to 2012 (the only full year on record, since she married in partway through 2011 and was out for a big chunk of 2013 with George's birth and immediately after), when she did about 120 engagements -- that seems like a good number to me when Will is not yet full-time and there are a lot of senior Royals sharing the duties. She obviously does much less when pregnant or on maternity leave, but giving birth to and raising the next generation of Royals is part of the job as well, and one that I think the BRF is happy to have her concentrate on right now.
I think she'll spend the next few years at about the 100-120 level, and will increase her duties when HM/DoE have to cut back/Will becomes a full-time Royal/the children are a bit older (which I think is likely to coincide, and is what the family is planning for). In the meantime, I think she'll continue to be deployed for foreign tours, and will focus on her current patronages and gradually adding new ones at a rate where she can be reasonably involved with each.
Double post auto-merged: September 15, 2014, 10:15:43 PM
To add to my prediction on her work numbers: Kate is currently at 78 engagements for the year, and by my count would have been over 90 by the end of this week had she not had to cancel several scheduled appearances (potentially including the Malta trip) because of her HG. Without the pregnancy, then, she would certainly have topped 100. Again, the 100-120 range is what I think we'll see in her non-pregnancy/maternity leave years until Will becomes a full-time Royal, and I think that's a pretty good area for her to be aiming for.
Diana had a work ethic. Kate does not. That is the difference. Work was not the main problem for Diana. For obvious reasons. She enjoyed working and got satisfaction out her work.
Kate gets by on excuses and she does less than part time work.
Double post auto-merged: September 15, 2014, 11:47:27 PM
Quote from: TLLK on September 15, 2014, 10:05:07 PM
Quote from: Macrobug on September 15, 2014, 09:57:40 PM
LA. We are obviously not on the same page. Compare Kate, if you wish. But at the same time frames. It is unfair to take, for example, Anne now and compare Kate. Or even Camilla now. Lets look at where they were at when they were 3 years into royal life, then compare.
But then again maybe we can't do it because every situation and woman is different. Maybe it is completely unfair to all of them to do a comparison when they all have different roles.
I don't see anything really changing for awhile unless Charles' reign begins or his father is incapacitated/deceased and William is called up to the Major Leagues. Until then it is QEII's reign and if she wants the work done by her children/their spouses then so be it.
Even then...Will may put his foot down and want to have another transitional year to find himself. William should be in the Major Leagues now instead of playing at being normal.
Quote from: Lady Adams on September 15, 2014, 10:32:21 PM
Quote from: TLLK on September 15, 2014, 10:02:49 PM
Quote from: Lady Adams on September 15, 2014, 09:34:03 PM
^Macro, Sophie worked full-time at her PR firm during her first three years of marriage before becoming a full-time royal.
Also, Sophie is not a future Queen Consort, nor is she receiving a home from the taxpayer free of rent (the Wessexes pay 90,000/year for their home, Bagshot Park).
It seems I cannot compare Kate to anyone: not other European Crown Princesses because Kate is the wife if the heir-to-the-heir, and now other women in the BRF are, by your standard, not viable for comparison. @Macrobug, Who do you think is most appropriate to compare Kate's charity work to?
I know question was for Macrobug, but I would compare Kate in her current role as wife of the heir-to-the-heir to the siblings of a crown prince/princess or part of the wider group of siblings,cousins, etc...spouses in large families ie: Jordan. Close to the throne but not there yet. IMHO Rania in the years prior to becoming Crown Princess of Jordan would be a good comparison match for expectations. Each had a spouse in the military/civil service who does part time royal work. While Uncle Hassan was the official CP from the time that Abdullah was in elementary school to just before King Hussein's death, who knows what was truly going to happen. The late King Hussein could have chosen any one of his sons to replace his brother, but he chose the eldest who had been the previous title holder. IMO he saw the potential in this team.
I see the point you're making, @TLLK, but Rania-- nor the Jordanian public, never expected her to be Queen. How would it be appropriate to compare early Rania's work with Kate's?
Each was involved with charity work like most members of the BRF and JRF. Rania might not have been receiving as much media coverage at the time especially before the onset of social media, however she would have likely been seen at Ramadan evening dinners (iftars?) that many JRF members are hosts of or especially invited guests. Neither was considered "full time" by their respective courts IMHO as it was/is the reign of someone they were not married to at the time. When they were not on royal duties, they cared for their children though each had help. On a side note each had a London residence.
^^I'd like to push back a bit on the argument of comparing Kate to Rania a bit, if you'll indulge me,
@TLLK. :flower: So often, I've heard from people that we can't compare Kate to other Crown Princesses, because that is not Kate's current position. It seems odd then, that you would be okay comparing her with someone who-- at the pre-Queen days was seen as more of a, say, Beatrice than anyone of the BRF-- was never expected to becoming Queen Consort.
:hmm:
There are very different expectations of royals, even in their early days, if they will be Queen or King someday, than if they are on the outskirts of the royal family, which Rania was until the completely unexpected, deathbed decision of the King to change his Crown Prince.
Quote from: Macrobug on September 15, 2014, 09:57:40 PM
LA. We are obviously not on the same page. Compare Kate, if you wish. But at the same time frames. It is unfair to take, for example, Anne now and compare Kate. Or even Camilla now. Lets look at where they were at when they were 3 years into royal life, then compare.
But then again maybe we can't do it because every situation and woman is different. Maybe it is completely unfair to all of them to do a comparison when they all have different roles.
I'm confused,
@Macrobug. I'm happy to agree to disagree, but in this case, I did compare the same timeframe: in Sophie's first three years, she was working full-time (just not for the Firm).
Comparison is bound to happen. We are all compared to our sisters, mothers-in-law and colleagues.
Quote from: Canuck on September 15, 2014, 10:10:51 PM
To add to my prediction on her work numbers: Kate is currently at 78 engagements for the year, and by my count would have been over 90 by the end of this week had she not had to cancel several scheduled appearances (potentially including the Malta trip) because of her HG. Without the pregnancy, then, she would certainly have topped 100. Again, the 100-120 range is what I think we'll see in her non-pregnancy/maternity leave years until Will becomes a full-time Royal, and I think that's a pretty good area for her to be aiming for.
I think it's really hard to rely on numbers from the Court Circular or the thread here. Will each single event or thing Harry attended at the Invictus Game be counted? That would put this week alone over 100 events for him. Meanwhile, Kate's departure from Heathrow-- with no public component-- is counted. It's very subjective, and I would like to remind posters that these numbers are far from factual data points.
Quote from: Canuck on September 15, 2014, 09:35:39 PM
Sophie is indeed pretty great, and she's associated with a variety of maternal health initiatives (including one related to infant mortality and low birth weight, and as others have mentioned several hospitals and the Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists).
Kate may get involved with similar causes over time, as Sophie did. Or it might be decided that maternal health is an issue that "belongs" to Sophie, and Kate will focus elsewhere. The BRF does try to spread its patronages around, and there are particular issues that tend to be associated with a particular Royal. Sophie has shown a real interest in maternal and childre n's health, and I would not be surprised if Kate largely stays away from that area (with the exception of her hospice work) as a result.
I see your point, but-- off hand-- with that same logic, Prince Charles should have all the "hospice" charities, as he is Patron of George Thomas Hospice Care, Hospice at Home West Cumbria, Les Bourgs Hospice, St Luke's Hospice, Sue Ryder Care, Leckhampton Hospice, The Cotswold Care Hospice, The Weldmar Hospicecare Trust, Ty Hafan: The Children's Hospice in Wales, and President of The Prince of Wales Hospice.
I'd like to take a step back and make a few observations: I suggested that Kate try different approaches to charities. I just batted some ideas around: a mini-lympics with kids from SportsAid, and online auction of her photographs and children's canvases from Art Room, and taking up a maternity charity or NHS. I used Sophie as an example of someone who turned her personal challenges into something she could take up in a personal way.
I wasn't intending on making this thread detour into who it is appropriate to compare Kate with (though, as is not a surprise, no one can agree on someone for various reasons).
Kate has a low number of patronages, and seems to limit public engagements, and she does command a lot of media attention for whatever organization she chooses. What charity suggestions would you all give to Kate?
You can subtract the Heathrow departure if you want. That still leaves 77 events, and would have been 90 this week if not for the HG. We'll have to wait and see which Invictus events are counted, but as people keep reminding us, those Games were Harry's job with the military (and, of course, sponsored by the Royal Foundation), and his attendance at them may be counted as military work rather than Royal appearances.
And yes, Charles also has hospice charities. Clearly there are a number of causes that more than one Royal is involved with (though perhaps the intention is to transition Kate into the primary patron of children's hospices specifically, or at least it appears that so far). But given Sophie's experiences with her own pregnancies, it would not surprise me if that is an area that she is being deliberately given a lead role in.
Quote from: Lady Adams on September 16, 2014, 02:36:15 AM
Quote from: Macrobug on September 15, 2014, 09:57:40 PM
LA. We are obviously not on the same page. Compare Kate, if you wish. But at the same time frames. It is unfair to take, for example, Anne now and compare Kate. Or even Camilla now. Lets look at where they were at when they were 3 years into royal life, then compare.
But then again maybe we can't do it because every situation and woman is different. Maybe it is completely unfair to all of them to do a comparison when they all have different roles.
I'm confused, @Macrobug. I'm happy to agree to disagree, but in this case, I did compare the same timeframe: in Sophie's first three years, she was working full-time (just not for the Firm).
Comparison is bound to happen. We are all compared to our sisters, mothers-in-law and colleagues.
Yep, you did. Sorry. I went from your comment into a general comment without clarification.
As for charity suggestions....I think Sophie has the maternal/child health wrapped up. So maybe Kate should concentrate on the ones she already has. I do like the auction idea. But open it up to auctioning off art done by the kids with a bit of Royal art. Kate's photography, Charles' painting etc....Bring in some well known people also.
^^ I wonder if she could get Victoria Beckham to donate a sketch from her fashion line!
Didn't Diana complain about the work, at the end she got rid of it too.
Kate is not only in a unique position, but married to a future King, third generation of working royals, first time for the BRF, 3 generations working, plus the multiple official and reliable sources talking about the money issue.
Quote from: sandy on September 15, 2014, 11:45:54 PM
Quote from: Canuck on September 15, 2014, 10:10:51 PM
I think you're right that it's hard to compare any two individuals. Kate, for example, is going to give birth to two children in her first four years as a senior Royal (and is ill for at least a month or two at the beginning of each pregnancy); she's also stepping into the most high-profile "wife" role in the BRF, with Diana (and all of the trouble too many engagements too soon caused there) as her immediate predecessor. Her first few years are very different than Camilla's (who didn't have the children issue, but did have PR reasons to tread a very careful path) and Sophie's (who worked for the first three, and got caught in a big scandal in relation to that, and who had one ectopic pregnancy and gave birth to one child in that same period). Camilla and Sophie (and Diana and Fergie) married full-time Royals; Will was in the RAF the first two years of their marriage and is now returning to a public service job.
People can of course have their own views on what Kate should be doing. But IMO, it's been handled pretty well so far. I look to 2012 (the only full year on record, since she married in partway through 2011 and was out for a big chunk of 2013 with George's birth and immediately after), when she did about 120 engagements -- that seems like a good number to me when Will is not yet full-time and there are a lot of senior Royals sharing the duties. She obviously does much less when pregnant or on maternity leave, but giving birth to and raising the next generation of Royals is part of the job as well, and one that I think the BRF is happy to have her concentrate on right now.
I think she'll spend the next few years at about the 100-120 level, and will increase her duties when HM/DoE have to cut back/Will becomes a full-time Royal/the children are a bit older (which I think is likely to coincide, and is what the family is planning for). In the meantime, I think she'll continue to be deployed for foreign tours, and will focus on her current patronages and gradually adding new ones at a rate where she can be reasonably involved with each.
Double post auto-merged: September 15, 2014, 10:15:43 PM
To add to my prediction on her work numbers: Kate is currently at 78 engagements for the year, and by my count would have been over 90 by the end of this week had she not had to cancel several scheduled appearances (potentially including the Malta trip) because of her HG. Without the pregnancy, then, she would certainly have topped 100. Again, the 100-120 range is what I think we'll see in her non-pregnancy/maternity leave years until Will becomes a full-time Royal, and I think that's a pretty good area for her to be aiming for.
Diana had a work ethic. Kate does not. That is the difference. Work was not the main problem for Diana. For obvious reasons. She enjoyed working and got satisfaction out her work.
Kate gets by on excuses and she does less than part time work.
Double post auto-merged: September 15, 2014, 11:47:27 PM
Quote from: TLLK on September 15, 2014, 10:05:07 PM
Quote from: Macrobug on September 15, 2014, 09:57:40 PM
LA. We are obviously not on the same page. Compare Kate, if you wish. But at the same time frames. It is unfair to take, for example, Anne now and compare Kate. Or even Camilla now. Lets look at where they were at when they were 3 years into royal life, then compare.
But then again maybe we can't do it because every situation and woman is different. Maybe it is completely unfair to all of them to do a comparison when they all have different roles.
I don't see anything really changing for awhile unless Charles' reign begins or his father is incapacitated/deceased and William is called up to the Major Leagues. Until then it is QEII's reign and if she wants the work done by her children/their spouses then so be it.
Even then...Will may put his foot down and want to have another transitional year to find himself. William should be in the Major Leagues now instead of playing at being normal.
Whatever generation of royal she is, she is also an adult woman in her thirties being excused from contributing to society because people in their sixties and eighties can still work hard... :wacko:
^^ Or it could be that people in their sixties and eighties want to work hard. William is already on record saying he's suggested the Queen slow down, but she won't. Article including the interview has been posted at this forum many times.
Cindy
Ane yet Willamette Harry and other 3rdgens still find work to do ev3. If it's not royal duti3s, Kate does not.
Quote from: cinrit on September 15, 2014, 11:43:54 AM
^^ Neither has the fact that she has HG, in some quarters. There are still those who don't believe she has it. Would her speaking publicly about it convince them?
Cindy
I don't think so....
Quote from: cinrit on September 16, 2014, 01:57:57 PM
^^ Or it could be that people in their sixties and eighties want to work hard.
Unlike 30 year olds William and Kate...
Quote from: cinrit on September 16, 2014, 01:57:57 PM
^^ Or it could be that people in their sixties and eighties want to work hard. William is already on record saying he's suggested the Queen slow down, but she won't. Article including the interview has been posted at this forum many times.
Cindy
Good point Cindy. The senior royals have earned the right to decide how often and when they work. If they want to make several appearance a week then they should be allowed to do so. Other older monarchs have chosen to abdicate and let the younger generation take charge. Each royal house has its own leaders and IMO they dictate who does what, when, where and how often.
Once again, William does work, has been working for years. It may not be the job some want him to do but it is a job. Compared to his wife, mowing lawns once a week would make him admirable.
^I agree William has worked throughout the last decade, but he did just have the equivalent of a gap year.
Quote from: TLLK on September 17, 2014, 01:07:25 AM
Quote from: cinrit on September 16, 2014, 01:57:57 PM
^^ Or it could be that people in their sixties and eighties want to work hard. William is already on record saying he's suggested the Queen slow down, but she won't. Article including the interview has been posted at this forum many times.
Cindy
Good point Cindy. The senior royals have earned the right to decide how often and when they work. If they want to make several appearance a week then they should be allowed to do so. Other older monarchs have chosen to abdicate and let the younger generation take charge. Each royal house has its own leaders and IMO they dictate who does what, when, where and how often.
That's odd because I thought the Queen and Charles have work ethics. I doubt they would ever discourage the younger ones from working. I think Will just gets to do what he wants to.
Double post auto-merged: September 17, 2014, 03:01:59 PM
Quote from: cinrit on September 16, 2014, 01:57:57 PM
^^ Or it could be that people in their sixties and eighties want to work hard. William is already on record saying he's suggested the Queen slow down, but she won't. Article including the interview has been posted at this forum many times.
Cindy
So if the Queen does not want to slow down, how come she's giving more of her jobs to Charles? Will should be doing his part now and help out.
Double post auto-merged: September 17, 2014, 03:03:18 PM
Quote from: wannable on September 16, 2014, 11:16:43 AM
Didn't Diana complain about the work, at the end she got rid of it too.
Kate is not only in a unique position, but married to a future King, third generation of working royals, first time for the BRF, 3 generations working, plus the multiple official and reliable sources talking about the money issue.
Quote from: sandy on September 15, 2014, 11:45:54 PM
Quote from: Canuck on September 15, 2014, 10:10:51 PM
I think you're right that it's hard to compare any two individuals. Kate, for example, is going to give birth to two children in her first four years as a senior Royal (and is ill for at least a month or two at the beginning of each pregnancy); she's also stepping into the most high-profile "wife" role in the BRF, with Diana (and all of the trouble too many engagements too soon caused there) as her immediate predecessor. Her first few years are very different than Camilla's (who didn't have the children issue, but did have PR reasons to tread a very careful path) and Sophie's (who worked for the first three, and got caught in a big scandal in relation to that, and who had one ectopic pregnancy and gave birth to one child in that same period). Camilla and Sophie (and Diana and Fergie) married full-time Royals; Will was in the RAF the first two years of their marriage and is now returning to a public service job.
People can of course have their own views on what Kate should be doing. But IMO, it's been handled pretty well so far. I look to 2012 (the only full year on record, since she married in partway through 2011 and was out for a big chunk of 2013 with George's birth and immediately after), when she did about 120 engagements -- that seems like a good number to me when Will is not yet full-time and there are a lot of senior Royals sharing the duties. She obviously does much less when pregnant or on maternity leave, but giving birth to and raising the next generation of Royals is part of the job as well, and one that I think the BRF is happy to have her concentrate on right now.
I think she'll spend the next few years at about the 100-120 level, and will increase her duties when HM/DoE have to cut back/Will becomes a full-time Royal/the children are a bit older (which I think is likely to coincide, and is what the family is planning for). In the meantime, I think she'll continue to be deployed for foreign tours, and will focus on her current patronages and gradually adding new ones at a rate where she can be reasonably involved with each.
Double post auto-merged: September 15, 2014, 10:15:43 PM
To add to my prediction on her work numbers: Kate is currently at 78 engagements for the year, and by my count would have been over 90 by the end of this week had she not had to cancel several scheduled appearances (potentially including the Malta trip) because of her HG. Without the pregnancy, then, she would certainly have topped 100. Again, the 100-120 range is what I think we'll see in her non-pregnancy/maternity leave years until Will becomes a full-time Royal, and I think that's a pretty good area for her to be aiming for.
Diana had a work ethic. Kate does not. That is the difference. Work was not the main problem for Diana. For obvious reasons. She enjoyed working and got satisfaction out her work.
Kate gets by on excuses and she does less than part time work.
Double post auto-merged: September 15, 2014, 11:47:27 PM
Quote from: TLLK on September 15, 2014, 10:05:07 PM
Quote from: Macrobug on September 15, 2014, 09:57:40 PM
LA. We are obviously not on the same page. Compare Kate, if you wish. But at the same time frames. It is unfair to take, for example, Anne now and compare Kate. Or even Camilla now. Lets look at where they were at when they were 3 years into royal life, then compare.
But then again maybe we can't do it because every situation and woman is different. Maybe it is completely unfair to all of them to do a comparison when they all have different roles.
I don't see anything really changing for awhile unless Charles' reign begins or his father is incapacitated/deceased and William is called up to the Major Leagues. Until then it is QEII's reign and if she wants the work done by her children/their spouses then so be it.
Even then...Will may put his foot down and want to have another transitional year to find himself. William should be in the Major Leagues now instead of playing at being normal.
Diana never publicly complained about work. She was regrouping after the divorce and since she died one cannot make projections that she "complained" about work.
I think the money issue is just another excuse. Will could certainly be paying more attention to some non-sports charities.
QuoteI think the money issue is just another excuse. Will could certainly be paying more attention to some non-sports charities.
I took a quick look at the Court Circular since the Aus/NZ trip, and Will has done maybe 10 sports-related appearances, all for high-profile national teams/events (relating to the World Cup in his role as Football Association President, the Tour de France, the Commonwealth Games, and the Invictus Games). He's done more than twice as many non-sports engagements, including a large number related to the military as well as events for a variety of his patronages, including the Royal Marsden Hospital, Centrepoint, SkillForce, and United for Wildlife.
I think he's paying plenty of attention to non-sports charities. I also disagree that sports events are somehow less important. The Invictus Games was a great example of what can be achieved through sport. Attending major sporting events hosted by the UK, like the Commonwealth Games and Tour de France, is just as important as attending big county fairs or flower shows, both of which other Royals routinely go to.
Will has not done much so ten is not that small a number in comparison.
He has done little for Centrepoint so far I believe one "surprise" appearance and one other before that.
I am not talking about county fairs or flower shows but charities where he can make a difference by promoting them.
All of the Royals spend time both on charitable causes and on important national or local events (whether those be the Commonwealth Games or the Chelsea Flower Show). Will is no exception.
As for his engagements, by my count since Aus/NZ he's done:
-reception for veterans' employment
-2 Invictus Games appearances
-Oxford University China Centre opening
-thank you event for Commonwealth Games volunteers
-at least 4 WWI events in Belgium
-Coach Core session
-2 Commonwealth Games appearances
-Australia House statue unveiling
-Imperial War Museum (as patron)
-war memorial wreath laying
-Fields in Trust event (as patron)
-United for Wildlife cricket match (as patron)
-Sub-Aqua club (as new President, with Charles as former President)
-Queen's Young Leaders program
-2 Tour de France appearances
-visit to West Tanfield village
-Order of the Thistle
-Place2Be conference
-Royal Foundation event (as patron)
-Order of the Garter
-Trooping of the Colour
-Prince's Council meeting
-United for Wildlife program launch (as patron)
-technology sector reception
-at least 2 France WWII events
-SkillForce visit (as patron)
-Centrepoint visit (as patron)
-Royal Charities Forum (as patron)
-2 Football Association events before the World Cup
-Royal Marsden Hospital dinner (as patron)
-Royal Navy event for HMS Alliance (as patron)
That's about 39 engagements since the end of April, of which 12 were arguably sport-related (if you count a reception for the Commonwealth Games volunteers, and a cricket match that was for the benefit of one of his non-sports patronages).
So as I said in my earlier post -- less than 1/3 of his engagements have been sport-related, and I believe even that number is skewed upward by the confluence of several huge sporting events happening in a row (World Cup, Commonwealth Games, and Invictus). Over the same period of time last year, for example, he did 11 engagements (because he was still working full-time for the RAF) of which only 2 were sport related.
Quote from: sandy on September 17, 2014, 03:00:47 PM
So if the Queen does not want to slow down, how come she's giving more of her jobs to Charles? Will should be doing his part now and help out.
She hasn't really given him that many. And obviously, if she's going to hand over a job, it's going to be handed over to her son and heir. Charles will hand down jobs to William, as he did when William took over the patronage of the British Sub-Aqua Club, which had previously been held by Charles, and before Charles by Prince Philip.
Cindy
She has been handing over to Wills. He did a number of investitures recently
Quote from: cinrit on September 17, 2014, 04:12:26 PM
Quote from: sandy on September 17, 2014, 03:00:47 PM
So if the Queen does not want to slow down, how come she's giving more of her jobs to Charles? Will should be doing his part now and help out.
She hasn't really given him that many. And obviously, if she's going to hand over a job, it's going to be handed over to her son and heir. Charles will hand down jobs to William, as he did when William took over the patronage of the British Sub-Aqua Club, which had previously been held by Charles, and before Charles by Prince Philip.
Cindy
Will still needs to be doing more IMO
Double post auto-merged: September 17, 2014, 05:25:22 PM
Quote from: Canuck on September 17, 2014, 04:05:33 PM
All of the Royals spend time both on charitable causes and on important national or local events (whether those be the Commonwealth Games or the Chelsea Flower Show). Will is no exception.
As for his engagements, by my count since Aus/NZ he's done:
-reception for veterans' employment
-2 Invictus Games appearances
-Oxford University China Centre opening
-thank you event for Commonwealth Games volunteers
-at least 4 WWI events in Belgium
-Coach Core session
-2 Commonwealth Games appearances
-Australia House statue unveiling
-Imperial War Museum (as patron)
-war memorial wreath laying
-Fields in Trust event (as patron)
-United for Wildlife cricket match (as patron)
-Sub-Aqua club (as new President, with Charles as former President)
-Queen's Young Leaders program
-2 Tour de France appearances
-visit to West Tanfield village
-Order of the Thistle
-Place2Be conference
-Royal Foundation event (as patron)
-Order of the Garter
-Trooping of the Colour
-Prince's Council meeting
-United for Wildlife program launch (as patron)
-technology sector reception
-at least 2 France WWII events
-SkillForce visit (as patron)
-Centrepoint visit (as patron)
-Royal Charities Forum (as patron)
-2 Football Association events before the World Cup
-Royal Marsden Hospital dinner (as patron)
-Royal Navy event for HMS Alliance (as patron)
That's about 39 engagements since the end of April, of which 12 were arguably sport-related (if you count a reception for the Commonwealth Games volunteers, and a cricket match that was for the benefit of one of his non-sports patronages).
So as I said in my earlier post -- less than 1/3 of his engagements have been sport-related, and I believe even that number is skewed upward by the confluence of several huge sporting events happening in a row (World Cup, Commonwealth Games, and Invictus). Over the same period of time last year, for example, he did 11 engagements (because he was still working full-time for the RAF) of which only 2 were sport related.
Some of the events listed were royal ceremonies (e.g. Order of the Garter) something he can't get out of.
Harry ran the Invictus games and Will sat and watched.
He still does little compared to other senior royals.
You're welcome to that opinion, of course, but I was responding specifically to your claim that he's doing too many sports events and nothing for his patronages.
Just a reminder that the BRF's annual engagements have their own thread so if members want to check the numbers they can. Thank you Canuck for listing William's engagements since Aus/NZ so we can see the variety that he's participated in. I believe that having a wide range of charitable and ceremonial engagements like the other BRF members along with adding investiture duties will help to prepare this heir-to-the-heir for his ultimate role. When the senior royals wish to give up appearing as often as they do should be their decision IMO.
[mod]
And now let's get back to the topic at hand...Kate's charities. :thumbsup: :nod:[/mod]
Quote from: TLLK on September 17, 2014, 06:17:41 PM
Just a reminder that the BRF's annual engagements have their own thread so if members want to check the numbers they can.
Thanks, TLLK. Thread can be found here : Annual Engagements for the BRF 2014 (http://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=70546.0)
Quote from: Lady Adams on September 17, 2014, 01:03:25 PM
^I agree William has worked throughout the last decade, but he did just have the equivalent of a gap year.
True but for me that doesn't negate his past work history. I've know people who didn't work for a year or 2 but they are still hard workers imo. Plus even his one college course lasting a minute makes him better than his wife.
if we compare him to his wife, he is a dynamo. :happy15:
^^^Pink energizer bunny banging on its drum just popped into my head.
Quote from: Canuck on September 15, 2014, 09:35:39 PM
Sophie is indeed pretty great, and she's associated with a variety of maternal health initiatives (including one related to infant mortality and low birth weight, and as others have mentioned several hospitals and the Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists).
true I imagine she does some good work but she and Edward were pretty much ordered to give up their business interests when the fake Sheik interview happened IIRC, because the queen got fed up with their business lives causing embarrassment and told them to stop this work and get onto the royal duties roster.
^^ So the Queen does indeed give orders to get on with Royal work when she feels it's necessary....
Cindy
I don't think its that so much, that she felt the need of more helpers as she felt that Ed's business dealings and Sophie's were liable to get him into trouble. So she put a stop ot them.
^^ That's what I meant. When she thinks they should be doing Royal duties, she has no problem saying so and doing something about it.
Cindy
Quote from: amabel on September 28, 2014, 12:18:07 PM
I don't think its that so much, that she felt the need of more helpers as she felt that Ed's business dealings and Sophie's were liable to get him into trouble. So she put a stop ot them.
Not to mention the pr firm she owned wnt under owing nearly two million that was never paid.
Sophie Wessex, her £1.7m business debt - and why she won¿t pay | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1200621/Sophie-Wessex-1-7m-business-debt--won-t-pay.html)
Quote from: amabel on September 28, 2014, 12:18:07 PM
I don't think its that so much, that she felt the need of more helpers as she felt that Ed's business dealings and Sophie's were liable to get him into trouble. So she put a stop ot them.
She probably pays for Ed and Sophie, so it is easy to call them and tell them what to do,. less easy with Will Harry adn Kate sicne they are supported by Charles. (Obviously if they were behaving badly she'd tell them and put a stop ot it).
Quote from: PaulaB on September 28, 2014, 01:27:01 PM
Quote from: amabel on September 28, 2014, 12:18:07 PM
I don't think its that so much, that she felt the need of more helpers as she felt that Ed's business dealings and Sophie's were liable to get him into trouble. So she put a stop ot them.
Not to mention the pr firm she owned wnt under owing nearly two million that was never paid.
Sophie Wessex, her £1.7m business debt - and why she won¿t pay | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1200621/Sophie-Wessex-1-7m-business-debt--won-t-pay.html)
This is no excuse for Kate. Kate would never have had an outside job as a royal since she married a senior royal (unlike Sophie). Kate does not do much royal work or charity work.
Quote from: cinrit on September 28, 2014, 12:30:53 PM
^^ That's what I meant. When she thinks they should be doing Royal duties, she has no problem saying so and doing something about it.
Cindy
HM is the head of the "Firm" for a reason. If she needs advice she'd turn to her senior royals (DoE, PoW, PR) and get their views as well. When they're ready to bring the junior team up to bat on the full time roster(Cambridges/Harry) then they'll issue that order. For the time being, HM seems content with her cousins, sons, daughter and in-laws as her full time representatives.
I appreciate that she gave the Wessexes an opportunity to try and have independent careers in the early years of their marriage. I'm sorry that it did not work out. I do believe that the BRF were correct in expecting the Phillips children, York princesses and more than likely the Wessex children to seek a life outside the royal bubble. Carrying out an occasional duty on behalf of a particular charity or to participate in a big event ie: Trooping the Colour is IMO appropriate for HM and the DoE's other grandchildren.
I don't think the seniors would prevent a royal from working if he wanted to. Why would the Queen authorize the refurbishment of KP if she did not want Will to step up. Now he has two lavish homes and one will probably be mostly unused. It is hard to believe the Queen is behind Will's not being a full time royal. This is all on William and I don't get why others are scapegoated for his laziness. The Quene probably is hoping the William problem will be resolved before there is some sort of a crisis (maybe he totally loathes full time royal duties).
The Wessexes are way down in the line of succession (at least Edward, James and Louise are) so they could have a lot more leeway.
William is not much of a junior anymore--he's a grown man of 32, married with a child and one on the way. He's a grown up now, nothing "junior" about hio year
I remember the classic excuse that the Queen was giving them a two year "honeymoon" period where they did not have to take on full time duties or even step up. Well the two years are long up and same old same old With WIll taking a gap year and decides he wants to fly copters again.
I believe that she and her team of advisors believed that refurbishing Apt. 1A was the best decision at the time when they went ahead. Nottingham Cottage was proving to be too small for the Cambridges and their new addition. (William apparently had to duck to move through the rooms.) Also, they wouldn't be living in Wales after August 2013 once his SAR contract ran out.
The BRF likes to plan long term whenever possible. The Cambridges were going to need a London base for their family through the coming decades until William ascended the throne. The funds were available to begin the work needed to do asbestos removal, upgrades to plumbing, electrical etc...that would meet modern building codes. Once the walls were open the contractors had the opportunity to see that additional work would be needed.
The couple plan to use KP for the long haul but will have AH available while he works for the ambulance service. :)
That is an unreasonably, ridiculously expensive and ill-timed "home base" for a place they will not be living in in the foreseeable future. It was a poorly timed or ill-informed decision HM. I agree with Sandy, HM could only have done this if she thought William was going to step up, otherwise, this huge expense for a house that will remain empty most of the time simply lacks common sense.
IMO the "Firm" thinks long term or decades in advance. Having the funds available to make the necessary repairs and refurbishment for Apt. 1A so that the Cambridges could use it for years was a wise decision on the part of HM and her team of advisors. However if you think that it wasn't that's okay too. :)
If the Cambridges would be using it IN YEARS AWAY, there was no need for the urgency with which it was done. The Queen and William were clearly not in sync and William won or she let him, at great unwarranted and ill-timed expense to her.
On this we'll have to disagree. Those who were in charge of the plans, finances, and more for the maintenance of the palaces have far more information at their disposal than I do and came to the conclusion that refurbishing/repair/removal work at Apt. 1A was a good idea.
I do believe that the BRF was in a wait and see mode in summer 2013. Three working members of the BRF were facing significant health issues. William had completed his SAR term and was not going to sign up with it again. There was a real possibility that the roster of full time royals could change in those months. I believe that if the BRF needed to call up William to the full time list then he couldn't be committed to something else permanent at that point in time. (Now I do believe that all royals have a "Get out of my contract clause" in all of their contracts but only to be used if absolutely necessary. :wink:) Having William in a "transition year" was the solution until things were settled. KP still remains as a London base for now and in the future. :)
This did not look good or even coordinated, no matter which way it is spinned to make them all look good. William left the Queen with egg on her face for such a poor hasty investment at a time when it was not going to be used full time.
:truce: And once again we'll agree to disagree. I can safely predict that tomorrow we're likely to do it again. :lol: :hug:
i see all the explanations about why the Queen and Charles, who battle to have their budgets and expenses from the public and to not have it trimmed, in HM's case or taxed, in Charles' case, would subject themselves to criticism and scrutiny by spending 6 Million pounds on a house if they knew for a fact William would not be living in it, after saying, in HM's case that 44 Million were needed for urgent repairs on buildings that ARE being usedand seeing that 6M is actually a huge chunk of their budgets, and it doesn't make sense to me, this simply does not extrapolate to the real world with real people with real budgets, which they are despite the castles and tiaras. They have budgets and are smart enough to know they are under scrutiny like never before, so, I guess we will always disagree on this. :truce: :)
Quote from: TLLK on September 30, 2014, 12:33:10 AM
The BRF likes to plan long term whenever possible. The Cambridges were going to need a London base for their family through the coming decades until William ascended the throne. The funds were available to begin the work needed to do asbestos removal, upgrades to plumbing, electrical etc...that would meet modern building codes. Once the walls were open the contractors had the opportunity to see that additional work would be needed.
The couple plan to use KP for the long haul but will have AH available while he works for the ambulance service. :)
This! Has been planned and anyone can find the news of temporary use of Notts Cottage and moving to A1 since November 2011, 8 months from their wedding of April 2011.
It was always planned, liking how much or not the amount they work, gifted or not A Hall, press noted almost one full year before September 2012 RAF departure, growing family or not. There is 2 annual reports of money's disbursement For both SG and DOC. One expected them to have two residences, official and private.
BTW, the pow site is down for maintenance.
No one expected them to spend nearly ten million pounds on two residences, one of which they will not live in for a few years , especially given that they will not be full time royals for the foreseeable future. These are not the times when royal expenses go unquestioned and HM knows this, this expense of a large chink of HM's and PC's budget is unreasonable and unjustified and I'll-timed unless they were full time royals, regardless of their Prince and Princess status, which is only useful to them to get bodyguards.
Quote from: wannable on September 30, 2014, 09:22:11 AM
Quote from: TLLK on September 30, 2014, 12:33:10 AM
The BRF likes to plan long term whenever possible. The Cambridges were going to need a London base for their family through the coming decades until William ascended the throne. The funds were available to begin the work needed to do asbestos removal, upgrades to plumbing, electrical etc...that would meet modern building codes. Once the walls were open the contractors had the opportunity to see that additional work would be needed.
The couple plan to use KP for the long haul but will have AH available while he works for the ambulance service. :)
This! Has been planned and anyone can find the news of temporary use of Notts Cottage and moving to A1 since November 2011, 8 months from their wedding of April 2011.
It was always planned, liking how much or not the amount they work, gifted or not A Hall, press noted almost one full year before September 2012 RAF departure, growing family or not. There is 2 annual reports of money's disbursement For both SG and DOC. One expected them to have two residences, official and private.
BTW, the pow site is down for maintenance.
Thank you wannable. Thank you for the news on the PoW site.
Since the Queen holds the purse strings on refurbishment of Royal residences, I'm willing to trust her judgment as to what and when things should be done.
As others have said: once Will left the RAF, they obviously needed somewhere to live. The cottage they used at KP was clearly not going to work once they started expanding their family. Since 1A was always intended to be their long-term home, and the place wasn't in a state to be a family home prior to the renovations, it seems sensible to me that they went ahead with the necessary work on that apartment once the family left Anglesey.
As for Anmer, all of the Royals have a country home, and Will and Kate were never going to be different in that respect. I think the timing was probably a product of the decision for Will to work at the air ambulance service in that area, as well as George's arrival and the desire to set up a home outside of London where there would be less press intrusion and more room to roam for him and any additional children. Again, that seems pretty sensible to me.
Will and Kate will be Royals the rest of their lives, and in all likelihood will live in those homes at least until Will becomes King. Whether the money was spent last year or five years from now, it was going to be spent. I don't understand why it would have been better to keep Will, Kate, George, and now a new baby in a small two bedroom cottage for the next five years, and frankly I think that's pretty unrealistic.
I disagree. There was no need to hurry about it as they did, if living in it was not a plan for the foreseeable future, there are plenty of royal residences or spaces at royal residences they could have used as once in a blue moon accommodations until they were ready to occupy a permanent space full time. Unless all of William's decisions are made last minute, this huge expense could have waited until they would be occupying it full time, until William was ready to leave, this expense on a virtually abandoned home, for the foreseeable future, is wasteful and disorganized.
William will never live in one residence full time, just as none of the other Royals live in one residence full time. Why is he getting these perks? Maybe because he's slated to sit on the throne after his father. There are people who don't think this is fair, don't think this is right, don't think this is equitable. But bottom-line, that's the way it is, whether we approve or don't approve.
Cindy
They've been living in KP full-time for the past year. From what they've said, the plan is for them to continue to live there for at least a significant part of the year, with the rest of the time at Anmer. 1A will not be "virtually abandoned" anymore than BP is "virtually abandoned" by the Queen/DoE spending chunks of the year at Sandringham and Balmoral.
They have been staying in KP full time until William is working, big difference, as a said, if s was not to be their full time residence as royals, the huge expense could have been made in the future when he was and they could have stayed somewhere else, they do not need a huge expensive place, two rather, if, they are not even full time royals, but bouncing from one pilot gig to another, this could have waited until they are full time, huge expense for someone who, according to his fans is only the heir to the heir and not subject to the same standards, duties and responsibilities as the heir.
Quote from: Canuck on September 30, 2014, 05:48:51 PM
They've been living in KP full-time for the past year. From what they've said, the plan is for them to continue to live there for at least a significant part of the year, with the rest of the time at Anmer. 1A will not be "virtually abandoned" anymore than BP is "virtually abandoned" by the Queen/DoE spending chunks of the year at Sandringham and Balmoral.
This is true that they will be part time at both place for the near future. In the long run I do see KP being their full time residence so if the Queen and her builders believed that the funds were available, project manageable and timeline reasonable then choosing Apt 1A as the major project during those years was a wise choice.
[mod]Probably best that we get back to Kate's charities and steer away from BRF residences. There is a separate thread for each of the Cambridge homes for posters to discuss them.[/mod]
Well, they need *somewhere* to live for the next few years, so whether it's KP or Anmer at least one of those residences was necessary. The "somewhere" they were staying beforehand was a small cottage that wasn't realistically going to be their family home once George (and now one or more other children) arrived.
At this point, we have no idea how much time they will actually spend in each residence. I've seen stories saying they plan to live in KP the majority of the time with Anmer serving as a country home for periods of the year. I've seen other stories saying they'll live at Anmer most of the time with KP serving as a London base for periods of the year. We'll have to wait and see, but I suspect they will use both houses quite a bit in the next few years.
Quote from: TLLK on September 30, 2014, 05:57:04 PM
Quote from: Canuck on September 30, 2014, 05:48:51 PM
They've been living in KP full-time for the past year. From what they've said, the plan is for them to continue to live there for at least a significant part of the year, with the rest of the time at Anmer. 1A will not be "virtually abandoned" anymore than BP is "virtually abandoned" by the Queen/DoE spending chunks of the year at Sandringham and Balmoral.
This is true that they will be part time at both place for the near future. In the long run I do see KP being their full time residence so if the Queen and her builders believed that the funds were available, project manageable and timeline reasonable then choosing Apt 1A as the major project during those years was a wise choice.
The timing was anything but wise, more like disconnected.
Q3-2014: Diva Tally Numbers Review | Kate Middleton: Duchess or Diva? (http://katemiddletonduchessordiva.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/q3-2014-diva-tally-numbers-review/?blogsub=confirming#subscribe-blog)
Quote
Quarter 3 – July-September, 2014 (92 Days):
Charitable Appearances (1):
07/01/14 – MPACT School Visit
Royal Duty Appearances (5):
07/05/14 – Tour de France Launch
07/28/14 – Day 1 – Commonwealth Games
07/29/14 – Day 2 – Commonwealth Games
08/04/14 – Solemn World War I Services
08/05/14 – Tower of London Amid Sea of Red Poppies
Royal Celebrity Appearances (1):
07/09/14 – Men's Tennis Finals Wimbledon
Let's put this appearance into perspective: The Diva spent more time watching the men's final at Wimbledon than all her charity appearances this year! No one can spin or debate this.
You know what the saddest part of this quarter is (among many things)? That her weekend Malta tour would have been her ONLY September royal engagement and it would have been a month and a half after her last appearance on 08/05/14.
I vote Duchess. Like her spouse and brother-in-law she's not considered to be a full time royal. The BRF goes on hiatus in August and her last appearance was on August 5, 2014 for the poppy installation. Her second pregnancy was announced in early Sept. and her Oct./Nov. engagements are being planned. :)
Malta was not the only September appearance she would have been at if not for the pregnancy. The week before she was also scheduled to be at Oxford with Will and at two Invictus events.
I vote Diva.
Quote from: Canuck on September 30, 2014, 06:12:18 PM
Malta was not the only September appearance she would have been at if not for the pregnancy. The week before she was also scheduled to be at Oxford with Will and at two Invictus events.
That is true and it appears that the author of the essay omitted those scheduled engagements. Oh well to me this is another reminder that the accuracy of some of these online op-eds can be "sketchy." Though I have to say that I found "I saw Kate out and about" piece was more entertaining. :teehee:
Diva. And a greedy one at that.
@TLLK Still pathetic even for a healthy 32 year old. What's the problem with her? I'm beginning to think it could be more than laziness and entitlement. (And No, I don't believe the Queen is stopping her, nor that there is no money).
Quote from: TLLK on September 30, 2014, 06:32:59 PM
Quote from: Canuck on September 30, 2014, 06:12:18 PM
Malta was not the only September appearance she would have been at if not for the pregnancy. The week before she was also scheduled to be at Oxford with Will and at two Invictus events.
That is true and it appears that the author of the essay omitted those scheduled engagements. Oh well to me this is another reminder that the accuracy of some of these online op-eds can be "sketchy." Though I have to say that I found "I saw Kate out and about" piece was more entertaining. :teehee:
One engagement and attending the Invictus Games would have made a difference? She isn't 12.
I suppose it might have made a difference to someone, since they were omitted from the list.
Cindy
Charitable Kate probably toiled day and night at the beauty salon from her ipad.
Oh, are there reports or pictures of her at a salon? I thought she hadn't been out in public since she became ill.
Quote from: cinrit on October 01, 2014, 10:33:07 AM
I suppose it might have made a difference to someone, since they were omitted from the list.
Cindy
I agree. Had she added the events it might not have set the right tone. The author is welcome to her thoughts on Kate, but her accuracy is well... :lol:
QuoteShe's long been a fan of sailing, famously beating husband Prince William during a race around Auckland Harbour during the Royal Tour Down Under.
Now Kensington Palace has announced that the Duchess of Cambridge has become royal patron of a new sailing charity, The 1851 Trust, which aims to help bring the America's Cup home.
In a statement released by the palace, the Duchess spoke of her love of sailing and said she hoped the trust would inspire a new generation to take up the sport.
Kate Middleton gets behind Britain's bid for America's Cup glory | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2790923/kate-s-plan-sailing-success-duchess-cambridge-gets-britain-s-bid-america-s-cup-glory-patron-1851-trust.html)
Good luck to the teams! :flower:
QuoteDuchess of Cambridge Becomes Royal Patron of a Charity Set Up to Get More Young People Into Sailing and the Marine Industry
Kate, a keen yachtswoman in her younger days, will act as a figurehead for the 1851 Trust, the charitable arm of Olympic hero Sir Ben Ainslie's bid to bring the America's Cup back to Britain for the first time since the world's oldest sporting trophy was won by a US yacht 163 years ago.
The Duchess, who had to pull out of a visit to Sir Ben's new racing headquarters in Portsmouth today because she is still suffering from hyperemesis gravidarum, very severe morning sickness, announced her new patronage in a statement from Kensington Palace.
It reflects her interest in sailing and in using sport to support children and young people to build their skills, confidence and aspirations. The trust will work with young people under 25 years old and from diverse backgrounds, to inspire and engage a new generation through sailing and the marine industry.
"I am delighted to be royal patron of The 1851 Trust. I feel very fortunate to have enjoyed sailing from a young age and I know it is a great way of providing young people with the opportunity to develop skills and confidence," Kate, 32, said.
More: Pregnant Kate Middleton teams up with Sir Ben Ainslie for sailing venture | Royal | News | Daily Express (http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/522211/Pregnant-Kate-Middleton-Duchess-of-Cambridge-Sir-Ben-Ainslie-sailing)
Cindy
Sailing? This is just getting painful to watch. :no:
This woman is a joke and totally detached from REALITY !!! SAILING? SAILING? You gotta be kidding me!!! :happycry:
UK islands, promoting sailing and marine industry is an alternative to sport and work. Surely coastal people appreciate the trust and her being the patron. She did a summer work during high school at a yatch. Princess Anne a keen sailor will be proud. And the Military navy too.
QuoteThe Duchess of Cambridge Becomes Patron of the 1851 Trust
The 1851 Trust is the charitable arm of the UK team's bid to bring the America's Cup back to Britain. It will work with young people under 25 years old, to inspire and engage a new generation through sailing and the marine industry.
The patronage reflects Her Royal Highness's personal interests in sailing and in supporting children and young people to build their skills, confidence and aspirations.
The Duchess of Cambridge said: "I am delighted to be Royal Patron of The 1851 Trust. I feel very fortunate to have enjoyed sailing from a young age and I know it is a great way of providing young people with the opportunity to develop skills and confidence.
"It is a hugely exciting time for sailing as the British challenger bids to bring the America's Cup back to Britain. I am looking forward to being part of this journey and I hope that through the 1851 Trust we can engage and inspire a new generation into sailing along the way."
More: Press release (http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/news-and-diary/10945/press-release)
Cindy
Quote from: wannable on October 14, 2014, 10:06:34 AM
UK islands, promoting sailing and marine industry is an alternative to sport and work. Surely coastal people appreciate the trust and her being the patron. She did a summer work during high school at a yatch. Princess Anne a keen sailor will be proud. And the Military navy too.
Speaking as a resident of Santa Monica bay in So Cal I'd like to thank you for the reminder that this activity/sport this offers employment to many people who live in coastal areas. Tourists who choose to visit these areas then can patronize other shops, restaurants, hotels etc...I agree that they would like a member of the BRF to be their patron.
Only an idiot would appreciate a patron who is not involved in or has shown interest in the activity they are part of, the people who seek royal patronages are starting to seem like royal hangers on.
Who now Days has money to sail in luxurious Yachts? This woman is a JOKE !!! Another "Charity" she WON'T bother visit ...
Kate was at the launch of the America's Cup bid in June, and was scheduled to visit the training centre for the announcement yesterday but had to cancel because she's still ill. I think it's a little early to decide she doesn't care and won't show up for something that's a brand new charity, a new patronage for her, and that she has already made one appearance for and had planned to make a second.
:goodpost: As mentioned earlier, she also participated in the race with William during their visit to Australia. She has sailing experience as well. There are hundreds of patronages taken on by royals around the world where the patron has little or no experience with the charity, cultural activity or society ie: Microcredit-Only one royal patron who actually had a career with the banking industry-then Princess Maxima. Yet the program was still patronized by royal women ie: GD Maria Teresa, then Duchess of Brabant Mathilde who brought attention to this UN initiative.
While it is logical to seek out a patron who does have past interest or experience with a charity, cultural activity etc.. like Kate does with sailing it isn't a requirement. :)
Quote from: TLLK link= :sneeze:topic=72177.msg1308066#msg1308066 date=1413304168
As mentioned earlier, she also participated in the race with William during their visit to Australia.
Those are her credentials, the woman is a joke. This further establishes the royal family's patronages as photops for royal fans with charities.
I don't think TLLK meant to suggest that was her *only* credential. Kate has long been involved in sailing -- as others have noted, for example, she was on a crew in the round the world yacht race during her gap year. But even if she didn't have that history, that wouldn't mean she couldn't be a good patron for this initiative. What matters is that she has some interest in it and will help to raise the profile of the bid (for both potential sponsors and the public at large). So far, she's done that.
Th comments are priceless Kate is a JOKE and as such she is treated at this point I would pretty much prefer if The Palace announced she will only be a wife and mother because she is failing at every turn on this being a Royal thing ...
Sailing for Kate and cricket for William...lol
Quote from: Canuck on October 14, 2014, 11:51:08 PM
I don't think TLLK meant to suggest that was her *only* credential. Kate has long been involved in sailing -- as others have noted, for example, she was on a crew in the round the world yacht race during her gap year. But even if she didn't have that history, that wouldn't mean she couldn't be a good patron for this initiative. What matters is that she has some interest in it and will help to raise the profile of the bid (for both potential sponsors and the public at large). So far, she's done that.
She has not long been involved in sailing, she served drinks on a yacht during her gap year in tight shorts and sailed with William on the Tour, she has no credentials. Why are people intent on rewriting her history to make her look good instead of making her responsible for that herself? She isn't a good patron for any initiative given her lack of interest in anything, evidenced by the ridiculous amount of time she dedicates to her charities. I agree with
@Eri the Palace should just announce that she will be a housewife and a mother and get this patron-Kate nonsense over with.
Well, the trust asked her to be a patron, and she has already garnered quite a bit of publicity for it, so I'd guess they're quite happy with that decision so far.
I could have sworn that people here have been saying for months that Kate needs more patronages and should get more involved with sporting causes because she looks engaged while at those events. So she chooses a cause that's both a national team for Britain and that will be providing opportunities for kids from diverse backgrounds, and yet she still gets criticized for that. Almost like there's nothing she could do that wouldn't cause some people to criticize her. :orchid:
(And no, she did not just serve drinks while on the race crew. There's plenty of information out there about that experience, if you're interested in learning about it.)
^^^If the trust asked her to be a patron then they (sailing experts) believe that she was the right choice. They (sailing experts) could have requested another member of the BRF but opted to ask for one that had experience with the sport. :)
And I agree that there are plenty of posts regarding the Duchess' education, hobbies, work experience etc.. that should provide plenty of information about her background. :wink: All available at a click of a mouse.
She worked in one during her gap year and went on one during her tour of Oz, the nada and now we are supposed to believe she has always been interested in yachting? Why do her fans insist on rewriting history? We know royal fans with charities are always pleased with their royal patrons and grateful to be able to namedrop them on their friends, but it is silly...
I totally agree,
@Limabeany. I served cakes and refreshments in my youth - does not make me qualified to be Patron of Costa.
My main gripe with Kate is, she seems not to give a hoot about the Patronages she already has. Why bother adding this one?
Double post auto-merged: October 15, 2014, 07:18:10 PM
Quote from: TLLK on October 15, 2014, 06:43:28 PM
And I agree that there are plenty of posts regarding the Duchess' education, hobbies, work experience etc.. that should provide plenty of information about her background. :wink: All available at a click of a mouse.
That's her downfall, TLLK. From the click of a mouse, we know just how damn lazy she has always (and continues) to be.
What has been rewritten? Royal corespondents have also said she regularly would sail with her family.
I don't see anything wrong doing a summer job as a deckhand whilst a teenager. Is it degrading?
Quote from: Limabeany on October 15, 2014, 07:10:46 PM
She worked in one during her gap year and went on one during her tour of Oz, the nada and now we are supposed to believe she has always been interested in yachting? Why do her fans insist on rewriting history?
I'm honestly very confused by the insistence that Kate has no experience or interest sailing. I have read dozens of articles that discuss that very fact.
Here's members of the America's Cup team board talking about their conversations with Kate about sailing:
QuoteFormer Channel 4 boss Lord Grade, a board member of Britain's bid to win the race, said of Kate: "She's a keen sailor, she loves her sailing clearly, you can just tell. You can see it in her eyes. It's great for everybody she's got behind it and supporting it."
Sir Keith Mills, also a board member, said Sir Ben had offered to take Prince George out on the water when he is old enough, and Kate readily agreed.
Sir Keith, who was deputy chairman of the London 2012 organising committee, said of the Duchess: "We were all sharing sailing stories and sailing is in her family."
Kate Middleton indulges passion for sailing and lends support to America's Cup bid - Mirror Online (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/kate-middleton-indulges-passion-sailing-3670326#ixzz3GFGER5SJ)
Here's one about the Australia engagement (which certainly showed she had some experience sailing, or she wouldn't have been able to do as well as she did):
Quote"William was a good sailor but Kate pushed us around into a bad position. She did very well.
Kate Middleton's nautical style wows New Zealand as she beats husband Prince William in battle on seas - Independent.ie (http://www.independent.ie/woman/celeb-news/kate-middletons-nautical-style-wows-new-zealand-as-she-beats-husband-prince-william-in-battle-on-seas-30176469.html)
From her statement on becoming patron of this trust:
Quote"I feel very fortunate to have enjoyed sailing from a young age and I know it is a great way of providing young people with the opportunity to develop skills and confidence.
And this has been on her official bio as long as I can remember:
QuoteThe Duchess's hobbies include recreational sports such as hill walking, tennis, swimming, sailing, and the arts such as photography and painting.
No one is saying she's the second coming of Ben Ainslie. But she's spent some time sailing, she enjoys it, and that would seem to make her a good fit for this patronage. I don't understand the drama here. :orchid:
Quote from: SophieChloe on October 15, 2014, 07:14:48 PM
I totally agree, @Limabeany. I served cakes and refreshments in my youth - does not make me qualified to be Patron of Costa.
My main gripe with Kate is, she seems not to give a hoot about the Patronages she already has. Why bother adding this one?
Double post auto-merged: October 15, 2014, 07:18:10 PM
Quote from: TLLK on October 15, 2014, 06:43:28 PM
And I agree that there are plenty of posts regarding the Duchess' education, hobbies, work experience etc.. that should provide plenty of information about her background. :wink: All available at a click of a mouse.
That's her downfall, TLLK. From the click of a mouse, we know just how damn lazy she has always (and continues) to be.
She would have had her second visit to the group in 2014 recently, but she was ill. And I disagree regarding the information about Kate or any other royal. For those willing to read it thoroughly they'd uncover more facts about their interests, education etc...than pure fiction.
Double post auto-merged: October 15, 2014, 08:10:30 PM
Well perhaps the group would have been better off requesting a member of the BRF who becomes sea sick while on a flume ride at Legoland, has a deep fear of water and has never heard the terms stern, bow, port, and aft. :P :teehee:
I don't get it ... there've been complaints that Kate hasn't added new patronages in awhile. Now she has. Isn't that what we all want?
Cindy
Yes, but fill in the blank 😃
^^ I know. ;)
Cindy
She could have a list as long as her hair. Means nothing if she does not bother to visit or show an interest in them.
Kate Middleton spent a few weeks during her gap year on a yacht, then she went on a yacht during the tour and sunbathed while riding in one a few times, how does this translate into an interest in yachting? You all keep pointing to Kate Middleton being interested in yachting, how has she shown this throughout her life?
:goodpost:
@SophieChloe
Limabeany, multiple sources have discussed Kate learning to sail as a kid and spending time sailing with her family. Her statement on the new patronage says the same. Her official bio lists it as an interest. She spent part of her gap year crewing a boat, and we've recently seen her demonstrate that she knows how to sail. I'm not sure what other proof you're looking for?
The Palace lists everything as an interest, nothing to show for those interests though... Her official bio is an attempt to rewrite history so that she can appear to have had a life beyond waiting for William to propose. She took the helm in Oz, that is not evidence that she can sail but that she can use her hands. I have done that dozens of times and that does not make me a sailor as you are all insisting Kate is.
@Canuck,
@wannable and
@cinrit Even though she crewed on a yacht during her gap year why on earth would a sailing team want a patron with that type of background? :teehee: Logic demands that this British group should go with a royal with a fear of water from a landlocked nation like Luxembourg. Loads of members in that family so someone should fit that description. :lol:
There is no proof reports of any of her so-called interests are anything but fiction, none of you can say she has done anything other than sail in Oz, and during her gap year over 10 years ago. As far as her other interests, there is nothing to show that she has consistently shown an interest in any of her so-called interests throughout her life.
Charities would run out of potential Royal candidates pretty darn fast if they only took absolute experts in their fields as patrons. Kate is the Patron, she isn't going to be captaining the boat. Why the fuss? :shrug: It seems to be a bit of a mountain out of a mole hill.
QE has over 600 charities. Is she an expert in all of them?
Quote from: Limabeany on October 15, 2014, 09:46:42 PM
The Palace lists everything as an interest, nothing to show for those interests though...
Again, what is she supposed to have to show for a recreational pursuit? No one is claiming she was a world-class sailor or won championships or whatever, just that she's got experience sailing and likes it.
Perhaps tomorrow we can tackle the PR lie that Kate enjoys hill-walking, I've never seen proof of that. Or we could dig into Sophie Wessex's similarly suspicious claim that she, like Kate, has an interest in sailing. Maybe this conspiracy goes further than I realized... :hide:
The fuss is about her fans and Palace rewriting history to counter the actions she has and has not taken in her life instead of accepting who she is and not trying to portray her as a fictional character.
Double post auto-merged: October 22, 2014, 07:36:02 PM
Quote from: Canuck on October 15, 2014, 10:08:52 PM
Perhaps tomorrow we can tackle the PR lie that Kate enjoys hill-walking, I've never seen proof of that. Or we could dig into Sophie Wessex's similarly suspicious claim that she, like Kate, has an interest in sailing. Maybe this conspiracy goes further than I realized... :hide:
Perhaps we could tackle her fans' interest in portraying her as having a history of being interested and involved in everything and anything without any evidence that she is.
I remain incredibly confused. Again, no one is saying that she has dedicated her life to sailing or that's what she was doing with all of her time when she could have been working or whatever. We're just saying that she knows how to sail and enjoys sailing. That's not rewriting history. Pretending she has never sailed except for in Australia is rewriting history.
Her interests are listed on the BRF website. No one is making up anything new. She likes tennis and swimming and sailing and art. She's done various things throughout her life related to those interests. They're not vocations -- saying she's interested in them doesn't mean she's spent countless hours toiling at them. It doesn't mean she's not lazy or boring or whatever criticism you have of her. But pretending she's never cared about any hobby in her entire life is, IMO, pretty bizarre.
Arguing she cares about things that there is no evidence she does is even more bizarre, we know she likes Tennis and very few if anything else, but every time she takes up a new charity her fans argue she has been interested in it there whole life and point to fiction to prove it, such is the case with sailing.
I posted evidence that Kate has an interest in sailing, including articles about how she learned to sail when she was young, that her family sailed together, and that she spent time on her gap year crewing a boat. I'd be interested to know what evidence there is that she does not like and has never been interested in sailing. As far as I can tell, that's the part of this that's complete fiction.
Quote from: HistoryGirl on October 15, 2014, 09:56:24 AM
Sailing for Kate and cricket for William...lol
Time to round up all those inner-city youths and outfit them with Sperrys, pastels, cardigans and ascots! Here's your cricket bat, Little Jimmy. This is how you tie an anchor-hitch knot, Little Suzy! These are valuable life lessons, don't you know?
Also, in case all of you forgot, Kate invented Sperrys when she was getting foot loose and fancy free in Canada after her wedding, even though they resurfaced in popularity in the US around 2006.
Thank you, Kate! You are a fashion icon!Anyway, I will give credit to a few she took up. Her PR people certainly need to up their games. I don't think we'll ever see Kate with landmine victims or crusading for a global epidemic. This is why I think a lot of people find her choices in philanthropy very shallow.
Quote from: Macrobug on October 15, 2014, 10:05:30 PM
Charities would run out of potential Royal candidates pretty darn fast if they only took absolute experts in their fields as patrons. Kate is the Patron, she isn't going to be captaining the boat. Why the fuss? :shrug: It seems to be a bit of a mountain out of a mole hill.
QE has over 600 charities. Is she an expert in all of them?
@Macrobug -Don't you realize by now that you must be an expert with a lifelong interest in the disease, activity, craft, etc..in order to be a patron? I want to know which member of the BRF is an expert in Stilton Cheese production. Time to check the BRF website and find out who the patron of the Royal and Ancient Cheesemongers. :nod: :wink:
Quote from: DaisyMeRollin on October 15, 2014, 10:48:41 PM
Quote from: HistoryGirl on October 15, 2014, 09:56:24 AM
Sailing for Kate and cricket for William...lol
Time to round up all those inner-city youths and outfit them with Sperrys, pastels, cardigans and ascots! Here's your cricket bat, Little Jimmy. This is how you tie an anchor-hitch knot, Little Suzy! These are valuable life lessons, don't you know?
Also, in case all of you forgot, Kate invented Sperrys when she was getting foot loose and fancy free in Canada after her wedding, even though they resurfaced in popularity in the US around 2006. Thank you, Kate! You are a fashion icon!
Anyway, I will give credit to a few she took up. Her PR people certainly need to up their games. I don't think we'll ever see Kate with landmine victims or crusading for a global epidemic. This is why I think a lot of people find her choices in philanthropy very shallow.
Hahahahahaha a thousand times this!!!
Quote from: Canuck on October 15, 2014, 10:27:19 PM
I posted evidence that Kate has an interest in sailing, including articles about how she learned to sail when she was young, that her family sailed together, and that she spent time on her gap year crewing a boat. I'd be interested to know what evidence there is that she does not like and has never been interested in sailing. As far as I can tell, that's the part of this that's complete fiction.
Found this description from one of her team on PT Global Challenge: "long days and physical work. Tasks included: waiting tables, chatting to guests, cleaning boat, and getting sails down." Team also did marine surveys.
Still believe that the group was wrong to choose someone with sailing experience. :wink: What were they thinking???? :lol:
Just for the record, my only complaint about this one is seemingly within the confines of a class she already has a level of comfort with. She doesn't like to color outside the lines. All the accolades she received for being "average" pre-marriage kind of go out the window. Her patronages, independent of William's and/or Harry's, are pretty soft. Though I will say that Place2Be hits the mark. I forgot if Action on Addiction was supported by William first or if it came collaboratively post-marriage.
@TLLK Still believing, not that they were wrong, but that they are simply, royal suit-cleaners, like all the charities that pick Kate despite her abysmal lack of interest in them or their causes or any cause, simply because they want a photo op with a royal celebrity. I see no value in Kate as a patron, unless it is a patron saint of clothes and hair.
I thought she was a kate effect, boosting the money incomes for the charities of the foundation. Have read before her, after her.
Her charities must be rolling in money after her every one visit a year, is it?
Quote from: Limabeany on October 16, 2014, 12:30:03 AM
@TLLK Still believing, not that they were wrong, but that they are simply, royal suit-cleaners, like all the charities that pick Kate despite her abysmal lack of interest in them or their causes or any cause, simply because they want a photo op with a royal celebrity. I see no value in Kate as a patron, unless it is a patron saint of clothes and hair.
Well then I believe that you will not request her as a patron of the Limabeany Ltd. Foundation, but the sailing team seems to find her to be worthwhile. :D BTW what cause does the Limabeany Ltd. Foundation support and what is its goal? :hug:
Double post auto-merged: October 16, 2014, 12:40:38 AM
Quote from: Limabeany on October 16, 2014, 12:38:15 AM
Her charities must be rolling in money after her every one visit a year, is it?
I agree and it is absolutely amazing!!!!!! :banana: :happy17: :computer:
As I have said before, all royal fans want a royal patron and drool at the prospect and sight of them for their photo-op value and the feeling of being associated to royalty, in Kate's case at least, since it certainly isn't because she is an involved patron or has ever been interested in anything other than William and tennis consistently throughout her life.
To answer the burning question: the Patron of Cheesemakers Association is..........POW. :cheese: Someone, to my knowledge, who has never expressed an overwhelming interest in cheese.
Apparently Sophie is the Colonel -in-Chief of the Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps. Haven't ever seen her changing a bed or a dressing, nor do I recall her getting a Nursing Degree.
And the list goes on.....
The PoW has always had an interest, not like William in conservation or Kate in anything other than tennis, in artisans and crafts and natural products. :cool: Attempts to drag all royals into the "Kate is as uncaring as all the other royals" argument should not include royals who have shown they care about causes or have a history of involvement with causes.
Quote from: Macrobug on October 16, 2014, 01:16:57 AM
To answer the burning question: the Patron of Cheesemakers Association is..........POW. :cheese: Someone, to my knowledge, who has never expressed an overwhelming interest in cheese.
Apparently Sophie is the Colonel -in-Chief of the Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps. Haven't ever seen her changing a bed or a dressing, nor do I recall her getting a Nursing Degree.
And the list goes on.....
Woo Hoo!!! Now why don't we switch these two for a little fun. Sophie gets to mingle with the dairy farmers and cheese makers. Charles gets to deal with bed pans and dazzle us with his hospital corners.
Double post auto-merged: October 16, 2014, 01:43:47 AM
Quote from: Limabeany on October 16, 2014, 01:25:35 AM
The PoW has always had an interest, not like William in conservation or Kate in anything other than tennis, in artisans and crafts and natural products. :cool: Attempts to drag all royals into the "Kate is as uncaring as all the other royals" argument should not include royals who have shown they care about causes or have a history of involvement with causes.
I agree. Charles has always shown an interest in all things cheesy. :D
Double post auto-merged: October 16, 2014, 01:51:41 AM
Even more exciting patronages await when you visit the BRF official site. :happy17:Just found out that the Duchess of Cornwall is the patron of the Fan Museum!! (I've never seen her fan dancing myself, but that doesn't mean she can't be an excellent patron for the society.) :banana:
What? I thought "The Kate Effect" was coined in terms of fashion. It extends to philanthropy now?
The Kansas City Royals make it to the World Series: The Kate Effect.
Canada makes headway with an experimental Ebola vaccine: The Kate Effect.
Malala Yousafzai receives a Nobel Prize: The Kate Effect.
Now don't you think the KC Royals made it to the World Series on their own? :P C'mon Daisy.
Actually, there's quite a number of reports out there about how the "Kate effect" has also worked for charities. I know the Scouts reported big increases in both volunteers and participants that they directly attributed to Kate's role as a volunteer, and several of her patronages have seen awareness and donations increase the same way. Which is only to be expected, really -- someone famous is associated with a cause, the cause gets more media attention, that translates to more donations.
well apparently she did do some sailing with her family during her youth - that seems irrelevant to me though - one can be interested in sailing as well supporting a British bid for the America's Cup without actually having done much sailing - I do not sail much but I always attend regattas etc in my area. Love to watch it.
What matters I think is can she really make a contribution in terms of raising the huge amount of money a bid for the race requires? As for the ancillary charity - I am ambivalent about the lately efforts to get kids who lack the money to participate in certain posh sports into those sports. I see pros and cons but whatever - again - I eems to me what matters is her ability to support them in fundraising.
Frankly - the US Aussies and New Zealand own the Cup - LOL - the Brits ain't got a chance!!
Took a look at the 1851 Trust. There is a lot more to it than just some elitist sailing for rich people. It looks like a worthwhile charity.
As a mother with all that is going on in the World you would think Kate would find some REAL Charity not SAILING ( :eyes:) to support it's horrible that as a Royal she is made to look like a joke by Hollywood types like Angelina (just to name one) if Hollywood types like Clooney and Leo can do more for Organizations and Charities what is the point of TAX PAYERS paying for Kate's LUXURIOUS life style? I am not a "she can't win" person I actually think she did a great job in Australia and that she is doing her number one job of being a wife and giving Willy heirs right but people defending whatever she does won't help her in fact it's only doing harm ...
Kate is patron of several "real" charities:
Action on Addiction
East Anglia/s Children's Hospices
Place2Be
...and so on.
And again, the taxpayer does not pay for her lifestyle.
Cindy
It's ludicrous she's singled out for a peculiar charity, when all of them have a handful or more not to each likening.
Yes, as I said I've read Kate Effect in charities she's involved, including boosting a William or Harry charity, by the same Royal correspondents articles linked, search kate effect charity, surprisingly broadsheets come as a first, rather than tabloid.
Aside from reporting increases in donations after Kate has become patron, several of her charities have also been reported as saying that she keeps in close contact with them, via phone.
Cindy
Question to those dismissing the 1851 Trust as elitist: Have you taken a look at the website? There is a lot more to the charity than rich kids living the luxurious life.
Quote from: cinrit on October 16, 2014, 11:50:43 AM
Aside from reporting increases in donations after Kate has become patron, several of her charities have also been reported as saying that she keeps in close contact with them, via phone.
Cindy
Meaning her minions, if it were her personally , there would be a familiarity that isn't there. But, all is well, they get to say they are somehow connected to a royal and she gets good pr by association.
It is the same old excuse as her doing things behind the scenes. Very convenient.
Well, of course, the charities could be lying or exaggerating. But somehow, I doubt it, since they don't have to say anything after getting her name on their letterhead. :blank:
Cindy
Quote from: TLLK on October 16, 2014, 03:11:22 AM
Now don't you think the KC Royals made it to the World Series on their own? :P C'mon Daisy.
Okay. Maybe she didn't have anything to do with that. I have my suspicions about Will's hand in it though. Cricket: Close enough? :lol:
Jokes aside, after posting that, I was mulling over a memory of Will and Harry packing supplies for the victims of Katrina/Rita.
At the time, I was still attending university, and was in a state where we had an influx of Katrina refugees. My university was one of the many that opened the doors to a portion of the displaced population, and naturally, plenty of the students, including myself, volunteered. I kind of look upon the memory of waking up to seeing ABC news's footage on their voluntary efforts, as I was participating in the same, very fondly. I also remember them doing the same for Haiti.
I won't be the one to banally scream that Kate influenced a lapse in these small gestures, and we all end up with more time constraints as we get older. I will say that those small gestures were nice, but they seem few and far between now. That's unfortunate, to me at least. When the mass flooding occurred in the UK, from what I read, it seemed as though it wasn't until there was mass criticism that the younger portion publicly acknowledged the disaster. That's unfortunate.
Just to bring this around home, the off-the-cuff joke last night made me wonder why William and Harry haven't really said/done much, even the slightest bit, in regards to the Ebola crisis in their "beloved" Africa. It's all starting to seem really far removed from what they were, for whatever reason.
I can see what you mean, Daisy, about the smaller gestures having tapered off. I suspect that's a function of the BRF's conception of age and official responsibilities -- it seems like it's always the young Royals doing those things, and once they age into being "adults" (however that's defined for a particular generation), they show up more places in suits for meetings and walk arounds and fewer places for hands-on volunteering. While I to some extent understand that, like you I would like to see more of those hands-on events.
Quote from: cinrit on October 16, 2014, 05:07:19 PM
Well, of course, the charities could be lying or exaggerating. But somehow, I doubt it, since they don't have to say anything after getting her name on their letterhead. :blank:
Cindy
Have they spoken publicly about Kate's phone calls?
It is really silly (IMO) that a newish member of the RF (with IMO a lazy reputation to shake) chooses to help her charities by phone. It does not add up to me.
SC, I don't think any of Kate's charities have gone so far as to call press conferences, but there have been several articles (many of them posted here and discussed in the past) that report some of the charities saying that their donations have increased since she became a patron, and also that she keeps in close contact with them. Obviously, she's not going to make weekly or monthly visits to any of her charities (what Royal, past or present, does?), so those phone calls are an effective way of letting them know that they are thought of, and perhaps discussing whatever activities are being pursued. If those charities didn't appreciate the gesture, I'm sure they wouldn't bother to report it.
Cindy
It's rather difficult to conclusively prove that her affiliation with a charity increases donations. It is a matter of opinion, no scientific proof to back it up.
the Queen and Charles and other hard working royals did not just get work credit through reports that they made phone calls to patronages.
Maybe Kate can fax in her charity work next.
Quote from: sandy on October 16, 2014, 07:45:28 PM
Maybe Kate can fax in her charity work next.
:clap: :hehe:
Double post auto-merged: October 16, 2014, 08:58:28 PM
Quote from: cinrit on October 16, 2014, 07:41:24 PM
Obviously, she's not going to make weekly or monthly visits to any of her charities (what Royal, past or present, does?),
Cindy
So once a year is enough? And why bring other members into the Kate discussion?
Daisy-Fair enough about William and the KC Royals. :truce: Not sure who I'm going to cheer for at this point. Really hoping its not the Giants in the World Series.
Double post auto-merged: October 16, 2014, 10:23:02 PM
Cindy, Canuck, Macrobug, and wannable-Good points all around. :thumbsup: Once again I'm puzzled by the idea that Kate taking on another patronage is something negative. Likewise, if Kate, William or (name your royal) increases donations for a charity when they take on the patronage I find it to be something positive. Apparently not everyone feels the same way. :shrug:
Quote from: SophieChloe on October 16, 2014, 08:23:35 PM
Quote from: cinrit on October 16, 2014, 07:41:24 PM
Obviously, she's not going to make weekly or monthly visits to any of her charities (what Royal, past or present, does?),
Cindy
So once a year is enough?
Maybe she hasn't visited her charities as often as you think she should, but she's visited them more than once a year.
Quote from: SophieChloeAnd why bring other members into the Kate discussion?
I didn't point to any member specifically; I pointed out that perhaps Kate is being expected to do something that is out of the ordinary.
Cindy
If Kate is being criticized for visiting her charities only once or twice a year, then I think the frequency of visits from other BRF members is very relevant because that gives a framework for what type of engagement Royal patrons normally have.
From what I've seen, Kate is doing at least as much for her patronages as other members of the BRF, and a good deal more than many. That is presumably why she has many fewer patronages than some of the older family members do -- the Queen is patron of more than 600 organizations, so clearly visiting all of them even once a year is out of the question, and there are a large number she has done virtually nothing with for much longer than that. I think that all of the younger generation of Royals is taking on fewer causes and doing more with each of them; averaging twice yearly visits or meetings (in addition to their charities' participation in the twice yearly Royal Foundation meetings) is more than the historical engagement, and ensures that every cause gets at least some attention on a regular basis.
If people think that Kate should ramp up her schedule generally, then IMO the solution is either to take on more patronages (though I can see why they are adding those just a few at a time for more impact) or to do more events that aren't tied to one of her patronages (such as the poppy exhibit at the Tower, visits to other charities, visits to schools and national teams or awards, etc.).
I don't personally have a problem with Kate's current schedule, but I think there are valid arguments to be made about why she should do more now. I have trouble, however, giving much weight to arguments that she is neglecting her patronages when she does much more with them than senior BRF members generally do for theirs.
Quote from: Canuck on October 16, 2014, 05:42:20 PM
I can see what you mean, Daisy, about the smaller gestures having tapered off. I suspect that's a function of the BRF's conception of age and official responsibilities -- it seems like it's always the young Royals doing those things, and once they age into being "adults" (however that's defined for a particular generation), they show up more places in suits for meetings and walk arounds and fewer places for hands-on volunteering. While I to some extent understand that, like you I would like to see more of those hands-on events.
I agree with you that we have to allot leeway for age and the increased obligations due to their individual careers, family, etc. Those are natural accommodations everyone has to make when you reach certain life thresholds. The only trump card is the immense privilege.
I think with the floods specifically being home-turf, someone dropped the ball on that one. At the end of the day we don't know if it was a matter of a flippant attitude by each individual or their PR team. I remember watching/reading this all unfold, and remembering that small twinge of a kind-of, sort-of pick up from seeing the footage of their, even though minor assistance with Katrina (which is understandable), and was left wondering why someone didn't allot a little morale boost to "their" own people with the same immediacy. Then again, that's not to say that youthful idealism doesn't steadily wane also.
And I absolutely understand your end of the matter too, and it's good that we both agree that every little bit helps. In that instant though, someone didn't have much foresight. Anyhow, who am I to judge? It's not like that doesn't rattle around in my brain on here either. No one here should be claiming moral high-ground without expecting someone to snigger once in a while.
Quote from: TLLK on October 16, 2014, 10:22:17 PM
Daisy-Fair enough about William and the KC Royals. :truce: Not sure who I'm going to cheer for at this point. Really hoping its not the Giants in the World Series.
Me too, but I might be a little sour over the World Series a couple of years ago. :thumbsup:
^^^ Which one and who did you want to see win? LOL We've gone way off topic, but I'm going to stretch it by saying that one team does have the word "royals" in their name. :happy15:
Double post auto-merged: October 16, 2014, 11:35:10 PM
Quote from: cinrit on October 16, 2014, 07:41:24 PM
SC, I don't think any of Kate's charities have gone so far as to call press conferences, but there have been several articles (many of them posted here and discussed in the past) that report some of the charities saying that their donations have increased since she became a patron, and also that she keeps in close contact with them. Obviously, she's not going to make weekly or monthly visits to any of her charities (what Royal, past or present, does?), so those phone calls are an effective way of letting them know that they are thought of, and perhaps discussing whatever activities are being pursued. If those charities didn't appreciate the gesture, I'm sure they wouldn't bother to report it.
Cindy
I do recall when the Cambridges made their trip to Copenhagen to see the packing facility with the Crown Princely couple, that the donations reached their highest.
Time flies! Apparently, it wasn't a "couple" of years ago. The 2010 World Series is why I can't root for the Giants. I might be rooting for the underdogs of the past twenty years, the Royals.
I'm hoping that they'll win the series too.
Quote from: cinrit on October 16, 2014, 10:23:07 AM
Kate is patron of several "real" charities:
Action on Addiction
East Anglia/s Children's Hospices
Place2Be
...and so on.
And again, the taxpayer does not pay for her lifestyle.
Cindy
When was the last time she visited them or did anything for them? And again you fail to respond on who pays for her luxurious life style and where the money comes from ... neither she , her husband or her father in law have ever worked ...
It seems the schedule of visits is Q1 and Q4 yearly for the young royals; William, Kate and Harry. Since she's got HG no visits, cancelled to date.
Quote from: Macrobug on October 16, 2014, 12:47:11 PM
Question to those dismissing the 1851 Trust as elitist: Have you taken a look at the website? There is a lot more to the charity than rich kids living the luxurious life.
can you post a link I cant find it
Quote from: Eri on October 17, 2014, 10:09:21 AM
When was the last time she visited them or did anything for them? And again you fail to respond on who pays for her luxurious life style and where the money comes from ... neither she , her husband or her father in law have ever worked ...
Eri, the answer has been posted more than once by myself and others. :shrug:
Cindy
Quote from: cinrit on October 17, 2014, 11:57:53 AM
Quote from: Eri on October 17, 2014, 10:09:21 AM
When was the last time she visited them or did anything for them? And again you fail to respond on who pays for her luxurious life style and where the money comes from ... neither she , her husband or her father in law have ever worked ...
Eri, the answer has been posted more than once by myself and others. :shrug:
Cindy
Sorry Eri, but William was a Search and Rescue pilot and Charles was a Naval officer. They both served, held a rank and drew a salary, or are you saying the Armed Services don't work?
Quote from: PaulaB on October 17, 2014, 11:51:46 AM
Quote from: Macrobug on October 16, 2014, 12:47:11 PM
Question to those dismissing the 1851 Trust as elitist: Have you taken a look at the website? There is a lot more to the charity than rich kids living the luxurious life.
can you post a link I cant find it
Sure. Thought I did but obviously I was dreaming. :hehe:
About the 1851 Trust - Ben Ainslie Racing (http://benainslieracing.com/1851-trust/)
There you go!
Their aim is to inspire a new generation into sailing. Clearly,
@Macrobug you and I have very different ideas of what charity is, this sounds like a hobby group.
The trust actually has four aims, and only one has to do with inspiring people to take up sailing. Here are the other three:
QuoteENGAGE
Sailing isn't just about boats; science, technology and engineering opportunities can engage young people in a great marine industry career that can lead to travelling the globe and even working for an America's Cup team.
EDUCATE
Offer skills and qualifications for young people, and create pathways into apprenticeships, skills based training, and jobs in the wider sports and maritime industry.
INNOVATE
Support innovation for the future to promote sustainable scientific technological advancements in sailing and the maritime industry, and safeguard our marine environment.
All four aims combined can be summed up by inspiring/supporting people in sailing. Nothing to do with charity but with sailing as an interest or hobby.
Well I'm impressed that they want to educate students in a manner that could lead them to a skills' based career. Helping someone find the pathway to employment earns a :thumbsup:
I agree Canuck that the goal of the foundation is beyond steering someone toward a "hobby." Once again thank you for sharing the complete information for all of us to read.
Double post auto-merged: October 17, 2014, 01:58:42 PM
Quote from: Macrobug on October 17, 2014, 01:29:24 PM
Quote from: PaulaB on October 17, 2014, 11:51:46 AM
Quote from: Macrobug on October 16, 2014, 12:47:11 PM
Question to those dismissing the 1851 Trust as elitist: Have you taken a look at the website? There is a lot more to the charity than rich kids living the luxurious life.
can you post a link I cant find it
Sure. Thought I did but obviously I was dreaming. :hehe:
About the 1851 Trust - Ben Ainslie Racing (http://benainslieracing.com/1851-trust/)
There you go!
Thank you Macrobug. Sounds like a group that aims to do more than directing young people toward a "hobby." I wish them well and hope that their work can help those in the coastal communities find meaningful employment in the future.
I am not impressed they call this charity instead of an interest/hobby group. Since you agree with Canuck, perhaps any one of you can explain how this is a charity instead of an interest hobby group?
Quote
Charity
the act of giving money, food, or other kinds of help to people who are poor, sick, etc.; also : something (such as money or food) that is given to people who are poor, sick, etc.
an organization that helps people who are poor, sick, etc.
the organizations that help people in need
It reminds me of the groups that are served by the Prince's trust, DoE Scheme that aim to set young people on a path to future employment by teaching them skills that can be used in a variety of settings. Learn to sail-Become sailing instructor, crew on a larger vessel, work in marine shop (retail or mechanical repair) work for UK's equivalence of the coast guard, make connections that will open up a wider opportunities into tourism industry. :thumbsup: :nod:
That is a stretch, it is a hobby/interest group to promote such interest. Fun but not a charity in the true sense of the word. It is more about promoting interest in the sailing/marine industry.
First, charities and hobby-focused groups are not mutually exclusive. There are a lot of sporting and art charities, for example (including some supported by Kate and other members of the BRF) that assist children and others to develop and learn from those interests. There are also a lot of sporting charities that assist athletes pursuing Olympic dreams -- would you also consider those not "real" charities?
But since you're interested in the 1851 Trust -- which has only just launched, so obviously doesn't have years of activities under its belt yet -- here are some informative articles:
Ben Ainslie Racing Launches Art Project - Ben Ainslie Racing (http://benainslieracing.com/2014/10/1851-trust-launches-portsmouth-art-project/) Discusses the event Kate had to miss, in which 72 children from different local schools were invited to participate in a community art project that will be displayed in the Visitors Centre, depicting Britain's maritime history. Contemporary artists also worked on the mural, and the kids had a chance to work with and learn from them.
Ben Ainslie Racing Team HQ - Ben Ainslie Racing (http://benainslieracing.com/ben-ainslie-racing-team-hq/) Here's a description of the project HQ (currently being built) and the aims of the trust. David Cameron is quoted in this one, talking about how valuable the project is for the area and how it fits in with the government's strategy for job training and skill development.
Minister for Portsmouth visits city - Portsmouth News (http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/business/local-business/minister-for-portsmouth-visits-city-1-6353897) And here's an article about the Minister for Portsmouth, who attended the art project event and is quoted here discussing how the project is aimed at encouraging young people to get involved with careers in the industry.
I also read that there is a goal of revitalizing the docks at ?Portmouth which have been closed or underutilized. This is an aim to stimulate the economy of an area of Britain heavily hit. I will try to find that article.
As much as some would want to dismiss this as frivolous it is pretty obvious to me that there is some real thought behind it and goals that are quite beyond just a hobby for the rich.
Found it BBC News - Sir Ben Ainslie: America's Cup Portsmouth HQ gets £7.5m (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-28103917)
90 new jobs is not chump change
In other words, Macrobug and Canuck, it isn't a charity but the definition can be stretched because Kate Middleton is involved...
I have no idea how you got "it isn't a charity" from "here are a bunch of articles discussing how it's a charity." :hmm:
I applaud your efforts on Kte's behalf but the website itself indicates it isn't a charity but a hobby/interest group.
They are legally registered as a charity!
Anyone can register a charity. It's what they actually do and say they do that counts. :happy15:
She could also support the Royal Society for the Protection of Fat Birds, being a Royal and all... :P
So with all due respect you didn't read?
Thanks
@Canuck @Macrobug, 7m receivables is very impressive as the charity has only one month of existence. And comparing Year end receivables of charity spearheaded by other royals, this trust took a huge bite, double digit.
I have read, I am just not pretending it is anything but a hobby/interest group with a Royal patron, whose interest in spreading the sport/hobby has led them to training newcomers some of which will find work in the area as well as engaging in the hobby.
So nothing that involves hobbies or interests can really be a charity? If not the legal definition of charity, then what is your definition of charity?
Does SportAid count? It's focused on sports and gives grants to young athletes to help them pursue their passions. What about Dance Base (one of Charles' patronages), a registered charity which encourages people to take up dancing?
And even if anything focused on hobbies or interests wasn't a "real" charity, all of the linked articles discuss the 1851 Trust's scope as being much broader than just sailing. It encompasses skills development and apprenticeships, job training, marine heritage, local revitalization, etc. You keep ignoring those things, but that doesn't mean they aren't a big part of what the group does.
I was wondering when the extremes would be used. :thumbsup: Your are the one ignoring their goal is sailing and promoting sailing and on the side some of the enthusiasts they train n their efforts to enlarge the sport will find jobs in the field, but that is not their main purpose.
I'm not being extreme, I'm sincerely curious. If you don't think that anything that focuses on hobbies or interests is a charity, then what do you make of things like SportsAid or Dance Base?
I'm not ignoring anything. I'm quoting directly from government officials who backed this project because of its job creation and skills development aspects, and from the charity itself which lists four aims only one of which is about promoting sailing, and from its first event which was focused on community outreach and marine heritage.
Double post auto-merged: October 17, 2014, 03:54:33 PM
Here's another example: Harry as patron of a registered charity bringing Rugby to more schools in the UK. Prince Harry patron of RFU All Schools campaign | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-2289642/Prince-Harry-patron-RFU-All-Schools-campaign.html) Is that not a charity because it's encouraging participation in a sport?
Quote from: cinrit on October 17, 2014, 11:57:53 AM
Quote from: Eri on October 17, 2014, 10:09:21 AM
When was the last time she visited them or did anything for them? And again you fail to respond on who pays for her luxurious life style and where the money comes from ... neither she , her husband or her father in law have ever worked ...
Eri, the answer has been posted more than once by myself and others. :shrug:
Cindy
They have private wealth
Quote from: Limabeany on October 17, 2014, 03:34:38 PM
Anyone can register a charity. It's what they actually do and say they do that counts. :happy15:
Not really. Status as a charity is not something that is given lightly to just anyone:
"How to set up a charity (CC21a)" -- How to set up a charity (CC21a) - Detailed guidance - GOV.UK (https://www.gov.uk/how-to-set-up-a-charity-cc21a)
"How the commission makes sure it only registers organisations that meet the legal test for charitable status and are required to register." -- How charity registration decisions are made: Charity Commission - Publications - GOV.UK (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/how-charity-registration-decisions-are-made-charity-commission)
Cindy
Quote from: Limabeany on October 17, 2014, 02:54:26 PM
In other words, Macrobug and Canuck, it isn't a charity but the definition can be stretched because Kate Middleton is involved...
Or the reverse. A organization is dismissed as frivolous, unworthy and elitist just because Kate is involved. Even if all reports prove otherwise.
Quote from: amabel on October 17, 2014, 03:59:48 PM
Quote from: cinrit on October 17, 2014, 11:57:53 AM
Quote from: Eri on October 17, 2014, 10:09:21 AM
When was the last time she visited them or did anything for them? And again you fail to respond on who pays for her luxurious life style and where the money comes from ... neither she , her husband or her father in law have ever worked ...
Eri, the answer has been posted more than once by myself and others. :shrug:
Cindy
They have private wealth
Yeah and they make sure as hell that they keep it.
[mod]Time for a new thread :
The Charities of the Duchess of Cambridge - Part 2 (http://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=72252.msg1308459#msg1308459) :flower:[/mod]