I'm sooo happy it was Rebecca Sparrow who wrote this response!
Rebecca Sparrow @RebeccaSparrow 57m
It's time to take a side people. And I'm on "Team Duchess".
QuoteThe Duchess of Cambridge is dangerous.
Did you know?
Lock your doors, people. Be alert not alarmed. The Duchess is out to brainwash little girls into becoming grown up doormats with a single digit BMI (but with truly awesome hair).
At least that's what writer Maggie Hamilton seems to think. (Okay maybe not the awesome hair bit ... I made that up).
Usually I consider myself to be a fairly reasonable person. I work hard to see both sides to most arguments. And I can understand (most of the time) where people are coming from even if I don't agree with them.
But today, I just can't do that.
I have sat for the past week and gritted my teeth as a critical post about the Duchess of Cambridge has gone viral on Mamamia.
More: Is Kate Middleton a role model for our daughters? Bec Sparrow says yes. (http://www.mamamia.com.au/social/kate-middleton-is-a-role-model/)
I don't dislike Kate. I don't know her well enough to have a very strong opinion of her personality. And in terms of her style, she's a better role model than most American movie stars or "celebrities".
But that's who she's compared to. Celebrities. Models and starlets and WAGS. Of course she looks better in comparison.
I guess my reasons for disagreeing with this woman's premise are the same, and will be as long as idle and Kate remain synonymous (whatever the excuse of the hour may be, she can't work because she has to be available for William, she just married, she must get pregnant, she is pregnant, she has a baby and can't bear to part from him to work an hour but only for vacations abroad (the poor exhausted hard-working thing deserves it)... A new one blooms with every spring...) The Duchess of Cambridge is a woman in her thirties who was kept by her mother so she could spend all her time as an adult until the age of 29, until she married, available for her husband. The Duchess of Cambridge handles with grace the few occasions she ventures out in public, she says, true, and if you only visited your nine areas of responsibility once a year (Kate's workload last year was 9 visits in total to her charities and spent 45 minutes working at each on average but 6 at the beauty salon, and two weeks vacationing abroad, I venture to say you would be graceful and grateful as well... She is a public servant by marriage, with a staff of about 30, who is idle not a stay at home mom... If her mother's plan is to raise a daughter who only goes to college to nab a rich husband and never sets a goal for herself beyond marrying up enabled and kept by mum so she doesn't have to spend time on the real world beyond pubs, Mustique and the bedroom, then the only danger to that woman's daughter is her mother... :blank:
:thanks: for sharing that PoP .
TEAM DUCHESS :Jen: :teehee:
Quote
you know what bothered me the most about your post? The judgment of one woman's choices.
There are millions of women in this country and around the world who have chosen to give up their careers to be stay at home mothers. Similarly there are millions of women who have consciously made the decision to be 'trailing spouses' while they follow their partners around the country or around the world.
For many years, I was one of them.
Does that make me somehow lesser than? A worse role model to my daughter? A let-down to the sisterhood? What does it matter to you, Maggie if Catherine or I or anyone else has made such a choice?
:clap: :clap:
Great article! :thumbsup: The intention of women's liberation in the Sixties was the ability to make our own choices without being judged for whichever of those choices we make. Thanks for posting it, Princess. :flower:
Cindy
Idleness should not be the choice of a public servant which Kate is by virtue of marriage... It is a choice for her sister, Sam Branson's wife... Kate is judged because she acts like a WAG but she did not marry a footballer, but a Prince that came with a job title which is not "Princess of Mustique" forgive me Victoria Beckham, because you are a hardworking woman even though you don't have to and no one expects it from you, unlike...
I'm not convinced that Kate is idle; she just isn't spending her time doing what you want her to be doing.
Cindy
Working... :orchid:
Quote from: cinrit on April 23, 2014, 11:03:30 AM
Great article! :thumbsup: The intention of women's liberation in the Sixties was the ability to make our own choices without being judged for whichever of those choices we make. Thanks for posting it, Princess. :flower:
Cindy
When you have a title, Princess of the UK, that comes with a job you should not treat it simply as a luxury title. Kate is not judged for the choice of being a housewife, she is not a housewife, she is judged because she is someone who holds a job and did it four times in as many months... And works considerably less than people in their 90s who work for the same company she does... The intention of Women's Lib, was not that women assume responsibilities, by marriage contract or other contract, and shirked their obligations...
The intention of women's liberation (I was there), was to have the right to live our lives as we saw fit, without being judged by anyone else. That was the intention. If it's changed over the years, I didn't hear about it. :shrug:
Cindy
^You're right that the point of Women's Liberation was so women could live their lives as they choose.
But, in Kate's case (and anyone else who marries into the Royal Family), she has married somebody where being "just a housewife" really isn't feasible. When you're a Royal, you (IMO) should see yourself as working for your country. The Queen understood that when she was crowned she was entering into a lifetime of service. And "service" is the key word here. The royals "serve" their countries, and not the other way around.
As a royal, Kate has lots of luxuries, such as beautiful homes to live in, opportunities, vacations, designer clothes, jewelry, etc. What she doesn't have the luxury of is to be a full-time stay at home mom whose only job is to raise her child (with all that goes on with that). She has to make appearances, she has to be patron of her charities, and she has to represent her country.
Women's lib actually has little to do with it. Way before women's lib, senior royal wives worked and worked tirelessly--visiting charities, hospitals, and doing actual charity and royal work and being seen. Not necessary to give excuses that we don't know what they do 24/7. Alexandra as Princess and Queen had a larger family than today's royals have, she was deaf and lame (but didn't let that stand in her way) and she was beloved by the people because she worked tirelessly. Queen Mary worked hard also. Queen Elizabeth as Duchess of York worked and this helped prepare her for her role as Queen Consort which was totally unexpected for her --her brother in law abdicated and she was out there working and assisting her husband. Senior royal women in history have not played the I'm a housewife card, they worked and their privileges and perks involved "giving back". If Kate wanted to play the I'm a housewife card she should have married someone else. She even said in her engagement interview that she would work hard and it can be assumed she didn't mean working at getting her hair done or vacationing.
How is she idle ? She works atm she's on tour a royal tour which some people have dubbed a vacation :wellduh: but personally I love her energy , her enthusiasm when she greets people , how ambitious she is , how interested she becomes when in a visit I love that and I wouldn't mind any daughters on my liking her because of some silly rumours spread while she dated the man she loves and now is married to . It's such a stereotype that she idle , I mean for someone 3 yrs into royal wife who's a new mother I find she's f doing really well. .
Would I like her to work more YES of course but I will be honest because she's my favourite royal and I like seeing her more often .
Do I feel this tour was light YES of course I do , I even mentioned it somewhere on this forum .
My question to the naysayers is would all this be allowed if the queen /courtiers / advisers etc felt it wasn't a good thing to do ? NO to that .
Kate isn't a full-time 'housewife' either nor is she idle. As Cindy says she just isn't doing what her critics want at the moment but she is far from idle.
The biggest difference between Kate and Alexandra of Denmark or the Duchess of York is her position in the family.
Being married to the sovereign's grandson is a big difference from being married to her son. A difference nobody wants to admit and they act as if the BRF is struggling with people to fill slots. None of the Queen's grandchildren work full-time for the firm so Kate shouldn't be singled out. If Harry marries in the next few years during the Queen's reign she won't be expected either. Just the way the BRF works.
Much like the people who complain about Prince George being shielded from the media and then turn around and accuse the royals of 'PR' when he is photographed, I doubt there is anything Kate can do placate the small minority who always look to find fault. Its a free world and this is fine, but in my experience when you criticise someone for everything they do the criticisms loose any point or meaning.
Other than that, I think Kate is a great role model for those of us who admire her and just because she has taken the road less travelled, doesn't mean its wrong.
It stands to reason that Kate will be a role model to some people and not others. It's simply a reflection of peoples differing values. Nevertheless, I think Rebecca Sparrow ought to let her Daughter choose her own role models, whatever her age.
^^ But I didn't see anything in the article to indicate that she's pushing Kate onto her daughter. All she said in the article is that it wouldn't upset her if her daughter wanted to put up a poster of Kate. Everything else was just her own opinion. From the article:
"So if one day my daughter wants to put a poster of the Duchess of Cambridge on her wall alongside others posters of Amy Poehler and Melinda Gates and Wonder Woman and author Tara June Winch and designer Sascha Drake and Dr Catherine Hamlin and her Godmother Katie (an aid worker in the Solomon Islands and all-round great girl) – so be it."
Cindy
I was referring very specifically to the title of Rebecca Sparrow's article: "Kate Middleton IS a role model for my Daughter". It's up to every individual to decide who IS and IS NOT a role model. Not a mother. But yes, I also spotted her ending which says IF she wants to put a poster of the DoC on her wall. But this conditional statement doesn't mitigate her starting assertion that she IS a role model. It's not an extraneous detail in the context of my earlier point. :)
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on April 23, 2014, 02:16:41 PM
Kate isn't a full-time 'housewife' either nor is she idle. As Cindy says she just isn't doing what her critics want at the moment but she is far from idle.
The biggest difference between Kate and Alexandra of Denmark or the Duchess of York is her position in the family.
Being married to the sovereign's grandson is a big difference from being married to her son. A difference nobody wants to admit and they act as if the BRF is struggling with people to fill slots. None of the Queen's grandchildren work full-time for the firm so Kate shouldn't be singled out. If Harry marries in the next few years during the Queen's reign she won't be expected either. Just the way the BRF works.
Much like the people who complain about Prince George being shielded from the media and then turn around and accuse the royals of 'PR' when he is photographed, I doubt there is anything Kate can do placate the small minority who always look to find fault. Its a free world and this is fine, but in my experience when you criticise someone for everything they do the criticisms loose any point or meaning.
Other than that, I think Kate is a great role model for those of us who admire her and just because she has taken the road less travelled, doesn't mean its wrong.
William is not just the sovereign's grandson he is a future monarch. She is a senior royal. OTOH Elizabeth when Duchess of York had no expectations of her husband being a future monarch until ca. late 1936 that is. And yet she was a wife, mother and also gave back as Duchess of York. She was further down the ladder than Kate is today.
I don't mind George being photographed, he is a future monarch too and should not be hidden out.
The Queens other grandchildren will never be monarchs and Charles does not even want the Yorks working when he's king. Zara and Peter live quiet lives because they are way down in line of succession. WIlliam is not and he and his wife should not be considered the equivalent of the others as far as work is concerned.
Double post auto-merged: April 23, 2014, 03:15:39 PM
Quote from: Princessinwaiting on April 23, 2014, 02:14:18 PM
How is she idle ? She works atm she's on tour a royal tour which some people have dubbed a vacation :wellduh: but personally I love her energy , her enthusiasm when she greets people , how ambitious she is , how interested she becomes when in a visit I love that and I wouldn't mind any daughters on my liking her because of some silly rumours spread while she dated the man she loves and now is married to . It's such a stereotype that she idle , I mean for someone 3 yrs into royal wife who's a new mother I find she's f doing really well. .
Would I like her to work more YES of course but I will be honest because she's my favourite royal and I like seeing her more often .
Do I feel this tour was light YES of course I do , I even mentioned it somewhere on this forum .
My question to the naysayers is would all this be allowed if the queen /courtiers / advisers etc felt it wasn't a good thing to do ? NO to that .
She is doing the tour but has been mostly inactive and little was seen of her for weeks at a time. She took vacations and did "fun" things but little work. It remains to be seen if this trend will continue after the tour of Australia/New Zealand. If it is the same pattern she will disappear for a while then there will be reports of an expensive vacation with or without William.
Kate can be doing a lot more. If you are satisfied with the small numbers she has as far as royal duties, that's your choice.
The Duchess of York was married to the reigning sovereign's second son. Edward had no children, her precedence was always higher than the Duchess of Cambridge.
^But when she first married she had no way of knowing that Edward would never have children. I'm sure she expected he would marry and he and his wife would have several children, which would have put Bertie further and further down the line of succession.
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on April 23, 2014, 03:22:37 PM
The Duchess of York was married to the reigning sovereign's second son. Edward had no children, her precedence was always higher than the Duchess of Cambridge.
The point is that the second son at the time was seen up until late 1936 as having no chance to become King. It was expected Edward would marry and have children. Since she was not married to a future monarch (or so it seemed for years) she was lower in the pecking order than Kate is now and whose husband is directly in line to be King.
Why would anyone worship a woman [edit] with the right man is beyond me ... she has done NOTHING in her life but be Willy's lapdog so yeah she is dangerous as a role model to a teenage girl !!! What I find hilarious though is that minutes before the engagement announcement she was Britain's biggest JOKE she was actually MOCKED by EVERYONE but now she is being worshiped and WILLIAM did that by putting Di's ring on her finger after 10 Years of HUMILIATING her !!!
[admin]This comment has been partially edited because it didn't abide by our community standards. For more details please see our rules and any private notification. [/admin]
[admin]This comment has been removed because it didn't abide by our community standards. For more details please see our rules and any private notification. [/admin]
IMHO I am grateful to the generations of women before me who challenged the norms and have changed the role of women in the workforce and society. We now have women as elected heads of state, members of their governments, leaders of industry and more. For women who choose to lead their lives embracing traditional roles, I respect their decision as well. IMHO when women are belittled for their decisions (stay-at-home-mothers vs career mothers) then we as a society lose. Former First Lady Barbara Bush addressed this quite eloquently in her memorable commencement speech at Wellsey College in the 1980's.
The discussion over the Cambridges and Prince Harry's number of engagements is likely to continue unless the Palace comes out and makes a statement about it. For now I believe that the reason is that HM prefers to have her own children and cousins working as full time royals. (This is alluded to on the official BRF website.)
If a young girl chooses to consider Kate a role model then that is HER choice. IMO she will likely come to consider other women as role models too over time as she continues her education. As a parent I would see nothing wrong with supporting her interest, but I would include other women within the BRF and then move onto women who are involved in other levels of the UK government. I've found that overt discouragement often leads to a shut down in communication. :)
Ms. Sparrow sums up my feelings perfectly.
^^ Very true, TLLK. As we mature, we set our sights on more realistic goals. Little girls who identify with Kate now, will change their heroes a half-dozen times before they even get to college.
Quote from: Orchid on April 23, 2014, 03:06:09 PM
I was referring very specifically to the title of Rebecca Sparrow's article: "Kate Middleton IS a role model for my Daughter". It's up to every individual to decide who IS and IS NOT a role model. Not a mother. But yes, I also spotted her ending which says IF she wants to put a poster of the DoC on her wall. But this conditional statement doesn't mitigate her starting assertion that she IS a role model. It's not an extraneous detail in the context of my earlier point. :)
That's true, it isn't. But it doesn't indicate that she forced Kate on her daughter, either. :flower:
Cindy
Thank you Cindy.
What happened to looking up to someone who actually ACHIEVED something? What has Kate achieved? In my times (LOL) young girls looked up to Britney Spears a girl who actually WORKED HARD VERY HARD and had achieved an incredible carer at such a young age now days people are worshiping Kate just because she married well and there is something very backwards about it ...
If Kate is currently one of them then her mother can share Kate's academic record with her by pointing out the number of "O" levels or honors degree that she earned during her school years. The importance of staying in school and doing your best cannot be mentioned too often.
IMHO this young girl will encounter many role models through out her lifetime and it should be her choice as to who they are. As a parent/guardian you can always encourage a discussion by asking "Why do you admire this person?" Then the allow the child/teen to share their thoughts. Ask if they'd want to learn about other royal women who currently sit on a throne or did so in the past. There are series about a young Cleopatra, Elizabeth I that are written for youth that share information about them through realistic fiction. It can then lead to other women in different eras and their importance in history.
I hope the writer of this article better start saving up because she will be sending her daughter to top school and collages and support her luxurious lifestyle through her entire 20's until she manages to marry a rich bloke and then live off his trust fund or FIL's money.
I don't get why feminism is used to defend her. Nobody is saying she doesn't have a right to make her choices that doesn't we don't have a right to judge a publicly paid public figure. People have no problem criticizing Kim Kardashian, one can say she also have a right to be a porn start and not judged for her choices. Any way those who find her lazy have a right criticize her for her decade long laziness. It has nothing to do with feminism. I find her lazy and very regressive. You aren't against feminism if you like a independent, hard working girl with some self respect and class which I think she is lacking. She is trust fund kid who never worked a day in life and her whole purpose was to get married to a rich prince, I don't like these values and will appalled if my daughter ever looks up to her. As someone said earlier she has not achieved anything in her life except getting married to a prince and giving birth to another and due to my definition of feminism I refuse to except marriage and giving birth to a son as an achievement or anything praise worthy for a grown 32 year old collage educated woman.
Quote from: Eri on April 23, 2014, 04:44:18 PM
What happened to looking up to someone who actually ACHIEVED something? What has Kate achieved? In my times (LOL) young girls looked up to Britney Spears a girl who actually WORKED HARD VERY HARD and had achieved an incredible carer at such a young age now days people are worshiping Kate just because she married well and there is something very backwards about it ...
^ I can understand your perspective on Kate and her "accomplishments", Eri. Women's liberation has long promoted and valued very specific "female achievements" based on skill sets and hard work. But if I play devils advocate here, what are "female achievements"? I pose this question to everyone, not just you Eri.
If we look at "accomplishments" as academic, career-driven or significant charitable endeavours then these are fairly narrow definitions. I suppose at the crux of the matter is the issue of disparate and opposing values. What one person judges an accomplishment, another doesn't, because our values and expectations are so very different. For some women, marrying into a wealthy family, becoming a mother, and assuming associated duties (in Kate's context, "royal duties") is a form of accomplishment. Whether these
are actually "accomplishments" is debatable and probably depends on a pre and post Victorian framework. It also depends on the wider social effects and intrinsic "worth" of such "accomplishments" as well as whether they are predicated on personal skills, efforts and desire or a more strategic, utilitarian need to fulfil a role thrust upon them.
In sum, I think the idea of Kate as an accomplished or unaccomplished woman is a much more complex social and ideological debate than is being covered in this thread.
Quote from: cinrit on April 23, 2014, 04:14:17 PM
That's true, it isn't. But it doesn't indicate that she forced Kate on her daughter, either. :flower:
Cindy
Indeed, although that wasn't to be implied from my response anyway. :)
Quote from: TLLK on April 23, 2014, 04:10:48 PM
IMHO when women are belittled for their decisions (stay-at-home-mothers vs career mothers) then we as a society lose.
I agree with your assessment here, TLLK. But [we] also "lose" (as a society and gender) if we don't continually evaluate womens' roles and their wider impact. Critique is always a crucial component of a forward-thinking society. But balance and objectivity must always be at the bedrock of such critiques otherwise we're participating in a futile and worthless exercise.
Well that's what we are doing here, aren't we?! We all have different values and what we consider achievements and according to our own values we judge others. I don't get what's your point.
LOL Just had a flashback to Pride and Prejudice when a woman's supposed accomplishments are being debated by Mr. Darcy, Mr. Bingley and Caroline Bingley. ;)
I wholeheartedly agree that privately funded women should absolutely get to make their own choices in how they live their lives. If a woman wants to be a stay-at-home mother then more power to her. Enjoy her life and embrace that choice.
But. The DoC is not a private stay-at-home mother. That's actually not an option for her given who she married. She could have had the option of being a stay-at-home mother who does nothing but spend time vacationing, shopping, getting blowouts and exercising and spending time with her son if she'd married, say, a CFO of a Fortune 500 company or a footballer or actor or other wealthy private individual. Or earned money herself to retire and live life that way. But she didn't. She married a prince who's going to be the reigning monarch one day.
She's a public official whose luxurious lifestyle is partially funded by the taxpayers. The taxpayers should absolutely get a say in how she divides her time when they're paying or partially paying for her life of luxury. And this author seems to be setting up a false dichotomy that 1. DoC has the option of being just a private, regular stay-at-home mother like non-royal mothers and 2. all/any criticism of DoC is criticism of or stems from her as a stay-at-home mother.
I've yet to see anyone, man or woman, criticize DoC for spending time with her child or being a good mother or attending to his needs. Or criticize women who choose to be a stay-at-home mother after getting married or if they can independently afford it. The criticism has always been about the DoC's lack of effort with the charities she's patron of, her lack of attention to protocol, her lack of effort to improve public speaking and comfort making small chat with those she's meeting, her extensive time spent on vacation for little public work, her extensive time spent (out of the home) at the hairdresser or clothes shopping.
These criticisms have nothing to do with her as a mother or staying at home to be a mother but everything to do with her pattern of choices since she married into the BRF. This lack of effort with charities, the lack of attention to or care for royal procedures, public speaking, excessive shopping, exercise and hair have been present since day one. These are not criticisms or concerns that just arose or got worse when she got pregnant or became a mother. They're consistent criticisms of her choices to put in barely the bare minimum while soaking up a luxurious lifestyle partially paid for by taxpayers since she got married. A pattern of choices and behavior that existed well before Prince George came along.
Maybe the BRF is preventing DoC from doing the same number of official royal engagements as, say, Princess Anne per year. But I highly doubt they're demanding she only spend on average an hour per year per meager number of charitable patronages or that she do no other charitable work or pursue no other hobbies/interests in her non-official royal engagement time. Just my newbie opinion.
Fantastic post! :notworthy: :goodpost: :notworthy:
Quote from: ForeverYoung on April 23, 2014, 06:10:16 PM
I wholeheartedly agree that privately funded women should absolutely get to make their own choices in how they live their lives. If a woman wants to be a stay-at-home mother then more power to her. Enjoy her life and embrace that choice.
But. The DoC is not a private stay-at-home mother. That's actually not an option for her given who she married. She could have had the option of being a stay-at-home mother who does nothing but spend time vacationing, shopping, getting blowouts and exercising and spending time with her son if she'd married, say, a CFO of a Fortune 500 company or a footballer or actor or other wealthy private individual. Or earned money herself to retire and live life that way. But she didn't. She married a prince who's going to be the reigning monarch one day.
She's a public official whose luxurious lifestyle is partially funded by the taxpayers. The taxpayers should absolutely get a say in how she divides her time when they're paying or partially paying for her life of luxury. And this author seems to be setting up a false dichotomy that 1. DoC has the option of being just a private, regular stay-at-home mother like non-royal mothers and 2. all/any criticism of DoC is criticism of or stems from her as a stay-at-home mother.
I've yet to see anyone, man or woman, criticize DoC for spending time with her child or being a good mother or attending to his needs. Or criticize women who choose to be a stay-at-home mother after getting married or if they can independently afford it. The criticism has always been about the DoC's lack of effort with the charities she's patron of, her lack of attention to protocol, her lack of effort to improve public speaking and comfort making small chat with those she's meeting, her extensive time spent on vacation for little public work, her extensive time spent (out of the home) at the hairdresser or clothes shopping.
These criticisms have nothing to do with her as a mother or staying at home to be a mother but everything to do with her pattern of choices since she married into the BRF. This lack of effort with charities, the lack of attention to or care for royal procedures, public speaking, excessive shopping, exercise and hair have been present since day one. These are not criticisms or concerns that just arose or got worse when she got pregnant or became a mother. They're consistent criticisms of her choices to put in barely the bare minimum while soaking up a luxurious lifestyle partially paid for by taxpayers since she got married. A pattern of choices and behavior that existed well before Prince George came along.
Maybe the BRF is preventing DoC from doing the same number of official royal engagements as, say, Princess Anne per year. But I highly doubt they're demanding she only spend on average an hour per year per meager number of charitable patronages or that she do no other charitable work or pursue no other hobbies/interests in her non-official royal engagement time. Just my newbie opinion.
I agree with you completely, awesome post! It's not about feminism or any thing against stay at home moms. It's about people having a right of opinion and say in the way a tax payers funded couple spend there time and there work that comes with this royal status, privilege and fortune.
It's like if Hillary Clinton become next PLOTUS and after taking office and all the privilege and security, cost and responsibilities of the job, she decides to do nothing but play grandma and do bare minimum while staying and enjoying life as PLOTUS. And when critics call her out, people start saying oh it's feminism, she have a right to be just a grandma and not work and spend doing nothing and just playing with her grandchild. Whoever criticize her is not following women's right movement.
An interesting read, ForeverYoung.
Quote from: TLLK on April 23, 2014, 05:46:59 PM
LOL Just had a flashback to Pride and Prejudice when a woman's supposed accomplishments are being debated by Mr. Darcy, Mr. Bingley and Caroline Bingley. ;)
:happy: an age old concern, even in Austens' time.
Quote from: AyVey on April 23, 2014, 05:20:19 PM
Well that's what we are doing here, aren't we?! We all have different values and what we consider achievements and according to our own values we judge others. I don't get what's your point.
You are seeing this thread in a different light to me, AyVey.
If I were to isolate one main idea that I was thinking about it would be the question of what
shapes our values and ultimately our judgements of "female achievements". It's all very well to brand someone as "lazy" and "regressive" [quoting your post #26] but these are just surface labels/values that without further explanation convey little meaning outside of a dictionary definition. They don't speak of the
reasons for why those value judgements have been formed in the first place. i.e. Kate's lazy because she didn't work for 10 years.... but why is a lack of career considered lazy? Do you see my point? It's one thing to express a value, it's another to explain the specific reasons that shape that value judgement. That's the area where I'm digging. ;)
Quote from: ForeverYoung on April 23, 2014, 06:10:16 PM
I wholeheartedly agree that privately funded women should absolutely get to make their own choices in how they live their lives. If a woman wants to be a stay-at-home mother then more power to her. Enjoy her life and embrace that choice.
But. The DoC is not a private stay-at-home mother. That's actually not an option for her given who she married. She could have had the option of being a stay-at-home mother who does nothing but spend time vacationing, shopping, getting blowouts and exercising and spending time with her son if she'd married, say, a CFO of a Fortune 500 company or a footballer or actor or other wealthy private individual. Or earned money herself to retire and live life that way. But she didn't. She married a prince who's going to be the reigning monarch one day.
She's a public official whose luxurious lifestyle is partially funded by the taxpayers. The taxpayers should absolutely get a say in how she divides her time when they're paying or partially paying for her life of luxury. And this author seems to be setting up a false dichotomy that 1. DoC has the option of being just a private, regular stay-at-home mother like non-royal mothers and 2. all/any criticism of DoC is criticism of or stems from her as a stay-at-home mother.
I've yet to see anyone, man or woman, criticize DoC for spending time with her child or being a good mother or attending to his needs. Or criticize women who choose to be a stay-at-home mother after getting married or if they can independently afford it. The criticism has always been about the DoC's lack of effort with the charities she's patron of, her lack of attention to protocol, her lack of effort to improve public speaking and comfort making small chat with those she's meeting, her extensive time spent on vacation for little public work, her extensive time spent (out of the home) at the hairdresser or clothes shopping.
These criticisms have nothing to do with her as a mother or staying at home to be a mother but everything to do with her pattern of choices since she married into the BRF. This lack of effort with charities, the lack of attention to or care for royal procedures, public speaking, excessive shopping, exercise and hair have been present since day one. These are not criticisms or concerns that just arose or got worse when she got pregnant or became a mother. They're consistent criticisms of her choices to put in barely the bare minimum while soaking up a luxurious lifestyle partially paid for by taxpayers since she got married. A pattern of choices and behavior that existed well before Prince George came along.
Maybe the BRF is preventing DoC from doing the same number of official royal engagements as, say, Princess Anne per year. But I highly doubt they're demanding she only spend on average an hour per year per meager number of charitable patronages or that she do no other charitable work or pursue no other hobbies/interests in her non-official royal engagement time. Just my newbie opinion.
Yes it's not her choice to be a stay at home mum but she never was a stay at home mum the point is when people criticize kate and " say oh look wasted a university degree to marry a man" and we respond hey that's not supposed to be an insult after women's lib women have the choice so we are talking about her having the choice to be married to William to "follow" him across the globe and assist him in his job she's not there to do what the Queen and Anne do she's just the spouse that's how the brf want it to be the spouse supports the husband and helps him carry out the royal work. No one called her a house wife but before people insult her THINK is calling her a housewife an insult because if you bring that out as a criticism we will bring feminism out as well to tell you it's really not an insult for a women to chose her life :therethere:
Quote from: Orchid on April 23, 2014, 06:30:25 PM
An interesting read, ForeverYoung.
Quote from: TLLK on April 23, 2014, 05:46:59 PM
LOL Just had a flashback to Pride and Prejudice when a woman's supposed accomplishments are being debated by Mr. Darcy, Mr. Bingley and Caroline Bingley. ;)
:happy: an age old concern, even in Austens' time.
Quote from: AyVey on April 23, 2014, 05:20:19 PM
Well that's what we are doing here, aren't we?! We all have different values and what we consider achievements and according to our own values we judge others. I don't get what's your point.
You are seeing this thread in a different light to me, AyVey.
If I were to isolate one main idea that I was thinking about it would be the question of what shapes our values and ultimately our judgements of "female achievements". It's all very well to brand someone as "lazy" and "regressive" [quoting your post #26] but these are just surface labels/values that without further explanation convey little meaning outside of a dictionary definition. They don't speak of the reasons for why those value judgements have been formed in the first place. i.e. Kate's lazy because she didn't work for 10 years.... but why is a lack of career considered lazy? Do you see my point? It's one thing to express a value, it's another to explain the specific reasons that shape that value judgement. That's the area where I'm digging. ;)
I think a woman that never worked a day in her life, lived off mummy and daddy is lazy. For me lazy means someone who doesn't earn their keep, someone who floats through life partying and shopping, that my definition of lazy and maybe yous definition of hard working. Similarly my definition of being regressive is when a woman is only valued for marrying a man and for giving birth and nothing else (which is what I think about Kate). So by my interpretation of being lazy and regressive, I conclude that IMO she is exactly that.
Double post auto-merged: April 23, 2014, 06:45:01 PM
Quote from: Princessinwaiting on April 23, 2014, 06:33:48 PM
Quote from: ForeverYoung on April 23, 2014, 06:10:16 PM
I wholeheartedly agree that privately funded women should absolutely get to make their own choices in how they live their lives. If a woman wants to be a stay-at-home mother then more power to her. Enjoy her life and embrace that choice.
But. The DoC is not a private stay-at-home mother. That's actually not an option for her given who she married. She could have had the option of being a stay-at-home mother who does nothing but spend time vacationing, shopping, getting blowouts and exercising and spending time with her son if she'd married, say, a CFO of a Fortune 500 company or a footballer or actor or other wealthy private individual. Or earned money herself to retire and live life that way. But she didn't. She married a prince who's going to be the reigning monarch one day.
She's a public official whose luxurious lifestyle is partially funded by the taxpayers. The taxpayers should absolutely get a say in how she divides her time when they're paying or partially paying for her life of luxury. And this author seems to be setting up a false dichotomy that 1. DoC has the option of being just a private, regular stay-at-home mother like non-royal mothers and 2. all/any criticism of DoC is criticism of or stems from her as a stay-at-home mother.
I've yet to see anyone, man or woman, criticize DoC for spending time with her child or being a good mother or attending to his needs. Or criticize women who choose to be a stay-at-home mother after getting married or if they can independently afford it. The criticism has always been about the DoC's lack of effort with the charities she's patron of, her lack of attention to protocol, her lack of effort to improve public speaking and comfort making small chat with those she's meeting, her extensive time spent on vacation for little public work, her extensive time spent (out of the home) at the hairdresser or clothes shopping.
These criticisms have nothing to do with her as a mother or staying at home to be a mother but everything to do with her pattern of choices since she married into the BRF. This lack of effort with charities, the lack of attention to or care for royal procedures, public speaking, excessive shopping, exercise and hair have been present since day one. These are not criticisms or concerns that just arose or got worse when she got pregnant or became a mother. They're consistent criticisms of her choices to put in barely the bare minimum while soaking up a luxurious lifestyle partially paid for by taxpayers since she got married. A pattern of choices and behavior that existed well before Prince George came along.
Maybe the BRF is preventing DoC from doing the same number of official royal engagements as, say, Princess Anne per year. But I highly doubt they're demanding she only spend on average an hour per year per meager number of charitable patronages or that she do no other charitable work or pursue no other hobbies/interests in her non-official royal engagement time. Just my newbie opinion.
Yes it's not her choice to be a stay at home mum but she never was a stay at home mum the point is when people criticize kate and " say oh look wasted a university degree to marry a man" and we respond hey that's not supposed to be an insult after women's lib women have the choice so we are talking about her having the choice to be married to William to "follow" him across the globe and assist him in his job she's not there to do what the Queen and Anne do she's just the spouse that's how the brf want it to be the spouse supports the husband and helps him carry out the royal work. No one called her a house wife but before people insult her THINK is calling her a housewife an insult because if you bring that out as a criticism we will bring feminism out as well to tell you it's really not an insult for a women to chose her life :therethere:
As far as I'm seeing people are criticizing her for not working while living on tax payers dime. It doesn't matter what is RF"S plan is because even if it's their doing, people still have a right to disagree and criticize their game plan like we do with out PM and Presidents. Nobody says oh please don't criticize PM because that's what his party voted on. Kate has shown that she is not afraid to break rules and demand what she wants re staying with her mom after giving birth and many other things for example. So IMO if she does want to work more, she can demand that as well. However I do think that William is the reluctant one here and it's because of his lack of work and royal duties, she is being held back and for that I think both of them are responsible and lazy.
I think you're assuming that my desire to question the basis for certain values means I must, by default, disagree with them. In fact, I haven't expressed my views on Kate as a role model so it really ought not be presumed. My aim is purely an objective analysis of cause and effect (for want of a better term).
Quote from: Princessinwaiting on April 23, 2014, 06:33:48 PM
Quote from: ForeverYoung on April 23, 2014, 06:10:16 PM
I wholeheartedly agree that privately funded women should absolutely get to make their own choices in how they live their lives. If a woman wants to be a stay-at-home mother then more power to her. Enjoy her life and embrace that choice.
But. The DoC is not a private stay-at-home mother. That's actually not an option for her given who she married. She could have had the option of being a stay-at-home mother who does nothing but spend time vacationing, shopping, getting blowouts and exercising and spending time with her son if she'd married, say, a CFO of a Fortune 500 company or a footballer or actor or other wealthy private individual. Or earned money herself to retire and live life that way. But she didn't. She married a prince who's going to be the reigning monarch one day.
She's a public official whose luxurious lifestyle is partially funded by the taxpayers. The taxpayers should absolutely get a say in how she divides her time when they're paying or partially paying for her life of luxury. And this author seems to be setting up a false dichotomy that 1. DoC has the option of being just a private, regular stay-at-home mother like non-royal mothers and 2. all/any criticism of DoC is criticism of or stems from her as a stay-at-home mother.
I've yet to see anyone, man or woman, criticize DoC for spending time with her child or being a good mother or attending to his needs. Or criticize women who choose to be a stay-at-home mother after getting married or if they can independently afford it. The criticism has always been about the DoC's lack of effort with the charities she's patron of, her lack of attention to protocol, her lack of effort to improve public speaking and comfort making small chat with those she's meeting, her extensive time spent on vacation for little public work, her extensive time spent (out of the home) at the hairdresser or clothes shopping.
These criticisms have nothing to do with her as a mother or staying at home to be a mother but everything to do with her pattern of choices since she married into the BRF. This lack of effort with charities, the lack of attention to or care for royal procedures, public speaking, excessive shopping, exercise and hair have been present since day one. These are not criticisms or concerns that just arose or got worse when she got pregnant or became a mother. They're consistent criticisms of her choices to put in barely the bare minimum while soaking up a luxurious lifestyle partially paid for by taxpayers since she got married. A pattern of choices and behavior that existed well before Prince George came along.
Maybe the BRF is preventing DoC from doing the same number of official royal engagements as, say, Princess Anne per year. But I highly doubt they're demanding she only spend on average an hour per year per meager number of charitable patronages or that she do no other charitable work or pursue no other hobbies/interests in her non-official royal engagement time. Just my newbie opinion.
Yes it's not her choice to be a stay at home mum but she never was a stay at home mum the point is when people criticize kate and " say oh look wasted a university degree to marry a man" and we respond hey that's not supposed to be an insult after women's lib women have the choice so we are talking about her having the choice to be married to William to "follow" him across the globe and assist him in his job she's not there to do what the Queen and Anne do she's just the spouse that's how the brf want it to be the spouse supports the husband and helps him carry out the royal work. No one called her a house wife but before people insult her THINK is calling her a housewife an insult because if you bring that out as a criticism we will bring feminism out as well to tell you it's really not an insult for a women to chose her life :therethere:
Her choices depended on William's proposing to her which he may not have done. She put all her effort into getting the ring and she had 10 years to do things for herself. She is not "just the spouse" consorts of senior royals are supposed to do more than be "just he spouse" she is supposed to be helping charities in her own right and be asked to do work in her own right in addition to doing joint appearances with William.
As the Mother of two girls...I hope to goodness I have brought them up with a sense of their own worth. Earn your own money and never be dependant on any man - be he Prince or Pauper.
In today's economy women have supported families and/or the husband and wife both hold down jobs. And regardless of the economy there can be two career households. Kate is an anachronism--it's like the line in Titanic where Rose's mother said that "the purpose of university education for women is to find a husband, Rose already has done that." And there are plenty of real life stories where the woman marrying a wealthy husband finds herself ditched when the husband has a middle age crisis or wants a trophy wife instead. Life is not one big fairy tale.
There are two sides of the coin here. As a private citizen Kate could be held up as a role model to young women as a homemaker and mother who does the odd charity work and has it all including a very strong sense of family values. As a member of the Royal family and wife of a future King Kate's strong sense of family values is role model material however, since her marriage pre George Kate spent her time in Anglesley not doing much except two engagement to visit Scouting activities as part of her patronages but doing more engagements that involved red carpet or sporting events as a spectator with William nothing hands on. Kate had a good two years before her pregnancy and motherhood to get involved with representing the family she married into not hiding away in Wales. I get the feeling that the only work she enjoys is walkabouts on a royal tour wearing beautiful clothes and exchanging pleasantries not the sort of work involving fundraising for charity that other royals involve themselves such as her Father in law the Prince of Wales or Williams Mother Diana had done. It is in this respect she falls short of being a role model.
Quote from: ForeverYoung on April 23, 2014, 06:10:16 PM
I wholeheartedly agree that privately funded women should absolutely get to make their own choices in how they live their lives. If a woman wants to be a stay-at-home mother then more power to her. Enjoy her life and embrace that choice.
But. The DoC is not a private stay-at-home mother. That's actually not an option for her given who she married. She could have had the option of being a stay-at-home mother who does nothing but spend time vacationing, shopping, getting blowouts and exercising and spending time with her son if she'd married, say, a CFO of a Fortune 500 company or a footballer or actor or other wealthy private individual. Or earned money herself to retire and live life that way. But she didn't. She married a prince who's going to be the reigning monarch one day.
She's a public official whose luxurious lifestyle is partially funded by the taxpayers. The taxpayers should absolutely get a say in how she divides her time when they're paying or partially paying for her life of luxury. And this author seems to be setting up a false dichotomy that 1. DoC has the option of being just a private, regular stay-at-home mother like non-royal mothers and 2. all/any criticism of DoC is criticism of or stems from her as a stay-at-home mother.
I've yet to see anyone, man or woman, criticize DoC for spending time with her child or being a good mother or attending to his needs. Or criticize women who choose to be a stay-at-home mother after getting married or if they can independently afford it. The criticism has always been about the DoC's lack of effort with the charities she's patron of, her lack of attention to protocol, her lack of effort to improve public speaking and comfort making small chat with those she's meeting, her extensive time spent on vacation for little public work, her extensive time spent (out of the home) at the hairdresser or clothes shopping.
These criticisms have nothing to do with her as a mother or staying at home to be a mother but everything to do with her pattern of choices since she married into the BRF. This lack of effort with charities, the lack of attention to or care for royal procedures, public speaking, excessive shopping, exercise and hair have been present since day one. These are not criticisms or concerns that just arose or got worse when she got pregnant or became a mother. They're consistent criticisms of her choices to put in barely the bare minimum while soaking up a luxurious lifestyle partially paid for by taxpayers since she got married. A pattern of choices and behavior that existed well before Prince George came along.
Maybe the BRF is preventing DoC from doing the same number of official royal engagements as, say, Princess Anne per year. But I highly doubt they're demanding she only spend on average an hour per year per meager number of charitable patronages or that she do no other charitable work or pursue no other hobbies/interests in her non-official royal engagement time. Just my newbie opinion.
:goodpost:
I am just going to add one more thing to your brilliant post.
I am sick and tired of being told that the "Women's Lib" movement was fought so women could pick and choose what they did with their lives, and therefore, we shouldn't be criticizing Kate for not working as much as we want her to. If Kate were Mrs. Jones, married to William Jones, and wanted to stay at home and raise her child(ren), I would have no problems with that. Women's Liberation would allow her to stay at home, just as it allows millions of mothers the same opportunity, and also millions of mothers the chance to go to work outside of the home and not be judged for it.
But, and let me emphasize that,
but she isn't Mrs. Jones. Mr. Jones will never be King. Prince William, Duke of Cambridge will be King one day, and that's who Kate is married to.
So really, enough with the whole "Women's Lib" talk. Every rule has its exception, and Kate's case is the exception.
:goodpost:
Loth, sandy, very good posts. I agree with you all and mostly every else.
ForeverYoung, how about changing your board name to ForeverWise.
EXCELLENT post!!
Good post AyVey.
Is Kate a role model or someone you want your girl child of preteen years, teen years to look up to?
Is she someone you would not mind your child following in the press...trying to imitate, etc?
This is not a black or white question. The DuchessofCam, K, Catherine, wahtever you want to call her, is a role modle and did right in her life in choices of being a decent teen, young adult, no scandals, drunk, drugs, criminal activity. She has a reputation of having played sports , did well in school, made her parents proud, sought a higher education.
K before and after her marriage, has handled herself in public with some class, dignity. No antics for the camera, stuff like that.
YES, it parents choices to guide their youngsters along in chosing role modles, people to follow, etc. It is not the indivduals' choice , meaning a young child. NO, sometimes as parents you cannot stop them from taking an interest in who those chose to have a poster of or read about. You can, should discuss and be frank.
Ex. Miley Trasy Gyrating Cyrus is not one I would want young girls to want to imitate. Add Kim Kardashian who poses herself half naked and released her most private moment which launched her career.
Beyonce was , is a good entertainer depending on your form of entertainment. She was to me, but she has crossed over. Mocking God, on stage sexual acts, to tasteless and she did not have to go that route.
Hey, I am so embarrassed to admit to you all in Enlgand, I speak on behalf of my felllow Americans too, but we have a show called 16 and Pregnant. Ok. Don't make me repeat it. No, this time I did not make a typo.
Too many negative, wrong people out their looking like a model in some role due to too many things of not always the best choice or are to much for impressionable kids to understand. Social media....different.
Ex. if an adult woman wants to sext text/sexting her adult boyfriend, go for it whatever the fianl results will be. Make and relase your sex tape like Kim K.
Sexting is big in the news.
Many teens have done this sexting and ummm, killed themselves too after their sextexted was passed all around school.
Hey, you can say, least they kept their babies. Hey , least they are earning money by MTV ...to the tune of a few thousand an espisode. Wel, you can say the same about Kim K and Miley and Beyonce.
They do earn their own money and have made careers for themselves and many others" Kardashian Kollection at Sears. Beyonce clothing line at department stores.
Well, the drug dealer earns her own oncome too and puts amny to work because of it: funeral palors, DEA agents, ATF agents, other law enforcement, etc.. So....earning your own income is not just the way or only way to say one is a role model.
KM, C, DofC, is a role modle for her persoanl life choices I mentioned.
No,she is not a role model in that you would want, encourage your girl child to date/live with and be dumped by and rekindle a relationship a few times and hold onto to dear life and be at his beck and call in a gamble he will marry you.
Take it K's had wealthy parents to support her. Take it, there is only one PW. Still, it was gamble on her part.
It would have been nice to have seen K during those years, really actually working...dating another guy as PW dated others during their time.
Quote from: AyVey on April 23, 2014, 04:53:50 PM
I hope the writer of this article better start saving up because she will be sending her daughter to top school and collages and support her luxurious lifestyle through her entire 20's until she manages to marry a rich bloke and then live off his trust fund or FIL's money.
I don't get why feminism is used to defend her. Nobody is saying she doesn't have a right to make her choices that doesn't we don't have a right to judge a publicly paid public figure. People have no problem criticizing Kim Kardashian, one can say she also have a right to be a *** start and not judged for her choices. Any way those who find her lazy have a right criticize her for her decade long laziness. It has nothing to do with feminism. I find her lazy and very regressive. You aren't against feminism if you like a independent, hard working girl with some self respect and class which I think she is lacking. She is trust fund kid who never worked a day in life and her whole purpose was to get married to a rich prince, I don't like these values and will appalled if my daughter ever looks up to her. As someone said earlier she has not achieved anything in her life except getting married to a prince and giving birth to another and due to my definition of feminism I refuse to except marriage and giving birth to a son as an achievement or anything praise worthy for a grown 32 year old collage educated woman.
She worked part time and then for her parents what is wrong with working for your parents firm? These days women have fallen for the myth they can have everything great career family etc. Something looses and that is usually the children and the family. Work to live not live to work.
Nobody knows how much or how little she worked there. She was on call for William and I doubt her parents would make her stay and work. Lots of flexibility.
Working before marriage would not have done Kate any harm, she is supposed to work as a royal and could have developed better work habits.
So you want all women to stay home and mind the kiddies and work is "bad." Some women have no choice they are single mothers or the husbands got laid off or don't make enough money. They do it for the children since it is not cheap to put children through college and they need to help them. Without the mother joining the workforce the children would have no money saved up for them and there are medical costs too. Housing and mortgages don't come cheap either. It is not a myth Paula, it is reality and the world we live in today. Women who are divorced also have skills so they don't have to depend on a man's income to live and take care of the children.
Children grow up just fine in a dual career household. Working women should not be made to look like ogres.
Kate is supposed to be a working royal and I doubt George will become a delinquent if she does more with her work time.
That is the dumbest things to say that kate is your daughter role model all because she wait for 10years and two break -up to married a prince if that is a role model for your kids then you should not expect much form them in 10yrs when they stay home and spend all your life saving waiting for a man with money to complete their life, such a shame for a mother to say out public for 15min of fame whoring, I don't have a daughter yet just sons if my daughter dare breath that world to me than off to catholic school where she can learn discipline and real history on a real model like mother Theresa, Sappo, Joan of arc, Sacajawea,Maud Gonne, Marie Curie,Flannery O'Connor,Golda Meir, Bessie Coleman. Not the woman that lower her self respect and keep her leg open for 10yrs to earn her name in history book that is not who you calling role model what is wrong with kids of this generation if they cannot tell what real role model look like now I am scared for my sons future if young girls like this keep this mind set.
^^ IMO, that's all very harsh.
Cindy
Personally I have no problem with stay at home women actually I think they are remarkable ... problem is Kate is NO stay at home mom she has a whole staff of nannies and cooks and she takes off for 10 days to the other side of the World and leaves her 8 Months old with the nanny and bodyguard ... personally my brain can't process why anyone would like her or look up to her ... and of course there is the very touchy subject of who pays for her lifestyle ...
^^ The taxpayer doesn't pay for her lifestyle, so no worries there. :thumbsup:
Cindy
Quote from: cinrit on April 24, 2014, 04:29:02 PM
^^ IMO, that's all very harsh.
Cindy
Yes it is . .
I did not go to a Catholic school but I am Catholic and was brought up with very strict values , none if which I really follow today I think it's a sorry excuse to push something in your children in order to prove another person's lifestyle is wrong it's not only against anything feminist it's also going lead them to want to grow up and get the hell out of your old fashioned home that's what I did :wellduh: don't think your children won't grow up and remember you shoving things down their throats they will and they will hold grudges most of the time and swear to never raise their children that way ...
Btw I don't believe most of what a certain somebody says but ..... . ....it reminded me of my close minded school :blahblahblah:
What's with all the stay at home mum stuff? Kate has the same workload as any of the British Royals of her generation. Its too vague to say she is a senior royal with out qualifying the statement.
All the Queens children and grandchildren are senior royals, with her grandchildren coming ahead of most of her children in succession but not precedence.
It is 100 percent clear that the Queen's own children are the 'working royals' of her reign with grandchildren playing a supporting role and this seems obvious to me.
There is no precedent anywhere for having adult grandchildren so high up in succession. The last time it happened was during Queen Victoria's reign.
For some this means they should be working royals. The Queen's and the Prince of Wales' income is independent of how many working royals there are or how many engagements they carry out.
If the Queen had no grandchildren or if Harry carried out 1000 engagements a year the Sovereign Grant will still be the same 15 percent, meaning no one is on a salary, so Kate isn't receiving a £150.000 pay cheque from the government.
If Kate's generation of royals were all 'full-time' and Kate wasn't doing her share I'd say people on this board have an argument but Kate does as much or more than her peers in the BRF.
Since her wedding she is the second most active royal of her generation. She raises £millions for charity has given the House of Windsor a new heir. I can't speak for the Queen but I'm sure she is tickled pink.
I find it all very disingenuous to isolate Kate without taking all the royals of her generation into context.
Kate has had a lot of time off, she does below the minimum and by no means has a "full" work schedule and it doesn't even reach "part time." Plus there are vacations and shopping that she can have time to do. Considering that William's grandmother is 88 , his grandfather is in his nineties and his dad is 66, would not a grown man and woman in their thirties be expected to take up the slack of the older generation? I don't see any rule book that these too should sit back and do nothing because he is "only" heir to the heir. The man is two heartbeats away from being King and he doesn't know that time will come. If some are satisfied with his slacking off and her slacking off so be it, but to me it seems selfish of them in their prime to watch the oldsters carry off the work without helping out.
:goodpost:
Quote from: sandy on April 24, 2014, 03:07:44 PM
Nobody knows how much or how little she worked there. She was on call for William and I doubt her parents would make her stay and work. Lots of flexibility.
Working before marriage would not have done Kate any harm, she is supposed to work as a royal and could have developed better work habits.
Children grow up just fine in a dual career household. Working women should not be made to look like ogres.
Kate is supposed to be a working royal and I doubt George will become a delinquent if she does more with her work time.
She certainly was willing to leave him to go on vacation for a week, why not to work a few hours a day???
There are no written rules, as far as I know. But there is precedence. It is ancient and it is understood by all the Royals. William has stated in an interview (with Katie Couric, maybe?) that they've asked the Queen to slow down and let them help, and she's said "no". What more can they do?
Cindy
Find their own work to do as Every Royal Before Them Has Done... Elizabeth's charities aren't the only ones in England and he is not taking them all or even a large amount when she dies, perhaps a few, she has her interests and agenda and William will have his if he ever decides to work which is what these grown adult man and woman in their thirties should be doing... :shrug:
^^^ Well he could stage a coup and banish Granny and Grandpa to Balmoral/Sandringham then the problem would be solved.
I don't envy the position that HM, the PoW and DoC are in right now. Everyone is "stuck" in their current role and likely will be for some time.
Or he could work on his own charities and take on a few more? :yesss: A coup, I think the thought of Liz dying and him having to take on more responsibilities and work more when that happens is responsible for the thinning hair. :lol:
^^^IMHO the last thing that the senior royals want is for the focus to go off of HM, DoE, PoW and Camilla after they have spent over a decade trying to rebuild "Brand Windsor." Keep showcasing that the heir-to-the-heir is competent and ready then you risk requests that Charles could be "skipped." The last UK Government poll still doesn't have numbers that show the vast majority of people are in favor of him being the next King. (38% believe it should go to William which is quite a significant number.) There are still legitimate concerns about him being too involved in politics which is a difference between HM and the PoW. (Personally I don't believe Charles should be skipped over in favor of his son and I don't think that they want that outcome either. There have been cases in the past where this has happened in other monarchies, but this doesn't warrant it IMHO) Also HM appears to want her children in the forefront during her reign.
^^^ I agree 100 percent. We've already seen headlines during this tour describing The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince George as the 'new Royal Family'
The last thing the Queen and Charles want is to turn around and make the Cambridges the public face of the Royal Family and add fuel to the fire when William is still only the heir to the heir or the 'understudy's understudy' as Robert Jobson called him
Quote from: TLLK on April 24, 2014, 06:24:11 PM
^^^IMHO the last thing that the senior royals want is for the focus to go off of HM, DoE, PoW and Camilla after they have spent over a decade trying to rebuild "Brand Windsor." Keep showcasing that the heir-to-the-heir is competent and ready then you risk requests that Charles could be "skipped." The last UK Government poll still doesn't have numbers that show the vast majority of people are in favor of him being the next King. (38% believe it should go to William which is quite a significant number.) There are still legitimate concerns about him being too involved in politics which is a difference between HM and the PoW. (Personally I don't believe Charles should be skipped over in favor of his son and I don't think that they want that outcome either. There have been cases in the past where this has happened in other monarchies, but this doesn't warrant it IMHO) Also HM appears to want her children in the forefront during her reign.
So they can't work because people will think they are the "face of the royal family." I see this as just another excuse made for them They are supposed to be ambassadors of the Queen and it is not the Borgias where people try to take over. Working more does not mean they have ambitions to oust the Queen and make people forget Dad and Stepmother.
And this brand stuff does include William, Kate and Harry as they were on the balcony during the Jubilee. This is the first time that I heard that their working more is a "threat." I think it is more of a threat if they don't work and let the oldsters do the work. And isn't William supposed to be trying to learn. If he just sits back and does little or nothing he will be woefully unprepared.
It doesn't matter if the press says Charles should be "skipped." That is just not going to happen. And I see this as another excuse for William not working. And WIlliam has made it clear he does not want to take over. So by working more Junior is a threat to Daddy and Grandmother. I seriously doubt that.
Double post auto-merged: April 24, 2014, 07:09:48 PM
Quote from: cinrit on April 24, 2014, 06:09:53 PM
There are no written rules, as far as I know. But there is precedence. It is ancient and it is understood by all the Royals. William has stated in an interview (with Katie Couric, maybe?) that they've asked the Queen to slow down and let them help, and she's said "no". What more can they do?
Cindy
I don't think laziness is a "rule" for the royals. William does very little as it is. I seriously doubt Elizabeth would turn down William doing more work. Another excuse.
Double post auto-merged: April 24, 2014, 07:11:28 PM
Quote from: TLLK on April 24, 2014, 06:15:17 PM
^^^ Well he could stage a coup and banish Granny and Grandpa to Balmoral/Sandringham then the problem would be solved.
I don't envy the position that HM, the PoW and DoC are in right now. Everyone is "stuck" in their current role and likely will be for some time.
Huh! That would be the last thing William would ever do in a trillion years. He is workshy and he relies on various excuses made by his fans and the list of excuses is growing every day.
William is not "stuck" if he wanted to expand his charity work I doubt the Queen would stop him. He just is workshy.
Double post auto-merged: April 24, 2014, 07:14:37 PM
Quote from: Princessinwaiting on April 24, 2014, 04:50:49 PM
Quote from: cinrit on April 24, 2014, 04:29:02 PM
^^ IMO, that's all very harsh.
Cindy
Yes it is . .
I did not go to a Catholic school but I am Catholic and was brought up with very strict values , none if which I really follow today I think it's a sorry excuse to push something in your children in order to prove another person's lifestyle is wrong it's not only against anything feminist it's also going lead them to want to grow up and get the hell out of your old fashioned home that's what I did :wellduh: don't think your children won't grow up and remember you shoving things down their throats they will and they will hold grudges most of the time and swear to never raise their children that way ...
Btw I don't believe most of what a certain somebody says but ..... . ....it reminded me of my close minded school :blahblahblah:
The point is Kate is not a role model. In the real world, women develop themselves and need job skills to help and support their families and provide a future for their children. Kate does the bare minimum of work and uses George as an excuse not to work but when it comes to fun George is with the nanny.
I think some people aren't being very realistic about the condition of the workplace for women today. Women make far less money than men, and are disproportionately employed in low wage jobs. The cost of living has risen much higher than wages, so it is impossible to keep up with the cost of living, even with two income workers.
If a higher income family wants to improve monetarily, they often must follow the man's career because he makes more money and has to work long hours, and the woman finds whatever job she can. If they have children, it is difficult to find affordable child care.
I realize this is not Kate's position, but stay-at-home mothers should not be put down to make a negative point about Kate. All women make choices based on the needs and welfare of their families, and generally make sacrifices out of love, not because they are lazy. I've heard that argument about myself, and it couldn't have been more wrong or hurtful.
It all depends on the couple. Sweeping statements cannot be made about earning power of a couple or each one in the marriage. There are cases of a man getting laid off and the wife earning the money. Sometimes the husband has to "follow" the wife. This happened during the Financial Crisis a few years ago with reports of the husband losing his job and the wife supporting the family. And some couples DO earn more than enough to support the family. Nobody is putting down stay at home mothers--I see more putting down of women who work and how it is "bad" for the children. The couple earn money to pay for children's medical costs, education expenses, etc. Kate married into an institution where the royal wife is supposed to pull her weight and she is a senior royal. Also, her husband is not exactly a ball of fire in the work dept. either so both appear to be workshy which is not just a debate about whether women should work or not.
Of course it all depends on the couple, but in general women earn less than men and the cost of living is rising faster than wages. These are facts women can't afford to ignore. Young people today will not stay in the same jobs they start with, and must learn to plan their university studies wisely to cope with many different positions.
I did say this is not Kate's issue. For her, the issues have been and continue to be how to accommodate the needs and circumstances of her family--her WHOLE family, including the other royals. I don't see either her or Will being, as you say, work shy. I think they are supporting the needs of their families, and these may be needs we don't see or understand, just as we don't understand other families' needs. It's a situation they have to judge by themselves, just as we judge our own situations.
Quote from: Rebound on April 24, 2014, 08:06:50 PM
I realize this is not Kate's position, but stay-at-home mothers should not be put down to make a negative point about Kate. All women make choices based on the needs and welfare of their families, and generally make sacrifices out of love, not because they are lazy. I've heard that argument about myself, and it couldn't have been more wrong or hurtful.
Stay at home moms are not put down to make negative points about Kate, but they certainly are used to excuse Kate's, who is NOT a housewife and never will be, barely working in her thirties. Since Kate's work history up to her thirties has been nonexistent to dismal, and her child is only 8 months old, this choice, in her case, is simply a matter of convenience and preference, this has been a pattern her entire adult life and for a public servant, it is not a good one, I don't see why people who defend Kate always and unfailingly bring housewives and stay at home moms as an argument in Kate's defense when, by virtue of marriage, she is neither... :shrug:
Double post auto-merged: April 24, 2014, 09:44:54 PM
Quote from: Rebound on April 24, 2014, 09:34:11 PM
For her, the issues have been and continue to be how to accommodate the needs and circumstances of her family--her WHOLE family, including the other royals. I don't see either her or Will being, as you say, work shy. I think they are supporting the needs of their families, and these may be needs we don't see or understand, just as we don't understand other families' needs. It's a situation they have to judge by themselves, just as we judge our own situations.
The problem with that theory is that Kate has never held a full time job in 32 years, if this had started after she married... :blank:
Quote from: Rebound on April 24, 2014, 09:34:11 PM
Of course it all depends on the couple, but in general women earn less than men and the cost of living is rising faster than wages. These are facts women can't afford to ignore. Young people today will not stay in the same jobs they start with, and must learn to plan their university studies wisely to cope with many different positions.
I did say this is not Kate's issue. For her, the issues have been and continue to be how to accommodate the needs and circumstances of her family--her WHOLE family, including the other royals. I don't see either her or Will being, as you say, work shy. I think they are supporting the needs of their families, and these may be needs we don't see or understand, just as we don't understand other families' needs. It's a situation they have to judge by themselves, just as we judge our own situations.
:goodpost: I agree completely
I like Kate I think she is smart and beautiful but, as I have said previously as a Private citizen Kate could be held up as a role model a dutiful daughter, wife and mother who is the epitome of what is known as family values. As a wife who married into the BRF a very public family who's role is very high profile in setting the tone for work ethics charity fundraising, hands on work etc. IMO the only role models currently in the BRF are HM, The DOE, The POW and The Princess Royal. If I were to hold anyone up as a role model it would have to be Princess Anne who not only raised well balanced children but her hands on work with Save the Children is legendary for her it was not all Tiara's and ballgowns. :thumbsup:
I like to bring it in the MIDDLE.
You guys have so mmany conversations going on.
HOUSEWIFE. Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, etc., is NOT A STAY at home mom and housewife.
She is not married to Billy Wales.
Her name is not Kaitlyn Wales.
C,DofC, has duties per her position. A postition in her country. To her subjects.
The trade off for their FINANCIAL SUPPORT via taxes and other ways is for her to support them in charities, causes, bring awareness to issues, etc. Represent THEIR country, hers and theirs, aboard.
C,DofC, has a network of people to guide her in the mundane, housewife things in life: cooking, cleaning, childcare, errands of going to the gorcery, bank, dry cleaners, etc.
She has doctors on call ASAP 24/7, nannies, drivers, bodyguards, gardeners, deocroators, etc. Anything she wants is at her her disposal.
She can be a rolemodel for her work in her country, but it is a rather thin diary of work.
---------------
As for her youth and young adulthood, she can be a role model in that her parents are ,were proud of her. She made good grades. Got active in the right kinds of extracuricular activities like sports.
As a young adult, mid adult, she carried herself with some class. No scandals. Stupid antics.
-------------------------------
As a wife and mother, not that any young girls should really be thinking about at their age, yes she is a role modle. She loves her husband. He loves her . She is a good mother. They have a good , tight family unit with respect , etc.
----------------
If adult women want to see K, DofC as a role model, fine.
------------------------
Stay-at-home moms are great!!!!
Fine. If that is what works for you and your family, then do it. It is the right way and only way for her and her family. HOWEVER, one must be prepared to have, UNLESSTHEY ARE AND HEIRESS and/or MARRIED TO An HEIR, the educational background, talents, drive, work history before marriage, or during in charity work, to find employment if the husband should leave. Die. Get laid off.
Ex. Laura Bush, a Middle Class girl was a school teacher. She married George Bush. She retired from that career. If he would have died, she would have had for her girls, his trust...support some kind of way set by his parents.
If he would ahve divorced her, at least she would have child support and alimony.
I am talking about long before he was president.
I picked her because she is a woman of modern times.
--------------------
If a woman wants to work outside of the home and be a wife and mother too, FINE. GREAT!!!! What works for her and her family is BEST!!!! It is the right way and the only way for her and hers.
Ex. Jenna Bush chooses to work outside of being a wife and mother.
------------------------------------------------
^^^Thank you PoP.
I should have clarified that the 38% number came from a government poll taken in summer 2013. 42% want the PoW to follow HM with the remaining numbers made up of those who would like the monarchy to end and those who just didn't know.
IMHO HM, the DoE and PoW would likely want to see that 38% become a part of the group who wants Charles to succeed HM. Yes by tradition he will become King when her reign comes to an end, but people can and will share their opinions on the subject. To promote the understudy's understudy doesn't seem like the right plan when the PoW's and Camilla's popularity could still use some help. I do believe that the PoW and Camilla are very ready to take on their future roles though.
This % want that and that % wants this.
Thing is , none of it matters.
it is not up for vote.
Providing the BRF has not done somethong illgeal or something jsut too much for the people to bear as in the Edward -Wallis case, it is as it will be.
With the BRF, C is king next. Camilla The Rottweiler WILL BE titled/styled QUEEN CAMILLA.
That will be in about 8-10 years.
QEII dying...when?
Next up, King William and Queen Catherine in 15-20 years.
(Queen Consort-formal term.)
^^^ But it does give an indication of whether or not the BRF has regained its popularity with the people who will ultimately decide if they wish to keep a monarchy or not. :)
I'm so glad I don't have a daughter. I do have a son, a furry puppy, and he can look up to Lupo. Whatevs. :teehee:
Look, I've been observing this thread as it's gotten very heated :catfight: and it's rehashing the same arguments made over and over (most recently in the Marie Antoinette thread), but now with a lens of feminism now.
Some of us believe Kate has done very little work; others believe that Kate's primary work is as a wife and mother. They're opinions; they're valid... can we all just move on? :hug:
(PS: there's new photos of Princess Estelle and Princess Leonore in the Swedish thread. I swear the cuteness will make everyone feel better :flower: )
Quote from: Princessinwaiting on April 24, 2014, 04:50:49 PM
Quote from: cinrit on April 24, 2014, 04:29:02 PM
^^ IMO, that's all very harsh.
Cindy
Yes it is . .
I did not go to a Catholic school but I am Catholic and was brought up with very strict values , none if which I really follow today I think it's a sorry excuse to push something in your children in order to prove another person's lifestyle is wrong it's not only against anything feminist it's also going lead them to want to grow up and get the hell out of your old fashioned home that's what I did :wellduh: don't think your children won't grow up and remember you shoving things down their throats they will and they will hold grudges most of the time and swear to never raise their children that way ...
Btw I don't believe most of what a certain somebody says but ..... . ....it reminded me of my close minded school :blahblahblah:
quote] You may teach your kids they way you want and that is your own problem, as for me the way the will be raise will be own path I am not going to shoving things down their throats just the hell of it but it will be to help them make better decision or better path in life. As I said before kate is no role model and for any mothers out there that put her high above the rest that prove there is something wrong with their mental judgments. their is nothing WOW or Jaw Dropping she had done for the past 32 yrs. of age. No I don't means getting married, having a baby or getting a college degree they are now more woman who have accomplish all that before 25 so there is nothing so magical about all that. So let stop trying to justify all her action for the past 32yrs because non of them is worth the glory or praises to be a role model. P.S last month people magazine said Kim Kardashian was a role model for girl, Now Kate wales is a role model and I am so Disappointed that kids now set the bar so low for their future picking these women next up Paris Hilton or Lindsay lohan .this is utterly tearful and sad that the future generation is going down hill full force :fuming:
Quote from: TLLK on April 24, 2014, 11:10:46 PM
^^^Thank you PoP.
I should have clarified that the 38% number came from a government poll taken in summer 2013. 42% want the PoW to follow HM with the remaining numbers made up of those who would like the monarchy to end and those who just didn't know.
IMHO HM, the DoE and PoW would likely want to see that 38% become a part of the group who wants Charles to succeed HM. Yes by tradition he will become King when her reign comes to an end, but people can and will share their opinions on the subject. To promote the understudy's understudy doesn't seem like the right plan when the PoW's and Camilla's popularity could still use some help. I do believe that the PoW and Camilla are very ready to take on their future roles though.
Polls are taken all the time and none will ever keep Charles from the throne (only his death or incapacity would be the cause). And no way would William want to displace his father--he runs from work not towards it.
Hiding WIlliam away will decidedly not make C and C more popular and it could well have the opposite effect.
William and Kate are supposed to work for the royal family and also be the Queen's ambassadors and assist her.And C and C are not getting any younger and two able bodied people in their thirties should definitely help out.
To me this is another excuse for their laziness. I don't see hiding them out as the right plan. They do very little anyway and if they stepped up they would not "outshine" C and C. Charles is the one who does most of the work and Camilla does the minimum. Charles is not Superman and can't do it all by himself.
Quote from: cinrit on April 24, 2014, 04:45:10 PM
^^ The taxpayer doesn't pay for her lifestyle, so no worries there. :thumbsup:
Cindy
Let's see she doesn't work , Willy doesn't work , Chuck hasn't worked a day in his live to earn money so I gotta ask where do you think the money comes from ...
Quote from: Lady Adams on April 24, 2014, 11:55:21 PM
I'm so glad I don't have a daughter. I do have a son, a furry puppy, and he can look up to Lupo. Whatevs. :teehee:
I would need to interview Lupo first... :happy15: Does he play fetch? Is he mindful of his pees and poos? Does he cuddle? Does he like cats? (Toffee asked me to put that in.) :orchid: On a scale of 1 to 10, how would he rate bath time? :hmm: Where does he stand on sharing his toys? :Jen:
^ I will allow my son Dante to look up to Lupo too :nod: .
The comments on this thread are excellent! I like that people are addressing the point and goals of feminism. I also like that we should be aware of the way different values and expectations, in families, communities, and cultures, shape our personal and private goals in life. Kate is a product of her environment and made choices accordingly, choices also shaped by her personality.
Quote from: sandy on May 23, 2014, 01:47:28 PM
Quote from: georgiana996 on May 23, 2014, 07:05:24 AM
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on May 23, 2014, 12:35:22 AM
Quote from: cinrit on May 22, 2014, 10:37:47 PM
^^ I agree ... I don't think Kate is strong and secure about who she is because she's married to William. I think she's married to William because he liked that she's strong and secure about who she is.
Cindy
Not to get off track but it reminds me of what George Michael said about Kate ""William has met and fallen in love with someone who has the strength of character to be able to deal with the sort of things that she couldn't"
Singer George Michael has declared what few of us doubted - that Kate Middleton is stronger than her late mother-in-law Princess Diana.--- From The Daily Beast
:goodpost: :goodpost: yes .Her strength of character makes her a very good woman to look up to .
About the ring , I have always wondered if princess diana had a will or something that said first married gets the ring or my oldest DIL gets the ring because lets get real prince William and Harry had this planned out for a while :D
Sorry I don't see her as a role model. I think she lucked out after putting her life on hold for 10 years. She also had her parents supporting her and was never really on her own. I see her as an anachronism where women got their degrees in MRS and never used them. Kate is OK generally but role model? And having her bolstered at the expense of Diana. I don't think so.
Maybe George Michael is bucking for a knighthood and he can't get anything from Diana now. I would wager if Diana were alive he'd be flattering her
Kate has been pampered and coddled gets vacations and does the very minimum of work. What is Michael gushing over? Her hair and her clothes? She has done nothing significant really. Diana died at 36 and did a lot more than Kate did. She also got the praise of Mother Theresa and Nelson Mandela. I would think those two carry more weight than George Michael. Nelson Mandela wrote a preface to the book about her charities that came out few years ago.
Knocking Diana to praise Kate is wrong on many levels. Diana was a worker and did not hide out even though she could have been excused since she dealt with a difficult marriage, stress which brought out eating disorders and post partum depression. With all that thrown at her she managed to do her appearances and eventually became he own person and got the eating disorder under control. She was also a wonderful mother to Will and Harry and they have said so.
Comparing Diana to Kate who has been in the royal family only three years is ridiculous. IMO.
You know what I think and its kate is a good role model irrespective of what you say :therethere:
Why is she a good role model? I have always asked this question... :blank:
I don't get why she's called a role model either.
Role models differ from person to person. IMO it is very subjective.
There should be a reason why any particular person considers her a role model, as subjective as it may be to others, so I ask again, what makes Kate Middleton a good role model?
For a freshman entering high school, they might consider Kate a role model for balancing sports and school. She earned the necessary grades with her chemistry, biology and art history A levels to be admitted to two apparently highly thought of universities. (I'm not familiar with the amount of work required for an advanced level in the UK, but in the U.S. chemistry and biology would not be considered "easy" courses.) Also many girls begin to shy away from the sciences in high school for a variety of reasons. (Not wanting to be seen as intelligent is unfortunately one of those reasons. :()
People study to get into a good Uni and generally use the degree they work so hard to get. Kate did not use her degree and she had ten years to do it--she used itto get the degree in MRS.
Quote from: TLLK on May 27, 2014, 03:08:44 PM
For a freshman entering high school, they might consider Kate a role model for balancing sports and school. She earned the necessary grades with her chemistry, biology and art history A levels to be admitted to two apparently highly thought of universities. (I'm not familiar with the amount of work required for an advanced level in the UK, but in the U.S. chemistry and biology would not be considered "easy" courses.) Also many girls begin to shy away from the sciences in high school for a variety of reasons. (Not wanting to be seen as intelligent is unfortunately one of those reasons. :()
I never took her A-Levels into account. I suppose that is an achievement worth noting.
It's hard to say that girls "shy away" from sciences in high school when there are, at the least, three years of required sciences. This is simply anecdotal, but in the past six years, I've noticed that there are more girls that opt into Advanced Placement Biology and Anatomy and Physiology than boys. Chemistry and Physics is a toss up.
Quote from: sandy on May 27, 2014, 05:25:10 PM
People study to get into a good Uni and generally use the degree they work so hard to get. Kate did not use her degree and she had ten years to do it--she used itto get the degree in MRS.
Then again, as Sandy mentioned, she did pick a degree that is widely deemed useless, if not impractical.
Of course Kate is a role model!!!!
Absolutely anyone and everyone who is famous for being someone wife or mother or GF or having a sex tape or famous daddy or a reality show or getting pregnant in her teens etc etc etc are somebody's role model and have fans. I'm sure even bloody Chris Brown and Lindsay Lohan have fans and people who consider them as 'role models'. I bet there are a lot of people who considers Osama Bin Laden as role model.
There is role model for everyone in this world, it really depends on what you are looking in life or what you want to achieve.
Quote from: DaisyMeRollin on May 27, 2014, 06:31:12 PM
Quote from: TLLK on May 27, 2014, 03:08:44 PM
For a freshman entering high school, they might consider Kate a role model for balancing sports and school. She earned the necessary grades with her chemistry, biology and art history A levels to be admitted to two apparently highly thought of universities. (I'm not familiar with the amount of work required for an advanced level in the UK, but in the U.S. chemistry and biology would not be considered "easy" courses.) Also many girls begin to shy away from the sciences in high school for a variety of reasons. (Not wanting to be seen as intelligent is unfortunately one of those reasons. :()
I never took her A-Levels into account. I suppose that is an achievement worth noting.
It's hard to say that girls "shy away" from sciences in high school when there are, at the least, three years of required sciences. This is simply anecdotal, but in the past six years, I've noticed that there are more girls that opt into Advanced Placement Biology and Anatomy and Physiology than boys. Chemistry and Physics is a toss up.
Quote from: sandy on May 27, 2014, 05:25:10 PM
People study to get into a good Uni and generally use the degree they work so hard to get. Kate did not use her degree and she had ten years to do it--she used itto get the degree in MRS.
Then again, as Sandy mentioned, she did pick a degree that is widely deemed useless, if not impractical.
If more girls are opting to take AP science courses then that is a victory worth celebrating!!! Woo! Woo!!
(My daughter will be a freshman in Sept. and is registered for honors biology and geometry. She considered honors English, but also wants to run cross-country this fall and swim in the spring. After a discussion with her counselor she's decided to take regular English, but knows that AP classes are in her future. Those sophmore and junior years can be very busy.)
And, the most exciting, TLLK! :happy20:
Can't believe that we're here already. She was just starting pre-school not that long ago. :hug:
You are going to have as much fun with this stage of her life as she is, probably more! Teen Beat here she comes! :happy15: :hug:
Don't you dare send her a subscription!!!!! :lol:
Off topic, but that's exciting for your daughter! Before you know it, she'll be working on her college applications.
To me, a role model is somebody that I would try to emulate, and whose achievements I would also want to achieve.
So what has Kate done?
Well, she graduated from University, but so have millions of other people, so she wouldn't be my role model for that.
She married William. Again, millions of people get married.
But he's a Prince. Well, if that's important to you, then I guess she'd be a role model for you. That's not so important to me.
She wears nice clothes. I already do that, so I don't need to look to her to know how to dress.
All in all, I'd have to say that Kate isn't a role model for me, but I'm sure there are people out there who think she is. Unfortunately, they seem to think she is simply by who she married, and not because of anything she's done on her own merit.
Quote from: cinrit on April 23, 2014, 12:01:44 PM
The intention of women's liberation (I was there), was to have the right to live our lives as we saw fit, without being judged by anyone else. That was the intention. If it's changed over the years, I didn't hear about it. :shrug:
Cindy
It was about equal pay for equal work, the ability to ascend the career ladder if you wanted to without men sexually harassing you on the way, about not being a second class citizen. If you were there, you might remember being sexually harassed by men in the workplace, having to take less money because you weren't the head of your household and were only working for "pin money", being told you couldn't look at a management position because you were going to stay home and have babies, being told you asked for it if you dressed provocatively, and were asking to be raped. Please don't trivialize it by saying it was so Kate Middleton could wait around for a Prince, marry him, and spend her time decorating and shopping. That is indeed her prerogative; however, it doesn't have much to do with women's liberation. The reverse in fact.
Sorry if I'm a bit grrrrr on this one. Big hot button of mine.
Yes, I was there, and I would never trivialize it. However, women's lib was about much more than equal pay for equal work.
Cindy
Hi Cindy,
Yes, it was about more than that, which is why I used other examples. Back then, Kate's "career path" was pretty much the only one women had (minus the money, title and power, that is).
Bluhare ... :hug:
Cindy
Quote from: DaisyMeRollin on May 28, 2014, 01:31:45 AM
Off topic, but that's exciting for your daughter! Before you know it, she'll be working on her college applications.
Thank you DaisyMeRollin. She just mentioned yesterday that she's excited for it all to begin, but is feeling less anxious than she did when she began middle school.
Quote from: Lothwen on May 28, 2014, 02:24:52 AM
To me, a role model is somebody that I would try to emulate, and whose achievements I would also want to achieve.
So what has Kate done?
Well, she graduated from University, but so have millions of other people, so she wouldn't be my role model for that.
She married William. Again, millions of people get married.
But he's a Prince. Well, if that's important to you, then I guess she'd be a role model for you. That's not so important to me.
She wears nice clothes. I already do that, so I don't need to look to her to know how to dress.
All in all, I'd have to say that Kate isn't a role model for me, but I'm sure there are people out there who think she is. Unfortunately, they seem to think she is simply by who she married, and not because of anything she's done on her own merit.
Also before womens liberation, royal women worked for the Firm. The Queen Mother was a role model when she was Queen Elizabeth, Consort to George VI since she went out with her husband to meet the people whose homes were destroyed by bombs during WW II and she was a tireless worker. And this was before women's lib. Alexandra and Mary worked also for charities. Kate is not a housewife, she signed up to be a senior royal consort and even promised to "work hard" (a promise she did not keep).
Quote from: Limabeany on May 26, 2014, 01:20:17 PM
Why is she a good role model? I have always asked this question... :blank:
Because she is strong enough to do exactly what she wants irrespective of what other people may think about her . :notamused: Its the strength that I admire :)
I agree with many of the previous posters who identified values as a key point of difference in the subjective definition of role model.
However, I would like to add a another. I strongly believe that generational difference also contributes to an individual's opinion on what constitutes a good role model.
I am of the same generation as Will and Kate, albeit a couple of years younger. I would be curious to know whether the strong supports of Kate are of the same generation. Maybe some of you would like to share your answer in this thread. I think this would greatly contribute to the discussion.
It will be my generation who will life and grow along side William and Kate. I don't know of anyone of my generation, man or woman, who doesn't rate hard work as important - as career development and progression as important. You'll see that many of William's circle have chosen to work and build careers, despite having sufficient financial resources to live a life of travel and leisure. Kate's own siblings are an example of this; Pippa has consistently sought opportunities to write, and James has been ambitious in undertaking new ventures.
Family, of course is important too. But everyone I know manage to juggle career and family. I would identify Kate as the exception of her generation, not the rule. Look at tertiary education rates, the importance and emphasis on post graduate employment. The focus around the first world on youth unemployment and how to lower the figure. Career and hard work is a core value of our generation for men and women.
Based on this focus, it would be reasonable to conclude that a role model is someone who displays a strong work ethic and the ability to juggle family life. With Kate's limited current and previous work experience, it would be difficult to argue that she shows the work ethic of her peers. But hopefully over time that will change.
I just think, gec, on nothing but anecdotal evidence, that most of Kate's fans have tended to be younger than her. Perhaps you could say, very young women. Not all female members of Gen Y have career ambitions. Some may be stuck in quite boring jobs. Some of these young women may admire Kate's fashion sense, hair etc without going into deeper issues. These are just my observations. I can't back it up with data!
Quote from: gec on May 29, 2014, 10:07:47 AM
I agree with many of the previous posters who identified values as a key point of difference in the subjective definition of role model.
However, I would like to add a another. I strongly believe that generational difference also contributes to an individual's opinion on what constitutes a good role model.
I am of the same generation as Will and Kate, albeit a couple of years younger. I would be curious to know whether the strong supports of Kate are of the same generation. Maybe some of you would like to share your answer in this thread. I think this would greatly contribute to the discussion.
It will be my generation who will life and grow along side William and Kate. I don't know of anyone of my generation, man or woman, who doesn't rate hard work as important - as career development and progression as important. You'll see that many of William's circle have chosen to work and build careers, despite having sufficient financial resources to live a life of travel and leisure. Kate's own siblings are an example of this; Pippa has consistently sought opportunities to write, and James has been ambitious in undertaking new ventures.
Family, of course is important too. But everyone I know manage to juggle career and family. I would identify Kate as the exception of her generation, not the rule. Look at tertiary education rates, the importance and emphasis on post graduate employment. The focus around the first world on youth unemployment and how to lower the figure. Career and hard work is a core value of our generation for men and women.
Based on this focus, it would be reasonable to conclude that a role model is someone who displays a strong work ethic and the ability to juggle family life. With Kate's limited current and previous work experience, it would be difficult to argue that she shows the work ethic of her peers. But hopefully over time that will change.
I agree with everything you have said :goodpost:
I'm also few years younger then Kate and hate that such an idle kept woman who never earned a penny in her life, was never independent on her own, is living off other people all her life, is only known for being a prince's booty call for a decade and who she gave birth too is known as someone who represents women well. I'm a woman and she sure as hell doesn't represent me!
Quote from: Curryong on May 29, 2014, 10:30:29 AM
I just think, gec, on nothing but anecdotal evidence, that most of Kate's fans have tended to be younger than her. Perhaps you could say, very young women. Not all female members of Gen Y have career ambitions. Some may be stuck in quite boring jobs. Some of these young women may admire Kate's fashion sense, hair etc without going into deeper issues. These are just my observations. I can't back it up with data!
I agree with you too. In my experience most of her fans are older die hard Diana fans or older royalists ladies or very young collage/high school girls in general. I do feel a tinge of sympathy for her young fans because I hope in their personal life they won't except that a relationship with a man requires you to sacrifice your life for him, bend over backwards for him, put everything else on hold so you can be available to them and that's it's very important to put yourself first too and not completely sacrifice yourself in the name of love while he gets to do whatever he wants to do, dump you, flirt with other girls, peruse others girls while you patiently wait for him to fail and get back to you. A healthy relationship is about 2 people building a life together, not one person sacrificing their life to make the other one happy. i won't wish Kate and William's relationship and their dynamic on anyone else tbh.
Quote from: Curryong on May 29, 2014, 10:30:29 AM
I just think, gec, on nothing but anecdotal evidence, that most of Kate's fans have tended to be younger than her. Perhaps you could say, very young women. Not all female members of Gen Y have career ambitions. Some may be stuck in quite boring jobs. Some of these young women may admire Kate's fashion sense, hair etc without going into deeper issues. These are just my observations. I can't back it up with data!
This! This is what has been running through my head!
How many of us were beginning our careers as the bottom fell out? Granted this is just from reading, when the recession of the 1980's hit, there were burgeoning anti-royalist sentiments also. I think the recession that we experienced reinforced a level of pragmatism and austerity in our generation. This might be cynical in nature, but applauding mediocrity when someone is extended extraordinary circumstances may as well be a slap to the face of those who have a fair amount of grit and gusto.
Continually harping on someone's past "accomplishments" (that are realistically "dime a dozen" for women all over the world) rather than evaluating the value in effort in the present is absurd.
I can elaborate, but I feel it would be a repeat of sentiments that have already been expressed in respect to Kate's "role model" status. To sum it up, she's a role model for little girls who have still not been struck with the reality stick, and entertain the idea of them being princesses in their own minds.
Why Kate Middleton Isn't My Role Model - And Shouldn't Be Yours Either | Neon Tommy (http://www.neontommy.com/news/2014/06/why-kate-middleton-isnt-my-role-model-and-why-she-shouldnt-be-yours-either)
Quote
Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, is arguably the most talked-about woman in the world. But the former Kate Middleton is most decidedly a poor role model for young women today.
Kate did one thing that allowed her to become everything else that she is known to be: she got married.
Literally, everybody can do that. In 19 U.S. states and 10 European countries, you don't even have to be heterosexual to enjoy the right to marry. Seriously, it's a right. No one can stop you.
Living in a country where we don't have a monarchy, I know that I don't understand the connection that a British subject has to their royals. To Kate, the possibility of becoming queen one day could very well be the greatest honor she could aspire to in life. And if her greatest ambition is to wave from a carriage and have her face on a postage stamp, I'm glad she's getting there. But that absolutely does not mean she deserves to be anyone's role model.
Getting married, having a child, and managing to not screw it all up is actually pretty average. For the many ordinary people who struggle every day to do just that, it's a great personal achievement when they succeed. But that doesn't mean that we should collectively give them a prize and put them on a pedestal.
So the question is, is the story of a Cinderella romance so compelling to us millennials that we are willing to overlook the fact that the woman we're told we should aspire to be actually has nothing to call her own?
Kate's marriage is the only thing keeping her visible. And from a purely statistical standpoint, counting on a stable marriage for future security is as reliable as flipping a coin. Except, Kate can't even count on 50 percent of the marital assets if she gets divorced; titles and social status aren't exactly divisible.
I, for one, believe that women of our generation can aspire to something greater than being trapped in a gilded cage.
But most importantly, it is dangerous to make Kate a role model for modern women because she is always seen and never heard. Last I heard that phrase, it was used to describe children.
We know nothing of her thoughts on today's issues. We don't know, because she isn't expected to have them. And without that critical piece, her role is simply ornamental. She may be aesthetically pleasing, even serve an important social function - but she'll never be the main character, not even in her own story.
From "Waity Katie" to "two kitchen Kate" this woman ain't winning any popularity contest ... she is NO role model she is just someone who married well !!! I hate to bring Di into this but for all her faults she worked hard and she and Chuck got on with it even though they couldn't bare the sight of each other ... she actually understood her role and the impact she could have on the World ... this one ... she is just a gold digger !!!
Quote from: AyVey on May 29, 2014, 12:00:42 PM
Quote from: gec on May 29, 2014, 10:07:47 AM
I agree with many of the previous posters who identified values as a key point of difference in the subjective definition of role model.
However, I would like to add a another. I strongly believe that generational difference also contributes to an individual's opinion on what constitutes a good role model.
I am of the same generation as Will and Kate, albeit a couple of years younger. I would be curious to know whether the strong supports of Kate are of the same generation. Maybe some of you would like to share your answer in this thread. I think this would greatly contribute to the discussion.
It will be my generation who will life and grow along side William and Kate. I don't know of anyone of my generation, man or woman, who doesn't rate hard work as important - as career development and progression as important. You'll see that many of William's circle have chosen to work and build careers, despite having sufficient financial resources to live a life of travel and leisure. Kate's own siblings are an example of this; Pippa has consistently sought opportunities to write, and James has been ambitious in undertaking new ventures.
Family, of course is important too. But everyone I know manage to juggle career and family. I would identify Kate as the exception of her generation, not the rule. Look at tertiary education rates, the importance and emphasis on post graduate employment. The focus around the first world on youth unemployment and how to lower the figure. Career and hard work is a core value of our generation for men and women.
Based on this focus, it would be reasonable to conclude that a role model is someone who displays a strong work ethic and the ability to juggle family life. With Kate's limited current and previous work experience, it would be difficult to argue that she shows the work ethic of her peers. But hopefully over time that will change.
I agree with everything you have said :goodpost:
I'm also few years younger then Kate and hate that such an idle kept woman who never earned a penny in her life, was never independent on her own, is living off other people all her life, is only known for being a prince's booty call for a decade and who she gave birth too is known as someone who represents women well. I'm a woman and she sure as hell doesn't represent me!
Quote from: Curryong on May 29, 2014, 10:30:29 AM
I just think, gec, on nothing but anecdotal evidence, that most of Kate's fans have tended to be younger than her. Perhaps you could say, very young women. Not all female members of Gen Y have career ambitions. Some may be stuck in quite boring jobs. Some of these young women may admire Kate's fashion sense, hair etc without going into deeper issues. These are just my observations. I can't back it up with data!
I agree with you too. In my experience most of her fans are older die hard Diana fans or older royalists ladies or very young collage/high school girls in general. I do feel a tinge of sympathy for her young fans because I hope in their personal life they won't except that a relationship with a man requires you to sacrifice your life for him, bend over backwards for him, put everything else on hold so you can be available to them and that's it's very important to put yourself first too and not completely sacrifice yourself in the name of love while he gets to do whatever he wants to do, dump you, flirt with other girls, peruse others girls while you patiently wait for him to fail and get back to you. A healthy relationship is about 2 people building a life together, not one person sacrificing their life to make the other one happy. i won't wish Kate and William's relationship and their dynamic on anyone else tbh.
I don't think Kate fans are necessarily "older" Diana fans. Diana had a work ethic and was not like Work shirking Kate. I think Kate's fans tend to be younger people.
I agree, they are either younger or older women reliving their princess dreams through Kate...
My personal experience is that they come from all age groups.
Kate, in my opinion, isn't the sort of person that women should look up to. She is a great ambassador when it comes to fashion but in many ways I think she would be a bad role model.
To start with she has never had a proper job in her life. Before she married William it seemed to me that she spent most of her time hanging around, looking pretty, waiting for William to put a ring on her finger. Even now that she's royal it's not like she's doing an engagement everyday of the week- she's done less since having George.
Women should aspire to be strong, independent, and live their lives not relying on their husband to provide for them. They should never aspire to be painstakingly thin- and kate most definitely has got thinner since getting married if she keeps it up she'll be anorexic!
It would be hard to form an opinion on her personality if you don't know her personally but she seems like a nice person. It is clear she is a loving wife and devoted mother and that's great but ( in my opinion ) she is not a woman that the younger generation of women today should have as a role model. Of course, like everyone else, she isn't perfect and nobody can be!
:goodpost: :happy:
Quote from: Lauraxx on July 01, 2014, 02:56:37 AM
Kate, in my opinion, isn't the sort of person that women should look up to. She is a great ambassador when it comes to fashion but in many ways I think she would be a bad role model.
To start with she has never had a proper job in her life. Before she married William it seemed to me that she spent most of her time hanging around, looking pretty, waiting for William to put a ring on her finger. Even now that she's royal it's not like she's doing an engagement everyday of the week- she's done less since having George.
Women should aspire to be strong, independent, and live their lives not relying on their husband to provide for them. They should never aspire to be painstakingly thin- and kate most definitely has got thinner since getting married if she keeps it up she'll be anorexic!
It would be hard to form an opinion on her personality if you don't know her personally but she seems like a nice person. It is clear she is a loving wife and devoted mother and that's great but ( in my opinion ) she is not a woman that the younger generation of women today should have as a role model. Of course, like everyone else, she isn't perfect and nobody can be!
:greatpost:
well I am older and I think that a good role model is someone who does something useful with their life - makes a contribution to their own well being, their family's well being and their community's well being. I do not absolutely believe that you have to have a "career" to be a role model.
I have an aunt who never worked at a paying job after she had her first child - but she not only devoted herself to her family - she devoted herself to making her community better. She did so many things - campaigned to get an elected school board, helped to found a trust fund which buys up and preserves open green space in the town etc. She contributed and even if she did not have a career - she had a life's work and she did something useful with her life. That to me qualifies her as a role model as much as someone who does have a career.
I think the issue is to be useful to others - not just take and focus on your own pleasure.
I do not know what Kate is really like as a person or how circumstances may limit her - but her public persona seems regressive to me - she signals that the way for a woman to make her way in life is through marriage. Marriage to a well off man. Seems rather limited to me.
Quote from: Lauraxx on July 01, 2014, 02:56:37 AM
Kate, in my opinion, isn't the sort of person that women should look up to. She is a great ambassador when it comes to fashion but in many ways I think she would be a bad role model.
To start with she has never had a proper job in her life. Before she married William it seemed to me that she spent most of her time hanging around, looking pretty, waiting for William to put a ring on her finger. Even now that she's royal it's not like she's doing an engagement everyday of the week- she's done less since having George.
Women should aspire to be strong, independent, and live their lives not relying on their husband to provide for them. They should never aspire to be painstakingly thin- and kate most definitely has got thinner since getting married if she keeps it up she'll be anorexic!
It would be hard to form an opinion on her personality if you don't know her personally but she seems like a nice person. It is clear she is a loving wife and devoted mother and that's great but ( in my opinion ) she is not a woman that the younger generation of women today should have as a role model. Of course, like everyone else, she isn't perfect and nobody can be!
Tbh imo as someone who has said kate is a great role model I feel she is strong and determined to do what she wants irrespective of the millions of catty women online who feel the need to pull another fellow woman down . I think I admire her strength and how she sticks to her guns rather than lose herself completely with the circumstances she has been through . Is she rich well yes , do I try to dress /talk /walk / date a rich man NO NO NO and NO . Her life like I have said many times is that of a public servant or someone who really cant do much without being criticised for ridiculous reasons . Who is their right mind would aspire to become that ? When someone calls someone else a role model its because of certain characteristics they admire this doesn't mean they change their goals and life to become this person . This article is just wrong in so many levels to assume women want to live in a gilded cage just because they think kate is strong or whatever reason they admire her for . You can like and not want to be in their shoes at the same time .
There is NOTHING attractive about her life , not even her fans would switch places with her . Personally I dont understand why someone who grew up so comfortably (like pippa, james) decided to marry a prince , because we all know that isnt the best family to be in if your the kind who doesnt like work and I dont think kate likes to work much the inly mistake she made is she married prince william windsor and now has to spend her entire life working . How is this in any way the lap of luxury ? Why would those who like her for certain reasons want that ?
Also OT but I think kate is cracking under the pressure I remember after the wedding she was thrilled to attend everything but now at almost every event including the tour they had she looked haggard ..yeah she has a baby but she also has a nanny that works full time for her I have seen women without nannies working full time and looking better as in nit unwell or haggard like she does which makes me wonder if only now kate figured out what kind of life she picked .
Quote from: Lauraxx on July 01, 2014, 02:56:37 AM
Kate, in my opinion, isn't the sort of person that women should look up to. She is a great ambassador when it comes to fashion but in many ways I think she would be a bad role model.
To start with she has never had a proper job in her life. Before she married William it seemed to me that she spent most of her time hanging around, looking pretty, waiting for William to put a ring on her finger. Even now that she's royal it's not like she's doing an engagement everyday of the week- she's done less since having George.
Women should aspire to be strong, independent, and live their lives not relying on their husband to provide for them. They should never aspire to be painstakingly thin- and kate most definitely has got thinner since getting married if she keeps it up she'll be anorexic!
It would be hard to form an opinion on her personality if you don't know her personally but she seems like a nice person. It is clear she is a loving wife and devoted mother and that's great but ( in my opinion ) she is not a woman that the younger generation of women today should have as a role model. Of course, like everyone else, she isn't perfect and nobody can be!
Yes, no one should look up to a woman who is a loving wife and devoted mother. :)
You don't become anorexic because you're thin. You become emaciated because you're anorexic. If you want to know what anorexic looks like, just put the word "anorexia" into the Google Images search box. Kate isn't even close.
Cindy
There are devoted parents and loving parents who have made valuable contributions to society and the world they live in, WITHOUT a platform such as Kate's, so using parenthood to say they are as or more valuable to society or even as worthy of admiration as people who, with much less, choose to make a palpable difference is a disservice to parents and single parents all over the world who contribute to society much more than they do, having much less than they do AND raise their children WITHOUT help around the house. So, I agree with Lauraxx, not admirable and not a role model. She is choosing NOT to use her platform as much as she could for others but only once in a while. Kate Middleton is living the opposite of "much is asked/expected of whom much is given". There are plenty of loving parents who people should look up to around the world, and Kate Middleton is NOT one of them.
Georgiana, I agree with you and think that Kate is strong and really has the potential to make a difference in her role. The down side is what another poster said a few days ago and that is that she really has no interest in public and civic duties. I'm sure she loves William but if she doesn't want to job then she made the wrong choice in who she married. If there was really an interest she would be doing more on a personal level. She doesn't have to work as much as the PoW or HM but show more initiative and consistency then she has been over the past few years.
I think she is a good mother but she also has help with that as well as housekeeping so being a loving wife and mother cna also mean she's doing absolutely nothing if she has all the help in the world and doesn't have to lift a finger. She can love them without doing anything but that doesn't make her a role model.
I also see the haggard look to her and attribute that to the birth of her son, the nudity scandals, the pressures and bores of royal life, and maybe the magic fading away, as well as the constant press and public criticism. It would effect anybody in that position. I always thought that she cared about the life more than the public duties and it does show. We only get influxes of work when there is bad press on the horizon. Although I think that the British press are horrendous I also think that the both she and her husband play their part in the public reaction to themselves.
Do I think she is a role model? No, but i don't think she really wants to be one either. I think she always wanted the cushy life but none of the responsibilities. There are much more deserving people in the world for the title of role model.
:goodpost:
Exactly as much as I like her if she wanted to be like paris hilton (freedom and privilege without work ) why marry prince william what was she thinking ? Now she can see that she will have to work and she cannot choose to be a housewife hence the haggard look of being stuck :(
I have a friend who adores Kate. She is rather obsessed with her looks and even though she works, her goal in life is to marry a rich guy and not having to work. That is the kind of role model Kate is.
I agree with the article posted a few days ago that says she is not a role model. Being a mother and a wife do not make a person a role model, accomplishments do. Kate has none. Anyone in her position, that is any woman William married would have received the same coverage, love and adulation. Many women would have done much more. Kate is doing the bare minimum.
I think by now she is used to getting attention and love (I think British press has been very gushing towards her, despite her scandals and lack of her work and great expenses, only now are we seeing some criticism. Imagine any other royal doing what she has done and imagine the negative coverage) without doing anything. The most recent criticisms must have caught her off guard. She probably congratulates herself whenever she does an engagement and does not understand why more is asked of her.
Imo a woman doing the bare minimums required of a decent female human being is not worthy of my respect, at all.
Given that we know nothing of what goes on behind the scenes with the Royals, there is no valid reason to believe/not believe that Kate is lazy, or to believe/not believe that she's doing exactly what is expected of her by the powers-that-be.
Cindy
Given what little goes on and has gone on in terms of her PUBLIC duties as a PUBLIC servant with PUBLIC charities that need donations from the PUBLIC, it would be whimsical and even fictional to assume much of anything other than exercise and hairdresser appointments is going on for Kate behind the scenes...
^ Exactly. Don't forget shopping. Those vast homes will not decorate themselves. That takes dedication and other's money.
as I said in my previous post - I do not know her nor do I know what she would do minus any constraints the RF may have put on her - but you are not a role model because maybe behind closed doors you are maybe doing all sorts of wonderful things. I do not see those maybe wonderful things she is secretly doing. All I can see is what she does publically.
I don't think we should judge her harshly - again because we do not know what constraints she has. I suspect life in the gilded cage is not always so great. But she is not some sainted role model for all young girls to aspire to. She is a pretty woman who wears nice and expensive clothes who periodically goes out on a meet and greet, gets flowers, listens to people and shakes hands.
Quote from: HsHCharlene on July 01, 2014, 03:43:23 PM
Georgiana, I agree with you and think that Kate is strong and really has the potential to make a difference in her role. The down side is what another poster said a few days ago and that is that she really has no interest in public and civic duties. I'm sure she loves William but if she doesn't want to job then she made the wrong choice in who she married. If there was really an interest she would be doing more on a personal level. She doesn't have to work as much as the PoW or HM but show more initiative and consistency then she has been over the past few years.
I think she is a good mother but she also has help with that as well as housekeeping so being a loving wife and mother cna also mean she's doing absolutely nothing if she has all the help in the world and doesn't have to lift a finger. She can love them without doing anything but that doesn't make her a role model.
I also see the haggard look to her and attribute that to the birth of her son, the nudity scandals, the pressures and bores of royal life, and maybe the magic fading away, as well as the constant press and public criticism. It would effect anybody in that position. I always thought that she cared about the life more than the public duties and it does show. We only get influxes of work when there is bad press on the horizon. Although I think that the British press are horrendous I also think that the both she and her husband play their part in the public reaction to themselves.
Do I think she is a role model? No, but i don't think she really wants to be one either. I think she always wanted the cushy life but none of the responsibilities. There are much more deserving people in the world for the title of role model.
This is a fantastic summary of Kate. I think it's totally fine to consider her a role model if all you wish to be is someone that marries well and has children, but the term role model usually encompasses much more than that for the majority of people. And that doesn't mean that being a wife and mother isn't a good thing, but that millions of women around the world do that and Kate's no better or worse than them simply because her husbands a prince.
I wish she would take more of an interest in charity work, but sometimes it's better to admit that perhaps she just doesn't wanna take an interest.
^^ I absolutely agree with both of these posts!! :notworthy: :notworthy:
Quote from: cate1949 on July 01, 2014, 06:10:06 PM
I don't think we should judge her harshly - again because we do not know what constraints she has.
If she had worked or have been involved in charity during her pre-marriage days (especially, knowing who she wanted to marry and what would be expected of her after marriage) I would be less inclined to disbelieve the theory that would have her condemned to a life of leisure in a gilded cage... But her track record, all of it and not just post marriage leads me to believe she simply is not very forward thinking or diligent...
:goodpost: Me too, HG and cate. :thumbsup:
Quote from: SophieChloe on July 01, 2014, 07:06:54 PM
^^ I absolutely agree with both of these posts!! :notworthy: :notworthy:
She really didnt think what life would be like after the proposal ? What will it be like ? And its just drab and boring imo starting to look like its taking a toll on her she has gone from fresh and happy to slightly depressed looking in just 3 yrs
She should have, though, since by the time he proposed, she was a 29 year old adult woman and not a 19 year old teenager...
Yeah even 19 yr olds have better aims and aspirations ahem :hide: like I said not even her fans would exchange places with her , shes really looking exhausted after her little work weeks ago last month :(
Quote from: Limabeany on July 01, 2014, 07:08:49 PM
Quote from: cate1949 on July 01, 2014, 06:10:06 PM
I don't think we should judge her harshly - again because we do not know what constraints she has.
If she had worked or have been involved in charity during her pre-marriage days (especially, knowing who she wanted to marry and what would be expected of her after marriage) I would be less inclined to disbelieve the theory that would have her condemned to a life of leisure in a gilded cage... But her track record, all of it and not just post marriage leads me to believe she simply is not very forward thinking or diligent...
I remember seeing an article about her family's role in the make a wish foundation and there where so many comments on who does Kate think she is royalty for daring to be seen helping a charity. The press knew to be outside her door in the morning because they knew when she left for work she was careful to be out of the limelight which has led to people to think she didn't work. I mean Diana's flat wad brought by her father a flat in Coleherne Court in Earls Court would be worth over £2 million now do you really think her job as a teahing aid paid for that?
This thread is not about Diana.
Maybe she just imagined how "glamorous" being a princess would be? I'm not sure how, but maybe all she thought about was marrying William without thinking about the rest. Or maybe her idea of a role model is just a pretty girl and that's it. I don't know, what do you guys think?
I agree. She did not think beyond the end of her nose IMO. All she was bothered about was the tile and status. She is a big fail in the dedication to others stake.
I believe that she knew what would be involved with being a member of the BRF through conversations with William and his family. Ultimately she chose to stay with him after being informed and having experienced the media presence. Quite likely she was also made aware of the heiarchy within the family. Focus to remain upon the most senior royals in order to try and avoid a repeat of the 80's and 90's.
She honestly baffles me (ok that was deep) but I like her overall as a person she doesnt seem to bad and we know very little about her to judge her so I will say i am in between I dont hate her but I am not sure I really like her since I dont defend every thing she does like some fans .
what keeps me from liking her is her lack if interest in anything ither than william , she was not well travelled for someone who reportedly was a 'socialite' unlike her sister who is also better at social skills , giving speeches and having some sense of style other than grandma dressing , kate looks flaky to me like she doesnt have anything she wants other than that ring and tiara .
Her lack of knowledge when it comes to answering questions and giving speeches does confuse me. I'm shy myself so I can understand some nerves, but her annunciation and lack of eloquence with speech is perplexing. I mean sometimes you gotta fake it to make it and at least pretend to speak with conviction which at least for me is where the idea of the seeming lack of interest arises. I don't know, sometimes I feel like I'm projecting my idea of a good public servant onto someone that doesn't have the capability and I feel bad.
Quote from: HistoryGirl on July 01, 2014, 07:47:38 PM
Her lack of knowledge when it comes to answering questions and giving speeches does confuse me. I'm shy myself so I can understand some nerves, but her annunciation and lack of eloquence with speech is perplexing. I mean sometimes you gotta fake it to make it and at least pretend to speak with conviction which at least for me is where the idea of the seeming lack of interest arises. I don't know, sometimes I feel like I'm projecting my idea of a good public servant onto someone that doesn't have the capability and I feel bad.
Like you I'm shy too, but I do have a bit of an acting bug. I have in my head the "image" of what a good public speaker is so I act in that manner. It is the only way that I found to speak in front of an audience or to teach a classroom full of students.
Quote from: TLLK on July 01, 2014, 07:36:30 PM
I believe that she knew what would be involved with being a member of the BRF through conversations with William and his family. Ultimately she chose to stay with him after being informed and having experienced the media presence. Quite likely she was also made aware of the heiarchy within the family. Focus to remain upon the most senior royals in order to try and avoid a repeat of the 80's and 90's.
What conversations with his family? She first met the queen whilst William was elsewhere...Jecca's family.
Media presence? She was out most Thursday nights in high profile nightspots. She could have stayed at home getting a good nights sleep for "work" the next day. I've read it was the "media" who put her off working?
As for the...wait your turn - argument. Sorry, not buying it.
"to try and avoid a repeat of the 80's and 90's"
Sophie came after the 80's and 90's and nothing stopped her from getting out there.
:goodpost:
Quote from: HistoryGirl on July 01, 2014, 07:47:38 PM
Her lack of knowledge when it comes to answering questions and giving speeches does confuse me. I'm shy myself so I can understand some nerves, but her annunciation and lack of eloquence with speech is perplexing. I mean sometimes you gotta fake it to make it and at least pretend to speak with conviction which at least for me is where the idea of the seeming lack of interest arises. I don't know, sometimes I feel like I'm projecting my idea of a good public servant onto someone that doesn't have the capability and I feel bad.
:hug: :hug:
Quote from: TLLK on July 01, 2014, 07:36:30 PM
I believe that she knew what would be involved with being a member of the BRF through conversations with William and his family. Ultimately she chose to stay with him after being informed and having experienced the media presence. Quite likely she was also made aware of the heiarchy within the family. Focus to remain upon the most senior royals in order to try and avoid a repeat of the 80's and 90's.
Hierarchy? Then she should be working more than Sophie! Kate is the one two heartbeats away from being Queen... As far as conversations go, she is not illiterate, the media, internet and television would have clued her in as to what is expected of a royal public servant who would one day be Queen...
Quote from: TLLK on July 01, 2014, 07:54:42 PM
Quote from: HistoryGirl on July 01, 2014, 07:47:38 PM
Her lack of knowledge when it comes to answering questions and giving speeches does confuse me. I'm shy myself so I can understand some nerves, but her annunciation and lack of eloquence with speech is perplexing. I mean sometimes you gotta fake it to make it and at least pretend to speak with conviction which at least for me is where the idea of the seeming lack of interest arises. I don't know, sometimes I feel like I'm projecting my idea of a good public servant onto someone that doesn't have the capability and I feel bad.
Like you I'm shy too, but I do have a bit of an acting bug. I have in my head the "image" of what a good public speaker is so I act in that manner. It is the only way that I found to speak in front of an audience or to teach a classroom full of students.
I'll have to take a cue from you there since I wanna become a teacher someday lol
I am also quite shy but I notice that most of the time when you say something that catches the persons attention to the point the whole room quiets down to hear it even if your voice is soft , thats when you know you've got people listening and its not how loud but your interest /passion for the subject that gets conveyed ...this never happens with kate her first speech was fake as ever with the childish expressions and weird smiling .
Quote from: SophieChloe on July 01, 2014, 07:55:36 PM
Sophie came after the 80's and 90's and nothing stopped her from getting out there.
This isn't about Sophie, but since she's been mentioned ... she didn't get right out there, and she had a pretty rough beginning as a Windsor wife.
Cindy
TLLK mentioned the 80's and 90's so I assumed she meant the Diana/Fergie years. So I included Sophie....okay with you, Cindy!
She did get out there, even after a very difficult birth.
What's Kate's excuse? And they are nothing more than "excuses".....
Quote from: HistoryGirl on July 01, 2014, 08:08:14 PM
Quote from: TLLK on July 01, 2014, 07:54:42 PM
Quote from: HistoryGirl on July 01, 2014, 07:47:38 PM
Her lack of knowledge when it comes to answering questions and giving speeches does confuse me. I'm shy myself so I can understand some nerves, but her annunciation and lack of eloquence with speech is perplexing. I mean sometimes you gotta fake it to make it and at least pretend to speak with conviction which at least for me is where the idea of the seeming lack of interest arises. I don't know, sometimes I feel like I'm projecting my idea of a good public servant onto someone that doesn't have the capability and I feel bad.
Like you I'm shy too, but I do have a bit of an acting bug. I have in my head the "image" of what a good public speaker is so I act in that manner. It is the only way that I found to speak in front of an audience or to teach a classroom full of students.
I'll have to take a cue from you there since I wanna become a teacher someday lol
Oh that is wonderful!!! What are you considering? I'm elementary aka Multiple Subjects in the Golden State of CA. I'm currently subbing but prior to having children I taught 2nd, 3rd, 4th and student taught in Kdg. and 5th.
Quote from: Limabeany on July 01, 2014, 08:03:11 PM
Quote from: TLLK on July 01, 2014, 07:36:30 PM
I believe that she knew what would be involved with being a member of the BRF through conversations with William and his family. Ultimately she chose to stay with him after being informed and having experienced the media presence. Quite likely she was also made aware of the heiarchy within the family. Focus to remain upon the most senior royals in order to try and avoid a repeat of the 80's and 90's.
Hierarchy? Then she should be working more than Sophie! Kate is the one two heartbeats away from being Queen... As far as conversations go, she is not illiterate, the media, internet and television would have clued her in as to what is expected of a royal public servant who would one day be Queen...
In the line of succession, William is heir-to-the-heir that is true. In terms of who is full time/part time for now I believe HM, the DoE prefer to use HM's first cousins, children and in-laws.
As for information, I do believe that Kate has had access to the BRF staff as well as the members of the BRF themselves.
Quote from: SophieChloe on July 01, 2014, 08:39:37 PM
TLLK mentioned the 80's and 90's so I assumed she meant the Diana/Fergie years. So I included Sophie....okay with you, Cindy!
It's fine with me, but I thought we weren't allowed to mention other Royal Family members, since when PaulaB mentioned Diana, you told her the thread is not about Diana. :shrug:
Cindy
Quote from: SophieChloe on July 01, 2014, 08:39:37 PM
TLLK mentioned the 80's and 90's so I assumed she meant the Diana/Fergie years. So I included Sophie....okay with you, Cindy!
She did get out there, even after a very difficult birth.
What's Kate's excuse? And they are nothing more than "excuses".....
Personally I consider Sophie as being in the 2000's as she married Edward in 1999 and her full-time royal work began in that decade after her career in PR ended in 2002. Now we should get back to Kate.
You do? Okayyyy. What's a year or so between friends.
Where's those straws for grasping..... :banana:
Yep, back to Kate. Let's stop chucking others under the bus to excuse Kate.
Quote from: TLLK on July 01, 2014, 08:44:09 PM
Quote from: SophieChloe on July 01, 2014, 08:39:37 PM
TLLK mentioned the 80's and 90's so I assumed she meant the Diana/Fergie years. So I included Sophie....okay with you, Cindy!
She did get out there, even after a very difficult birth.
What's Kate's excuse? And they are nothing more than "excuses".....
Personally I consider Sophie as being in the 2000's as she married Edward in 1999 and her full-time royal work began in that decade after her career in PR ended in 2002. Now we should get back to Kate.
Personally, I consider Sophie a hardworking woman before and after marriage... Unlike Kate, getting back to Kate, who's never worked full time in any field at any time...
Quote from: TLLK on July 01, 2014, 08:39:57 PM
Quote from: HistoryGirl on July 01, 2014, 08:08:14 PM
Quote from: TLLK on July 01, 2014, 07:54:42 PM
Quote from: HistoryGirl on July 01, 2014, 07:47:38 PM
Her lack of knowledge when it comes to answering questions and giving speeches does confuse me. I'm shy myself so I can understand some nerves, but her annunciation and lack of eloquence with speech is perplexing. I mean sometimes you gotta fake it to make it and at least pretend to speak with conviction which at least for me is where the idea of the seeming lack of interest arises. I don't know, sometimes I feel like I'm projecting my idea of a good public servant onto someone that doesn't have the capability and I feel bad.
Like you I'm shy too, but I do have a bit of an acting bug. I have in my head the "image" of what a good public speaker is so I act in that manner. It is the only way that I found to speak in front of an audience or to teach a classroom full of students.
I'll have to take a cue from you there since I wanna become a teacher someday lol
Oh that is wonderful!!! What are you considering? I'm elementary aka Multiple Subjects in the Golden State of CA. I'm currently subbing but prior to having children I taught 2nd, 3rd, 4th and student taught in Kdg. and 5th.
Preferably just history so either middle or high school (id rather do high school), but any teaching job would do really lol
Quote from: Limabeany on July 01, 2014, 08:53:34 PM
Quote from: TLLK on July 01, 2014, 08:44:09 PM
Quote from: SophieChloe on July 01, 2014, 08:39:37 PM
TLLK mentioned the 80's and 90's so I assumed she meant the Diana/Fergie years. So I included Sophie....okay with you, Cindy!
She did get out there, even after a very difficult birth.
What's Kate's excuse? And they are nothing more than "excuses".....
Personally I consider Sophie as being in the 2000's as she married Edward in 1999 and her full-time royal work began in that decade after her career in PR ended in 2002. Now we should get back to Kate.
Personally, I consider Sophie a hardworking woman before and after marriage... Unlike Kate, getting back to Kate, who's never worked full time in any field at any time...
Even addressed during the engagement interview. And 3+ years...and so it continues....
Quote from: georgiana996 on July 01, 2014, 08:13:25 PM
I am also quite shy but I notice that most of the time when you say something that catches the persons attention to the point the whole room quiets down to hear it even if your voice is soft , thats when you know you've got people listening and its not how loud but your interest /passion for the subject that gets conveyed ...this never happens with kate her first speech was fake as ever with the childish expressions and weird smiling .
Totally agree with you. Even if you're shy when you get going on a topic you care or know about people tend to be engaged with you, but that doesn't seem to be the case with Kate.
Sometimes I think that that's exactly who the Royal Family want in a princess. Someone that looks pretty and smiles, but isn't out there speaking her own mind or is so intelligent that she overshadows her spouse since the last time that happened they were very unhappy. That's the hierarchy that I think they follow; make the royal family member look like the stronger more intelligent partner and the spouse be the nice support system that follows suit. She seems really easy to control since she doesn't appear to want to put a foot wrong. I don't personally agree with that approach, but it does appear as if that's the case to me.
^^^Which is what Hillary Mantel was sharing when she made her comments last year IMO. Also I agree that the BRF does NOT want the royal (male/female) to be overshadowed. They already dealt with that with the Diana/Fergie years. However in the case of the DoE, I think that they won't even try to hold him in.
Yes but how come the other royal families have members who are dedicated to certain causes and issues and still the spouse doesn't get overshadowed ? I think the problem is not with the brf but kate .
^^^I did notice that the Spanish royals kept Letizia and Felipe doing all of their engagements together for 3 years after they were married. Letizia was only able to go solo in 2007.
IMHO the BRF is very conscious of not repeating what happened with Diana and Sarah with their newer in-laws. I truly believe that HM, the DoE and PoW do not want to see that type of out of control media attention on a royal spouse again IF they can help it. (TBH I don't know how much control they can have over that though.)Sophie and Camilla also had slower introductions to royal life and IMHO appear to be happy to appear as supportive partners when out with their spouses.
Quote from: georgiana996 on July 01, 2014, 09:12:06 PM
Yes but how come the other royal families have members who are dedicated to certain causes and issues and still the spouse doesn't get overshadowed ? I think the problem is not with the brf but kate .
Well said, Georgie!
Thanks for all your thoughts :vday4:. IMO Kate is failing badly :thumbsdown:
OT but where the hell is the lazy hubby? He is a lazy disgrace, too.
Quote from: TLLK on July 01, 2014, 09:16:13 PM
^^^I did notice that the Spanish royals kept Letizia and Felipe doing all of their engagements together for 3 years after they were married. Letizia was only able to go solo in 2007.
IMHO the BRF is very conscious of not repeating what happened with Diana and Sarah with their newer in-laws. I truly believe that HM, the DoE and PoW do not want to see that type of out of control media attention on a royal spouse again IF they can help it. (TBH I don't know how much control they can have over that though.)Sophie and Camilla also had slower introductions to royal life and IMHO appear to be happy to appear as supportive partners when out with their spouses.
IMO, the Diana ship has sailed, Kate is being attacked for being a lazy, spendthrift WAG and before the damage to her reputation becomes permanent, they need to get her butt out working, visibly! As you may have noticed, Letizia was a hardworking career woman whereas Kate was just William's woman until she married at 29... Kate is not having a slower introduction, Kate is having an image meltdown, soon to become irreparable...
Yeah I think that's a major difference between Kate and Letizia. Leti had a life before meeting Felipe so she had her own mind and ideas and once a person has that it's hard to give up. But Kate went straight from being a schoolgirl under the control of her parents then at university, a place where most people find themselves and begin their lives, she focused only on William and that's continued to this day (now also George).
Quote from: Limabeany on July 01, 2014, 09:35:51 PM
Quote from: TLLK on July 01, 2014, 09:16:13 PM
^^^I did notice that the Spanish royals kept Letizia and Felipe doing all of their engagements together for 3 years after they were married. Letizia was only able to go solo in 2007.
IMHO the BRF is very conscious of not repeating what happened with Diana and Sarah with their newer in-laws. I truly believe that HM, the DoE and PoW do not want to see that type of out of control media attention on a royal spouse again IF they can help it. (TBH I don't know how much control they can have over that though.)Sophie and Camilla also had slower introductions to royal life and IMHO appear to be happy to appear as supportive partners when out with their spouses.
IMO, the Diana ship has sailed, Kate is being attacked for being a lazy, spendthrift WAG and before the damage to her reputation becomes permanent, they need to get her butt out working, visibly! As you may have noticed, Letizia was a hardworking career woman whereas Kate was just William's woman until she married at 29... Kate is not having a slower introduction, Kate is having an image meltdown, soon to become irreparable...
It may have sailed, but the BRF has a long memory. HM won't even consider abdication in part because of Uncle David's.
As for other royal families, I gave an example of a court limiting the exposure of a new member to keep them from overshadowing another. IMHO Letizia should have been given the opportunity to "go solo" earlier in her role, but the higher ups in the Spanish court had other plans.
I think the BRF is also more conservative and traditional than many other Royal families. I was really surprised when I first started following the Danish Royal family, for example, and saw that they regularly do interviews and photo shoots for magazines. That would NEVER fly with the BRF -- can you imagine the outcry if Kate did a pregnant photo shoot for Vogue like Mary did? For the same reason, it would not surprise me in the least if the BRF were much more careful in how it introduces spouses to the Royal world than other monarchies are.
Quote from: TLLK on July 01, 2014, 08:44:09 PM
Quote from: SophieChloe on July 01, 2014, 08:39:37 PM
TLLK mentioned the 80's and 90's so I assumed she meant the Diana/Fergie years. So I included Sophie....okay with you, Cindy!
She did get out there, even after a very difficult birth.
What's Kate's excuse? And they are nothing more than "excuses".....
Personally I consider Sophie as being in the 2000's as she married Edward in 1999 and her full-time royal work began in that decade after her career in PR ended in 2002. Now we should get back to Kate.
Sophie will never be a Queen Consort. Kate will and is higher up in the pecking order.
Sophie also had an ectopic pregnancy in the early 2000s and then in 2003 the birth of Louise--which proved to be a risky delivery--but mother and daughter survived.
Double post auto-merged: July 02, 2014, 12:28:11 AM
Quote from: HistoryGirl on July 01, 2014, 10:53:12 PM
Yeah I think that's a major difference between Kate and Letizia. Leti had a life before meeting Felipe so she had her own mind and ideas and once a person has that it's hard to give up. But Kate went straight from being a schoolgirl under the control of her parents then at university, a place where most people find themselves and begin their lives, she focused only on William and that's continued to this day (now also George).
She is not a housewife. She's supposed to be a working royal. That scenario is a sort of Doll's House Scenario like Ibsen's character Norah went straight from her parents to marry a husband who treated her like a child. Kate could have developed good work habits had she done more with her life in those ten years.
Double post auto-merged: July 02, 2014, 12:32:13 AM
Quote from: TLLK on July 01, 2014, 09:16:13 PM
^^^I did notice that the Spanish royals kept Letizia and Felipe doing all of their engagements together for 3 years after they were married. Letizia was only able to go solo in 2007.
IMHO the BRF is very conscious of not repeating what happened with Diana and Sarah with their newer in-laws. I truly believe that HM, the DoE and PoW do not want to see that type of out of control media attention on a royal spouse again IF they can help it. (TBH I don't know how much control they can have over that though.)Sophie and Camilla also had slower introductions to royal life and IMHO appear to be happy to appear as supportive partners when out with their spouses.
Camilla had a slower introduction because she needed a spin doctor to try to rehabilitate her image (Bolland). the Queen Mother would not tolerate a C and C marriage in her lifetime so Camilla could not join the royal family right away. They ultimately waited 9 years after the C and D divorce and 8 years after Diana's death. Camilla had no choice but to work.
Sophie is a minor royal and not in the same category as Kate.
I think if the royals think shielding a spouse from work is very wrong and misguided. Charles was the only male royal who actually was so petty he got jealous of his spouse. Rather than encouraging the dysfunction the royals should encourage consorts to work. If they are popular it is a credit to the royal family.
Diana's and Fergie's issues were not from working.
Double post auto-merged: July 02, 2014, 12:34:51 AM
Quote from: TLLK on July 01, 2014, 10:58:57 PM
Quote from: Limabeany on July 01, 2014, 09:35:51 PM
Quote from: TLLK on July 01, 2014, 09:16:13 PM
^^^I did notice that the Spanish royals kept Letizia and Felipe doing all of their engagements together for 3 years after they were married. Letizia was only able to go solo in 2007.
IMHO the BRF is very conscious of not repeating what happened with Diana and Sarah with their newer in-laws. I truly believe that HM, the DoE and PoW do not want to see that type of out of control media attention on a royal spouse again IF they can help it. (TBH I don't know how much control they can have over that though.)Sophie and Camilla also had slower introductions to royal life and IMHO appear to be happy to appear as supportive partners when out with their spouses.
IMO, the Diana ship has sailed, Kate is being attacked for being a lazy, spendthrift WAG and before the damage to her reputation becomes permanent, they need to get her butt out working, visibly! As you may have noticed, Letizia was a hardworking career woman whereas Kate was just William's woman until she married at 29... Kate is not having a slower introduction, Kate is having an image meltdown, soon to become irreparable...
It may have sailed, but the BRF has a long memory. HM won't even consider abdication in part because of Uncle David's.
As for other royal families, I gave an example of a court limiting the exposure of a new member to keep them from overshadowing another. IMHO Letizia should have been given the opportunity to "go solo" earlier in her role, but the higher ups in the Spanish court had other plans.
The overshadowing is nonsense and caused by Charles odd behavior. Other couples worked in tandem. If Charles had been a grown up he would have had appreciated Diana's popularity. At the beginning of the marriage Diana had no intention of "deliberately" overshadowing Charles she was popular. Arguably the Queen Mother as Queen Consort overshadowed her husband George VI but he had enough brains to appreciate the "overshadowing."
I know Sandy, I wasn't trying to insinuate that she was a housewife or that it was okay for her to be reliant on William; I was just trying to explain why she might be so used to being told what to do.
It would be nice if any of us knew exactly what the RF's plan for Kate was/is. As of right now it does appear as if it's just to be a good looking accessory to William.
I think Kate knew exactly what she was doing and nobody told her what to do. She wanted to marry William and I think she was bent on marrying him and she had help from her parents including financially.
I also think William is calling the shots and for one reason or another his grandmother is catering to him. I can't imagine the Queen actually liking their laziness and grabbing for the perks. I think it may take some sort of a crisis point (the two continuing spending lavishly and doing nothing) that will stir the Queen.
I do think WIlliam and Kate are lazy.
Right, I totally agree that from our point of view they don't do very much. And I can see how anyone paying for them would be upset. And you're also right with the notion that the Queen is allowing this to happen. Personally, I do think it is because they're trying to avoid another situation where a princess overshadows the monarch and their children. Again, I'm not saying I'm okay with any of it, but that's just how I feel.
It wouldve been great if Kate had a career during her relationship, but then again considering the kind of guy that William appears to be, I don't think a career woman would attract him. I think he cares for Kate (it would be impossible for me to infer whether they're in love since I've had a hard time figuring out if I, myself, have been in love much less anyone else lol) and part of the reason he cares for Kate is because she has always put him before anything and an independent woman like wouldn't do that.
The BRF seems exceedingly traditional if nothing else and they appear to like spouses to be under their control, probably because they want them to move in whatever direction the monarch chooses. I wish they were more progressive, especially since the public seems to be, but they don't seem to like that.
And once again sandy, I respectfully disagree regarding Sophie and Camilla's entry into the BRF. IMO the family realized that it needed to alter the way things were being done and it had an opportunity to "revamp" its royal in-training program. I won't dispute that Camilla needed some positive marketing, but the BRF wanted to take the opportunity to address an issue that Diana and Sarah had both claimed. Each believed that they had not received enough preparation prior to beginning their royal duties. I tend to believe this is true and needed to be resolved. By allowing Sophie to continue her career and to begin a slow introduction has been instrumental in the survival of her marriage to Edward. By the time she would begin her full time duties in 2002 she had more experience/confidence under her belt. Her ectopic pregnancy was a tragic moment but she was helped by knowing that the in-laws were going to be more flexible with her.
With Camilla I do believe it was also a good idea to have her slowly integrate herself into royal life. Her engagement and patronage list has grown and I find her to be a very good consort to the PoW. She doesn't have the "star" quality like Diana but I believe that the public has warmed to her.
Sophie had a very traumatic delivery with Louise so it extended through 2003 (she was pregnant for most of that year).
Sophie was and is a minor royal so she had a lot more leeway than Diana and Fergie did. For instance Sophie and Edward's wedding was nowhere near the grand scale of Charles and Diana/Fergie and Andrew. Plus Sophie was not a Duchess but had the lesser title of Countess.
I think there are extremes.If the theory that this is all part of a plan is true, Kate is treated as "backward" and a slow learner considering the long long long time she has to do less than part time. I am not so sure this is part of a "plan" I think she and WIlliam are just lazy.
Diana's issue was not work it was the marriage with another woman calling the shots. Fergie had many other issues which would take pages and pages to talk about. If this is part of a "plan" whoever is involved in it seems to be missing the point entirely about Diana and Fergie.
I am not so sure the "public" has "warmed to Camilla." She is not popular with everybody to say the least. I don't think such generalizing about "warming to her" can be made. Camilla still does little compared to the others. I don't think she will ever be universally popular with the public.
Double post auto-merged: July 02, 2014, 02:07:17 AM
Quote from: HistoryGirl on July 02, 2014, 12:51:18 AM
Right, I totally agree that from our point of view they don't do very much. And I can see how anyone paying for them would be upset. And you're also right with the notion that the Queen is allowing this to happen. Personally, I do think it is because they're trying to avoid another situation where a princess overshadows the monarch and their children. Again, I'm not saying I'm okay with any of it, but that's just how I feel.
It wouldve been great if Kate had a career during her relationship, but then again considering the kind of guy that William appears to be, I don't think a career woman would attract him. I think he cares for Kate (it would be impossible for me to infer whether they're in love since I've had a hard time figuring out if I, myself, have been in love much less anyone else lol) and part of the reason he cares for Kate is because she has always put him before anything and an independent woman like wouldn't do that.
The BRF seems exceedingly traditional if nothing else and they appear to like spouses to be under their control, probably because they want them to move in whatever direction the monarch chooses. I wish they were more progressive, especially since the public seems to be, but they don't seem to like that.
I think the royals would be catering to some neurotic notion that a princess "can't be" popular lest she overshadow the others--if this is indeed their idea. Charles was the one with the problem---he didn't like it that Diana was well received from the time she got engaged to Diana. He could not stand it because he actually had hangups himself. It's like the story of JFK and Jackie. He saw how popular she was but did not sulk and pout. He made the comment I am the man who accompanied Jackie to Paris. Charles should have learned from him.
Kate IS a career woman now in the sense that Senior royal women have indeed traditionally worked. William unless he was hiding under a rock should know his wife needs to do royal work and give back.
I think William is lazy and Kate was and is his enabler.
The idea that a woman cannot be popular because the man does not like it (Charles to my recollection was the only one who acted like a child) she must not be popular. So should the woman deliberately act incompetent or hide. This sounds like something from the Stone Age. I hope this is not the real story behind W and K's laziness that it is part of an antiquated "plan." Heaven help the future of the monarchy if this is the case.
In my job I often have to be a hostess, I visit places sometimes abroad. I have to make small talk with complete strangers at receptions. I have to do speeches and take questions. I testify to government committees. I visit various sites that we fund or are interested in funding. I speak to community groups. No one sent me to princess school - LOL - I learned by watching others, by using the sort of basic courtesy my Mother taught me. And I sure did not get a couple years to ease myself into the job. So I am not impressed with the idea that one needs years to master this. It is not rocket science. It is about listening, being mature, being courteous, dressing appropriately, and most of all being prepared. Sorry but all of this is what every woman who is in a management position in the non profit sector, academic life or even the corporate world does every day. As one practices one gets better and you feel more comfortable. But the idea that either Kate or Camilla needed years of easing in because the job is sooo hard is to my mind not true.
I think what Diana struggled with was the extreme popularity - the crowds - the paparazzi. I saw an interview she did re: the AUS trip where her popularity just exploded - that was she said when she felt overwhelmed because emotionally she did not understand it or know how to deal with it. That all had to do with psychology and how people respond to certain roles. One does not ease into that understanding - in Di's case it would probably have been helpful to have someone who understood these things to talk to. Also Diana was quite young and had no previous experience that could have prepared her for her role.
Cate, what if Kate is as developed as a 22 year old Diana simply because she's never been independent? Again, I am by no means trying to defend her since I also dislike her seeming lack of work ethic, but i'm curious to know what you think the steps should be to deal with that situation if that's the reason Kate is the way she is.
Maybe Charles doesn't want either William or Kate to overshadow him either. I'm totally guessing here lol but maybe if he was insecure enough to be jealous of his wife, is it that big of a stretch to believe that he might be jealous of his son and daughter in law?
It does indeed take practice and experience. Sheltering a person does not allow them to get the necessary experience. It's like somebody being "eased into" a job at a bank where it takes a while to even get the person sitting at a desk and the same person not showing up for work for weeks to be "eased in." Life does not work that way. A person would get fired if he or she insisted on being "eased in." There's a lot of competition for jobs and the person who is proactive and willing to learn on the job would easily outdo someone who must be "eased in."
I don't think Kate's lack of "independence" had anything to do with her being lazy. William could be a factor--if he's a reluctant royal he would not want to do many appearances and I don't think he is jealous of Kate but does not want people to see Kate working and wonder where he is and why he's not working.
I think Charles is insecure and he should have gotten help years ago about his jealousy. I am not sure he would go to extremes though of ordering his son to be in the ambulance flying business and get out of being a royal. I think that is all on William.
I agree with both your posts cate and Sandy, with a small caveat about JFK and Jackie. The Presidency of the United States is a very powerful position and therefore Jack Kennedy could feel comfortable with joking about his wife's impact, in foreign capitals and elsewhere. Whereas the Prince of Wales had/has no power except perhaps over his household and his Trust.
I'm no advocate for Charles. I do think that he should have squeezed every ounce of courage up and told Prince Philip that he would marry when he was good and ready and not before. He should then have been honest with himself and realised he would not make Diana happy.
However, he is a reasonably compassionate man and in the early part of his marriage he probably felt worry and frustration about his young wife's stress and health issues.
Charles IMO was not "made to" marry by Philip. He could have backed out. But I think he had a big ego and wanted His own flesh and blood heirs to succeed him and not Prince Andrew. If he did not feel so strongly about producing an heir he may have not married at all.
Since the Prince of Wales is a future Monarch, yes, he does have some power and influence. JFK and Jackie are relevant because JFK could have gotten jealous of the attention to his wife. But he rose above it and it had nothing to do with his thinking himself "too powerful".He just used common sense.
Charles compassion quickly drifted away. He did make comments early in the marriage about his wife's popularity and even back then there was a sort of edge to his comments.
Did Charles ever give any interview indicating a strong wish or longing to have his own children? Unlike Harry!
This thread is about kate as a role model not di and Charles doomed marriage , imo she did not stay 19 forever and on her wedding day was actually 20 , she was interested in the role more than prince charles and ended up being whiny and an attention seeking pain in the neck :notamused: prince charles needed a woman who was intellectual and interested in the things he was where as diana was all about the pity party and drama .
Quote from: HistoryGirl on July 02, 2014, 02:27:34 AM
Cate, what if Kate is as developed as a 22 year old Diana simply because she's never been independent? Again, I am by no means trying to defend her since I also dislike her seeming lack of work ethic, but i'm curious to know what you think the steps should be to deal with that situation if that's the reason Kate is the way she is.
Stunted growth has always been on my mind with respect to her and William...
Quote from: georgiana996 on July 02, 2014, 03:55:00 AM
This thread is about kate as a role model not di and Charles doomed marriage , imo she did not stay 19 forever and on her wedding day was actually 20 , she was interested in the role more than prince charles and ended up being whiny and an attention seeking pain in the neck :notamused: prince charles needed a woman who was intellectual and interested in the things he was where as diana was all about the pity party and drama.
I disagree about the pity party and drama, I don't think many women would have handled Charles' refusal to try to work on his marriage without using his mistress as a marriage-counselor/lover/best-friend... Kate, as far as I am concerned, never has needed to grow up...
Quote from: Curryong on July 02, 2014, 02:59:15 AM
Did Charles ever give any interview indicating a strong wish or longing to have his own children? Unlike Harry!
What is the problem with that? :hmm:
No problem at all. I think Harry is absolutely sweet for stating how much he longs for children. I just wondered whether a young Charles had stated his wish for children. (It was a question from a post before when Sandy said that, in her opinion, Charles had had children to satisfy his ego.)
I think it was expected for Charles to have children, but I believe he truly loves his children and did the best he knew how, given his upbringing, he has done well... But parenting needs to change as your children change and he really needs to evolve not just let them be until there is trouble too big to ignore, especially considering the repercussions on the Monarchy and himself...
History Girl - I don't know Kate so it is hard to say what the problem is hence what the solution is. But there are incidents that do tell us a lot about her - the fact that even after the newspapers made a fuss about her wind skirt exposures - she still went down to AUS/NZ and did not follow advice and had two more serious incidents. That after three years her ability to give a short speech still has not improved.
Maybe she lives in a bubble and everyone tells her she is doing great - this may be Will too and his fears about his mother transferred to Kate. So she has no incentive to change. But we do see now she is wearing pencil skirts all the time and she is cautious now about exposing herself - she held her skirt in today's pics when she bent down I noticed. So maybe it comes down to giving her a order - no wiggle room - you will do this. End of discussion.
I do think Kate is not doing so well. Maybe much cannot be expected of her - maybe it is all too much for her.
Quote from: Limabeany on July 02, 2014, 04:30:16 AM
Quote from: georgiana996 on July 02, 2014, 03:55:00 AM
This thread is about kate as a role model not di and Charles doomed marriage , imo she did not stay 19 forever and on her wedding day was actually 20 , she was interested in the role more than prince charles and ended up being whiny and an attention seeking pain in the neck :notamused: prince charles needed a woman who was intellectual and interested in the things he was where as diana was all about the pity party and drama.
I disagree about the pity party and drama, I don't think many women would have handled Charles' refusal to try to work on his marriage without using his mistress as a marriage-counselor/lover/best-friend... Kate, as far as I am concerned, never has needed to grow up...
Thats a family thing , windsor men are weak :wellduh: william coulf have dated a career woman ye chose not to and they were rumoured to have dumped him like H is getting dumped now , no one really wants to be with them because they bring nothing to the table so he got matched up with someone equally boring and uninteresting like kate .
Yesterday while giving his speech he said I hope the attention gets focused on the good work done here and not the fashion icon in the room , she lit up at that time looking so proud lol (even though she isnt really much of a fashionista ) that's her only achievement other than gulp* George can you imagine waking up at 32 and having nothing else to your name ...imo shes having a meltdown.....I cant explain the haggard look on scotland and the trooping the colour and yesterday again at the event she looks tired and upset .
Perhaps Kate lit up because she agreed with the speech and is sick and tired of the press carrying on about her clothes all the time, (pressure to dress well each engagement). She may also be feeling the effects of the criticism about the wind-blown moments (and yes, it was her own fault and she ought to stick to pencil skirts and to slacks for the next fifty years) and the kitchen being ripped out.
This is the time of year when the accounts for the Sovereign Grant comes out. The press salivates over all the expenses. This time they can scent blood over the expensive kitchen and have gone for the jugular and Kate's copping it! It's accumulated pressure.
These are just suggestions about why Kate might be feeling stressed, besides having to live with an entitled well-known whiner, (whom I think she happens to love) so please don't shoot the messenger!!
Quote from: cate1949 on July 02, 2014, 05:03:16 AM
I do think Kate is not doing so well. Maybe much cannot be expected of her - maybe it is all too much for her.
I don't agree that she looks stressed; that's a projection by some and not others. But maybe too much is expected of her in her current role. She is the wife of the heir to the heir, not the wife of the heir.
Cindy
projection? hmmm. I'd say okay maybe I am projecting - except comments about her being so thin and not looking so great are all over the place - even the avid fans on the fashion sites are commenting on her thinness- the DM is loaded with comments hoping she will eat. I somehow do not think we are all "projecting".
Well, maybe I'm projecting ... I think she's thin, but not overly so. But then, I've always been naturally thin (runs in my family) and have heard the "eat some chocolate" and "you're too skinny" comments. It's personally insulting and hurtful. Would you tell an overweight person to stop eating as much as they do? Same thing.
Cindy
Kate Middleton vs Queen Letizia: Who wins the battle of royal bling? | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2677624/Conservative-Kate-vs-Lavish-Letizia-Gem-hunter-reveals-stark-difference-two-royals-jewellery-choices.html)
I'm out of work with no income coming in, but its Kate I feel more sorry for!
Quote from: sandy on April 23, 2014, 03:33:38 PM
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on April 23, 2014, 03:22:37 PM
The Duchess of York was married to the reigning sovereign's second son. Edward had no children, her precedence was always higher than the Duchess of Cambridge.
The point is that the second son at the time was seen up until late 1936 as having no chance to become King. It was expected Edward would marry and have children. Since she was not married to a future monarch (or so it seemed for years) she was lower in the pecking order than Kate is now and whose husband is directly in line to be King.
I think there where problems with the Duke of Windsor many years before 1936. He had a typical Victorian royal upbringing. Raised by nannies and put in the care of Frederick Finch and Henry Hansell. One of his nannies used to pinch and hit him before he was seen by his parents so he would be crying and was sent away, that nanny was fired. When he was 13 he suffered a bout of mumps which was believed to have become sterile from that. He was at Oxford for eight terms but left without qualification. In the 1920's his attitude to people of the empire was commented which did his reputation no good. He said this about aboriginals in Australia "they are the most revolting form of living creatures I've ever seen!! They are the lowest known form of human beings & are the nearest thing to monkeys" his private secretary said this of him "for some hereditary or physiological reason his normal mental development stopped dead when he reached adolescence" his behaviour was worrying the King and the prime minister. The king is father said he would destroy himself within a year of becoming king. That and him only dating married they knew before that there where huge problems.
Double post auto-merged: July 02, 2014, 12:32:56 PM
Quote from: AyVey on April 23, 2014, 06:23:35 PM
Quote from: ForeverYoung on April 23, 2014, 06:10:16 PM
I wholeheartedly agree that privately funded women should absolutely get to make their own choices in how they live their lives. If a woman wants to be a stay-at-home mother then more power to her. Enjoy her life and embrace that choice.
But. The DoC is not a private stay-at-home mother. That's actually not an option for her given who she married. She could have had the option of being a stay-at-home mother who does nothing but spend time vacationing, shopping, getting blowouts and exercising and spending time with her son if she'd married, say, a CFO of a Fortune 500 company or a footballer or actor or other wealthy private individual. Or earned money herself to retire and live life that way. But she didn't. She married a prince who's going to be the reigning monarch one day.
She's a public official whose luxurious lifestyle is partially funded by the taxpayers. The taxpayers should absolutely get a say in how she divides her time when they're paying or partially paying for her life of luxury. And this author seems to be setting up a false dichotomy that 1. DoC has the option of being just a private, regular stay-at-home mother like non-royal mothers and 2. all/any criticism of DoC is criticism of or stems from her as a stay-at-home mother.
I've yet to see anyone, man or woman, criticize DoC for spending time with her child or being a good mother or attending to his needs. Or criticize women who choose to be a stay-at-home mother after getting married or if they can independently afford it. The criticism has always been about the DoC's lack of effort with the charities she's patron of, her lack of attention to protocol, her lack of effort to improve public speaking and comfort making small chat with those she's meeting, her extensive time spent on vacation for little public work, her extensive time spent (out of the home) at the hairdresser or clothes shopping.
These criticisms have nothing to do with her as a mother or staying at home to be a mother but everything to do with her pattern of choices since she married into the BRF. This lack of effort with charities, the lack of attention to or care for royal procedures, public speaking, excessive shopping, exercise and hair have been present since day one. These are not criticisms or concerns that just arose or got worse when she got pregnant or became a mother. They're consistent criticisms of her choices to put in barely the bare minimum while soaking up a luxurious lifestyle partially paid for by taxpayers since she got married. A pattern of choices and behavior that existed well before Prince George came along.
Maybe the BRF is preventing DoC from doing the same number of official royal engagements as, say, Princess Anne per year. But I highly doubt they're demanding she only spend on average an hour per year per meager number of charitable patronages or that she do no other charitable work or pursue no other hobbies/interests in her non-official royal engagement time. Just my newbie opinion.
I agree with you completely, awesome post! It's not about feminism or any thing against stay at home moms. It's about people having a right of opinion and say in the way a tax payers funded couple spend there time and there work that comes with this royal status, privilege and fortune.
It's like if Hillary Clinton become next PLOTUS and after taking office and all the privilege and security, cost and responsibilities of the job, she decides to do nothing but play grandma and do bare minimum while staying and enjoying life as PLOTUS. And when critics call her out, people start saying oh it's feminism, she have a right to be just a grandma and not work and spend doing nothing and just playing with her grandchild. Whoever criticize her is not following women's right movement.
Hillary Clinton as the spouse of a former already gets security and will do so for life as is stated in Former Presidents Protection Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-257).[2] All living former presidents and their spouses are now entitled to receive lifetime Secret Service protection
Quote from: PaulaB on July 02, 2014, 12:25:15 PM
Quote from: sandy on April 23, 2014, 03:33:38 PM
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on April 23, 2014, 03:22:37 PM
The Duchess of York was married to the reigning sovereign's second son. Edward had no children, her precedence was always higher than the Duchess of Cambridge.
The point is that the second son at the time was seen up until late 1936 as having no chance to become King. It was expected Edward would marry and have children. Since she was not married to a future monarch (or so it seemed for years) she was lower in the pecking order than Kate is now and whose husband is directly in line to be King.
I think there where problems with the Duke of Windsor many years before 1936. He had a typical Victorian royal upbringing. Raised by nannies and put in the care of Frederick Finch and Henry Hansell. One of his nannies used to pinch and hit him before he was seen by his parents so he would be crying and was sent away, that nanny was fired. When he was 13 he suffered a bout of mumps which was believed to have become sterile from that. He was at Oxford for eight terms but left without qualification. In the 1920's his attitude to people of the empire was commented which did his reputation no good. He said this about aboriginals in Australia "they are the most revolting form of living creatures I've ever seen!! They are the lowest known form of human beings & are the nearest thing to monkeys" his private secretary said this of him "for some hereditary or physiological reason his normal mental development stopped dead when he reached adolescence" his behaviour was worrying the King and the prime minister. The king is father said he would destroy himself within a year of becoming king. That and him only dating married they knew before that there where huge problems.
Double post auto-merged: July 02, 2014, 12:32:56 PM
Quote from: AyVey on April 23, 2014, 06:23:35 PM
Quote from: ForeverYoung on April 23, 2014, 06:10:16 PM
I wholeheartedly agree that privately funded women should absolutely get to make their own choices in how they live their lives. If a woman wants to be a stay-at-home mother then more power to her. Enjoy her life and embrace that choice.
But. The DoC is not a private stay-at-home mother. That's actually not an option for her given who she married. She could have had the option of being a stay-at-home mother who does nothing but spend time vacationing, shopping, getting blowouts and exercising and spending time with her son if she'd married, say, a CFO of a Fortune 500 company or a footballer or actor or other wealthy private individual. Or earned money herself to retire and live life that way. But she didn't. She married a prince who's going to be the reigning monarch one day.
She's a public official whose luxurious lifestyle is partially funded by the taxpayers. The taxpayers should absolutely get a say in how she divides her time when they're paying or partially paying for her life of luxury. And this author seems to be setting up a false dichotomy that 1. DoC has the option of being just a private, regular stay-at-home mother like non-royal mothers and 2. all/any criticism of DoC is criticism of or stems from her as a stay-at-home mother.
I've yet to see anyone, man or woman, criticize DoC for spending time with her child or being a good mother or attending to his needs. Or criticize women who choose to be a stay-at-home mother after getting married or if they can independently afford it. The criticism has always been about the DoC's lack of effort with the charities she's patron of, her lack of attention to protocol, her lack of effort to improve public speaking and comfort making small chat with those she's meeting, her extensive time spent on vacation for little public work, her extensive time spent (out of the home) at the hairdresser or clothes shopping.
These criticisms have nothing to do with her as a mother or staying at home to be a mother but everything to do with her pattern of choices since she married into the BRF. This lack of effort with charities, the lack of attention to or care for royal procedures, public speaking, excessive shopping, exercise and hair have been present since day one. These are not criticisms or concerns that just arose or got worse when she got pregnant or became a mother. They're consistent criticisms of her choices to put in barely the bare minimum while soaking up a luxurious lifestyle partially paid for by taxpayers since she got married. A pattern of choices and behavior that existed well before Prince George came along.
Maybe the BRF is preventing DoC from doing the same number of official royal engagements as, say, Princess Anne per year. But I highly doubt they're demanding she only spend on average an hour per year per meager number of charitable patronages or that she do no other charitable work or pursue no other hobbies/interests in her non-official royal engagement time. Just my newbie opinion.
I agree with you completely, awesome post! It's not about feminism or any thing against stay at home moms. It's about people having a right of opinion and say in the way a tax payers funded couple spend there time and there work that comes with this royal status, privilege and fortune.
It's like if Hillary Clinton become next PLOTUS and after taking office and all the privilege and security, cost and responsibilities of the job, she decides to do nothing but play grandma and do bare minimum while staying and enjoying life as PLOTUS. And when critics call her out, people start saying oh it's feminism, she have a right to be just a grandma and not work and spend doing nothing and just playing with her grandchild. Whoever criticize her is not following women's right movement.
Hillary Clinton as the spouse of a former already gets security and will do so for life as is stated in Former Presidents Protection Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-257).[2] All living former presidents and their spouses are now entitled to receive lifetime Secret Service protection
I know people who were around before "David" became King Edward VIII and they maintain that he was indeed very popular as Prince of Wales. PBS named him along with the Queen Mum and Diana as the three most popular royals of the Twentieth Century. I think the negative things came out about him came much later. At the time he was very popular with the public. It is not known if he was sterile there was never any confirmation about that. Kitty Kelly who wrote the "Royals" was the main person that said he was sterile. Another source said he fathered an illegitimate son. I doubt people thought it a "done deal" that Edward would abdicate before he became King.
Double post auto-merged: July 02, 2014, 03:31:18 PM
Quote from: Curryong on July 02, 2014, 02:59:15 AM
Did Charles ever give any interview indicating a strong wish or longing to have his own children? Unlike Harry!
Not that I know of. Charles did sit down for an interview in 1969 and did talk about the role of his future wife who one day would be Queen. When she was on a walkabout back soon after she married Diana was quoted as saying she looked forward to having children.
Double post auto-merged: July 02, 2014, 03:32:20 PM
Quote from: cinrit on July 02, 2014, 11:04:01 AM
Quote from: cate1949 on July 02, 2014, 05:03:16 AM
I do think Kate is not doing so well. Maybe much cannot be expected of her - maybe it is all too much for her.
I don't agree that she looks stressed; that's a projection by some and not others. But maybe too much is expected of her in her current role. She is the wife of the heir to the heir, not the wife of the heir.
Cindy
How come as wife to heir to the heir she and William can still have several homes. But when it comes to work she is absolved because she is wife to the heir to the heir.
Double post auto-merged: July 02, 2014, 03:35:18 PM
Quote from: Limabeany on July 02, 2014, 04:52:54 AM
I think it was expected for Charles to have children, but I believe he truly loves his children and did the best he knew how, given his upbringing, he has done well... But parenting needs to change as your children change and he really needs to evolve not just let them be until there is trouble too big to ignore, especially considering the repercussions on the Monarchy and himself...
Technically Charles did not have to. I do think he wanted them so Andrew would not succeed but his flesh and blood children would. He loves his children but I do think unfortunately he put Camilla ahead of them. Coddling William did him no good since William now appears to be reluctant to leave his comfort zone and get out and work. I do think he married Diana for all the wrong reasons--to get heirs and from what he told his biographer Dimbleby in 1994 love had nothing to do with it.
Edward the Eighth was extremely popular as Prince of Wales. The Press followed him avidly and the public loved him. He was regarded as handsome and debonair and a modern Prince, a contrast to the rather stuffy Court presided over by his parents. The public didn't know about his married mistresses or his self-centred and rather shallow personality.
It is hurtful if you're naturally thin and people tell you to gain some weight because it's your natural body type and there's nothing you can do about it. I'm not sure if Kate is sickly or not since I don't know her and maybe its the fact that she drank and smoked during her 20s and now it's starting to show. However the naturally thin argument doesn't really hold with Kate because we've all seen pictures of her before and after the marriage and it's obvious that she diets and actively tries to lose weight. Not that she was in any way fat before, in fact I liked it when she was fuller, she looked natural.
None of us know if she's naturally thin or not. I weighed more in school than I do out, too. Without knowing Kate, I'm not going to be so harsh as to judge her appearance, or anyone's.
Cindy
Ok, that's your prerogative to do so. However, there are others that can look at pictures before and after and see with their eyes that there is a difference and there were reports that she lost 20 pounds before her wedding. Plenty of people do the same so it could mean nothing, but it's not natural to randomly lose 20 pounds so regardless it's not "natural". Is that a sign of stress? I don't know, but it is obvious that she actively tries to lose weight.
There are all sorts of body types in the world. Is it believable that after the trouble that Diana had with bulimia, if there were any concern that something was amiss with Kate, the Royals wouldn't be all over it in a trice? Especially William, who lives with her? Perhaps to some, she's too thin, but she's really not. She's tall and may give the impression of being overly thin to some people, but she was healthy enough to deliver an over 8-pound baby, when I remember people saying she'd never be able to get pregnant because she was "too skinny". :shrug:
Cindy
I never claimed she was bulimic or had any other eating disorder or that her weight loss meant that she was in the midst of any type of break down. I just said that she actively tries to lose weight like many women in the world especially ones that are in the public eye. You made the argument of it being hurtful to people that are naturally thin, I agreed. But that is not the weight that Kate was prior to the engagement so to me that is not her "natural" weight. If that is the weight she wants to be, then that is her choice. However, this is a thread about her as a role model and to me it is better to be your natural weight whether you're a hundred pounds or 200.
Some may be totally cool with women feeling pressure to be thinner and to work towards that goal weight and I've no problem with it cause it's a personal choice. I was just saying that people commenting on being worried about her weight aren't insane because it's obvious she works to be that weight. Now your opinion on her losing weight is your own, but the observation that she's lost weight is not wrong.
I don't like all the body-shaming of anyone, thin or plus-size. Very few people have a normal weight, and set out to gain weight. Did they intentionally "diet" up, trying to gain 20 pounds? I doubt it.
And I also think most people who are thin don't try to lose weight. Anorexia is a word used way too often for thin people.
Kate has enough criticisms to deal with--she doesn't need the burden of people "worrying" about her weight.
I personally think some people are delighted to think she may have more problems than she does.
Quote from: HistoryGirl on July 02, 2014, 05:45:00 PM
I never claimed she was bulimic or had any other eating disorder or that her weight loss meant that she was in the midst of any type of break down. I just said that she actively tries to lose weight like many women in the world especially ones that are in the public eye. You made the argument of it being hurtful to people that are naturally thin, I agreed. But that is not the weight that Kate was prior to the engagement so to me that is not her "natural" weight. If that is the weight she wants to be, then that is her choice. However, this is a thread about her as a role model and to me it is better to be your natural weight whether you're a hundred pounds or 200.
Some may be totally cool with women feeling pressure to be thinner and to work towards that goal weight and I've no problem with it cause it's a personal choice. I was just saying that people commenting on being worried about her weight aren't insane because it's obvious she works to be that weight. Now your opinion on her losing weight is your own, but the observation that she's lost weight is not wrong.
I didn't mean to imply that anyone said she is bulimic. I meant to imply that after Diana's problem, the Royals would be quick to notice a drastic weight loss (for whatever reason), and act on it.
I made the argument that it is hurtful
to me when people make comments about thinness. I didn't say it or mean it for anyone else. I just said I know how it feels. And it
is hurtful. I ask again, would you make comments about someone who, in your opinion, gained more weight than you think they should?
Cindy
And some are just making observations. There's nothing wrong with being thin. It's nothing to be ashamed of. Why would anyone deny that Kate's lost weight? It's nothing to feel bad about at all and it's not always a sign of trouble, just a sign that that person wants to be at that particular weight. I think making observations and making accusations are two very different things.
Double post auto-merged: July 02, 2014, 06:00:15 PM
Quote from: cinrit on July 02, 2014, 05:55:24 PM
Quote from: HistoryGirl on July 02, 2014, 05:45:00 PM
I never claimed she was bulimic or had any other eating disorder or that her weight loss meant that she was in the midst of any type of break down. I just said that she actively tries to lose weight like many women in the world especially ones that are in the public eye. You made the argument of it being hurtful to people that are naturally thin, I agreed. But that is not the weight that Kate was prior to the engagement so to me that is not her "natural" weight. If that is the weight she wants to be, then that is her choice. However, this is a thread about her as a role model and to me it is better to be your natural weight whether you're a hundred pounds or 200.
Some may be totally cool with women feeling pressure to be thinner and to work towards that goal weight and I've no problem with it cause it's a personal choice. I was just saying that people commenting on being worried about her weight aren't insane because it's obvious she works to be that weight. Now your opinion on her losing weight is your own, but the observation that she's lost weight is not wrong.
I didn't mean to imply that anyone said she is bulimic. I meant to imply that after Diana's problem, the Royals would be quick to notice a drastic weight loss (for whatever reason), and act on it.
I made the argument that it is hurtful to me when people make comments about thinness. I didn't say it or mean it for anyone else. I just said I know how it feels. And it is hurtful. I ask again, would you make comments about someone who, in your opinion, gained more weight than you think they should?
Cindy
No I would not shame them because someone's weight doesn't mean anything to me. But if one day someone gained or lost weight I would make the observation that they had to myself. Would that mean that I think any less of it? Not one bit because what you weigh doesn't make you a good or a bad person. I barely weigh a hundred pounds and im 21 years old, and people comment on it all the time, I don't judge them because they are simply making an observation.
She has lost weight--nobody's saying she hasn't.
Saying that Kate intentionally lost 20 lbs is different from saying it happened naturally.
I also weighed 100 lbs. when I was 21. Boy, did that change! I didn't intend to gain weight--it happened over the years.
I'm just saying that Kate might not have intended to lose weight. Eating habits change, exercise habits change, metabolism changes, and bodies change. It usually isn't intentional.
You only have to look at the Queen and Camilla to know that bodies change over time.
And let's not talk about sagging, OK?!
In the course of months prior to the engagement, someone's going to randomly lose 20 pounds? actively changing your diet and exercise is actively trying to be a certain weight. Again, there's not even one thing wrong with that. If she's happy then in my opinion no one has a right to have a problem with that, but personally i dont think she just naturally lost weight by not changing something in her life to actively be the weight she is. It's just baffling to me how someone can have a problem with making that observation as if the woman has committed a crime by wanting to lose weight. It's not shaming, in fact, many women might admire her for it and likewise others might not.
It's not at all uncommon for women to lose weight before your wedding, and not necessarily because they try to. Kate did lose weight, but deliberately? In my opinion, no. And where did the 20 pounds come from? Did someone in the know (e.g., her doctor, her family, William) give out that information?
Cindy
No it was reported. I don't think anyone here actually knows Kate, William, or Harry so as far as I can tell, everything on here comes from reports in the media. I made an observation based on what I've seen and read. The same as you've made an opinion based on the same thing. I made an observation and came to a conclusion based on trends that I've read about with women in the media and common behavior from women I know. That's the way I tend to analyze information and my opinion isn't any less right than yours simply because you disagree with it.
^^ I think you misread my question. I asked if someone "in the know" reported the 20-pound weight loss. By that I meant, as explained, her doctor or her family or William ... someone with inside information who would actually know. Or was it an unnamed source?
Cindy
No believe me, I understood your question; but I'm not going to begin this conversation since I know exactly where it would end up after seeing it many times in the forum and I promised myself I wouldn't engage.
I think the Royals are happy to have someone with no personality and no real charisma who won't outshine Willy ... that way WHEN they divorce no one will care as much as when Di left ...
Kate does seem to be cautious and eager to please which must sit well with the monarchy because I agree, other spouses' big personalities haven't seemed to go over well.
The Queen Mum was very charismatic, she managed to stay in the game and was not "dull".
Quote from: Eri on July 02, 2014, 08:10:23 PM
I think the Royals are happy to have someone with no personality and no real charisma who won't outshine Willy ... that way WHEN they divorce no one will care as much as when Di left ...
William seems to have an aversion to full time royal duties so I am not so sure he would mind if he were "outshone" or even if his spouse did more duties.
Quote from: Eri on July 02, 2014, 08:10:23 PM
I think the Royals are happy to have someone with no personality and no real charisma who won't outshine Willy ... that way WHEN they divorce no one will care as much as when Di left ...
She's no Di, so, IMO, her departure would hardly be an issue...
Quote from: sandy on July 02, 2014, 08:22:30 PM
The Queen Mum was very charismatic, she managed to stay in the game and was not "dull".
Quote from: Eri on July 02, 2014, 08:10:23 PM
I think the Royals are happy to have someone with no personality and no real charisma who won't outshine Willy ... that way WHEN they divorce no one will care as much as when Di left ...
William seems to have an aversion to full time royal duties so I am not so sure he would mind if he were "outshone" or even if his spouse did more duties.
I agree she was pretty cheeky, but also lived before Diana and Kate and didnt have to live under the media scrutiny that we have today.
I think the Royals got burned very badly hen Di used her popularity against them and there is no way it is going to be allowed again ... they are happy because in Kate as I said they have someone who will never be beloved so when they get rid of her (and trust me they will) they are happy in the knowledge it's not going to matter as much as it did in the past because of the spouses popularity ...
You know, it's interesting that prior to the wedding the general media were very excited about a middle class princess and her popularity was very high because they tried to appeal to the "see, she's one of us" mentality even though she'd been dubbed Waity Katie prior to the engagement. And now the wind has changed and there are complaints about her work ethic. It's interesting to discuss the possibilities of why this has all happened and whether the RF had anything to do with it.
^^Many people on the forum predicted the press would turn on Kate.
The press doesn't really care as long as it isn't illegal, as long as it sells, they'll do it. Up, then down.
I predict it will happen to Harry, Harry's wife, Kate, William, George, Charles, Camilla.......You heard it here! :angeldevil1:
Quote from: HistoryGirl on July 02, 2014, 08:39:56 PM
You know, it's interesting that prior to the wedding the general media were very excited about a middle class princess and her popularity was very high because they tried to appeal to the "see, she's one of us" mentality even though she'd been dubbed Waity Katie prior to the engagement. And now the wind has changed and there are complaints about her work ethic. It's interesting to discuss the possibilities of why this has all happened and whether the RF had anything to do with it.
There is a difference between the press loving you and the public loving you ... Kate has never been loved by the public it's only the press that had a love story with her and they have turned on her because that's the "mode" they sense among the public besides that she again is no Di she is boring and she certainly doesn't sell papers ... but you raise a good question regarding where the Royals stand in all of this ...
they presented her (the media) as a middle class girl when in fact she was not really middle class. Girsl who go to Marlborough are not middle class.
Is the disenchantment because people now see that the media sold a fake story? That Kate was no typical middle class Brit girl?
There are those people on the extreme ends - they either love Kate no matter what or they dislike her no matter what - but most people seem fairly apathetic to me. She does not do anything terribly interesting so they have no interest either. The hyperbole of the press - especially the DM - is a turn off too. They (the DM) do this with Bea and Eugenie too - the York girls go to a party and they must of a necessity be the most gorgeous most captivating most stylish women there. Too much hype - I wonder if it isn't meant sarcastically.
As for the role of the RF - I see little evidence they are really in control of their "messaging" or for that matter that they have some sort of concrete message. Their pr people seem more to react to criticism than be proactive in shaping their message to the public. They seem to rely almost totally on the media - the tabloids especially - to communicate with the public yet their relationship with the media goes up and down - they antagonize the media routinely. So it is hard for me to think the RF really has a role - individual members of the family I am sure leak and play one-upmanship games using the media to advance their own positions but a comprehensive plan - see no evidence of that.
I've always wondered what the Daily Mail are all about. Maybe it's that different writers feel different ways or that they just go with whatever view of Kate they think will sell more papers that particular day.
The Daily Mail is unsurpassed for pictures. That's about the best I can say about it. :P
Cindy
Quote from: HistoryGirl on July 02, 2014, 06:21:20 PM
In the course of months prior to the engagement, someone's going to randomly lose 20 pounds? actively changing your diet and exercise is actively trying to be a certain weight. Again, there's not even one thing wrong with that. If she's happy then in my opinion no one has a right to have a problem with that, but personally i dont think she just naturally lost weight by not changing something in her life to actively be the weight she is. It's just baffling to me how someone can have a problem with making that observation as if the woman has committed a crime by wanting to lose weight. It's not shaming, in fact, many women might admire her for it and likewise others might not.
:goodpost: I agree with this, you do not go from a bit full to showing muscle and bones without much effort and some may think dedication to this goal admirable, others may not find it so. I personally, from observation, am quite certain her weight loss is not natural but achieved and maintained with considerable effort, we all have our priorities and define them as we see fit both the subjects of our discussions and ourselves... Being a woman with a body that grows when I overeat and shrinks when I do not, and considering the way she looks now and even during the wedding and a few months before, I don't believe Kate Middleton's weight loss can be reasonably classified as random. There is nothing wrong with discussing that... :hug:
Quote from: HistoryGirl on July 02, 2014, 11:14:34 PM
I've always wondered what the Daily Mail are all about. Maybe it's that different writers feel different ways or that they just go with whatever view of Kate they think will sell more papers that particular day.
I have wondered too, the articles range from fawning to critical and it is baffling to say the least... :hmm:
Quote from: Eri on July 02, 2014, 08:34:43 PM
I think the Royals got burned very badly hen Di used her popularity against them and there is no way it is going to be allowed again ... they are happy because in Kate as I said they have someone who will never be beloved so when they get rid of her (and trust me they will) they are happy in the knowledge it's not going to matter as much as it did in the past because of the spouses popularity ...
If Charles had dumped Camilla I doubt Diana would have struck back. She put up with the marriage for 10 years along with Charles emotional abuse. The royals are not exactly squeaky clean. Unless William finds a Camilla of his own, it will be difficult to get rid of Kate. If Will finds another woman Kate will find she's not indispensable like Diana found out. The royals cannot control everything like they found out and if another situation happens they may not necessarily be able to stop it. It all went out of control after Charles decided it was OK to sleep with married women or maybe before that with the scandals of the Queen's sister Margaret. The Queen could not stop it.
Quote from: Limabeany on July 02, 2014, 11:57:01 PM
Quote from: HistoryGirl on July 02, 2014, 06:21:20 PM
In the course of months prior to the engagement, someone's going to randomly lose 20 pounds? actively changing your diet and exercise is actively trying to be a certain weight. Again, there's not even one thing wrong with that. If she's happy then in my opinion no one has a right to have a problem with that, but personally i dont think she just naturally lost weight by not changing something in her life to actively be the weight she is. It's just baffling to me how someone can have a problem with making that observation as if the woman has committed a crime by wanting to lose weight. It's not shaming, in fact, many women might admire her for it and likewise others might not.
:goodpost: I agree with this, you do not go from a bit full to showing muscle and bones without much effort and some may think dedication to this goal admirable, others may not find it so. I personally, from observation, am quite certain her weight loss is not natural but achieved and maintained with considerable effort, we all have our priorities and define them as we see fit both the subjects of our discussions and ourselves... Being a woman with a body that grows when I overeat and shrinks when I do not, and considering the way she looks now and even during the wedding and a few months before, I don't believe Kate Middleton's weight loss can be reasonably classified as random. There is nothing wrong with discussing that... :hug:
Thanks for understanding my point Limabeany :)
:hug:
oh please - if anyone here knows the secret to losing 20 pounds without making an effort to do so - please please share the secret !!!
the dress had to be taken in - Burton said that in an interview. Besides which - it is so obvious - pics of before and after?? Can't miss the change especially in her face.
I don't get the expectation that any person - Kate or whoever - is perfect. Nothing at all can be said and even observations are considered criticisms Because Kate is perfect.
I have a friend who was very overweight - went on a medically supervised fast - 500 calories a day. First week she lost 7 pounds - on 500 calories a day. It is not so easy to lose weight.
If I was going to choose a princess to be a role model I would choose Princess Mary from the little that I know. Learning a new language alone is admirable. The media sells lies, this idea of little commoner/Cinderella Kate being swept away by her rich prince charming is a load of bull. I believe they did the same with Diana, building up the Cinderella image and skirting over that this was a rich girl. In documentaries about Kate and William they always focus on her being descended from coal miners; yeah that's only one side of the family. Her family is nouveau rich but they are still rich.
I like Kate, I support her and hope she lives a long happy life with her family. But she hasn't done anything for me to call her a real role model. Millions of girls meet a guy in college, live with him and end up married. I guess women who aspire to be home makers could call her a role model; or women who are wives of military men.
The Danish royals don't have as many official engagements to share around as some other royal families, but certainly Crown Princess Mary does her share willingly and well, IMO.
According to another Royal Forum she and Prince Fred are unhappy together and he has been unfaithful, reportedly. If that's true then she has had a difficult path to walk in her adopted country. I agree, learning another language well enough to converse in it and make speeches is a great accomplishment, and JMO, I don't think Danish would be an easy language to learn.
I will be interested to see what sort of a Queen Consort Letizia makes, actually. She is accomplished and bright, and Spain is a very complex country. So far, as Princess she doesn't seem to have put a foot wrong, and she and Felipe seem genuinely rapt in each other which always helps.
Quote from: XeniaCasaraghi on July 03, 2014, 02:20:46 AM
If I was going to choose a princess to be a role model I would choose Princess Mary from the little that I know. Learning a new language alone is admirable. The media sells lies, this idea of little commoner/Cinderella Kate being swept away by her rich prince charming is a load of bull. I believe they did the same with Diana, building up the Cinderella image and skirting over that this was a rich girl. In documentaries about Kate and William they always focus on her being descended from coal miners; yeah that's only one side of the family. Her family is nouveau rich but they are still rich.
I like Kate, I support her and hope she lives a long happy life with her family. But she hasn't done anything for me to call her a real role model. Millions of girls meet a guy in college, live with him and end up married. I guess women who aspire to be home makers could call her a role model; or women who are wives of military men.
I feel the same about her ... mostly Kate doesn't bother me as I blame the mother about the way she is it's her fans and the media that rally bother me ... especially some of her most nasty fans who turned on Cressida because they saw a threat for Kate there ...
Quote from: cate1949 on July 03, 2014, 01:56:49 AM
I have a friend who was very overweight - went on a medically supervised fast - 500 calories a day. First week she lost 7 pounds - on 500 calories a day. It is not so easy to lose weight.
Actually, that's not so. Some people can lose weight at the drop of a hat, and it's as frustrating to them as it is to those who can gain weight at the drop of a hat.
And I'm not buying the 20-pound loss unless I see it from someone official. Twenty pounds is a
lot, and we'd have heard about it far and wide if it were accurate.
Cindy
I don't get why anyone would see any of the girls we talk about here from Cressida , Kate to Chelsy as a "role model" sure you can like their new hair cut or what they are wearing but none of those girl I repeat none has done anything note worthy to be taken as a "role model" ...
Quote from: Eri on July 03, 2014, 07:48:00 AM
Quote from: XeniaCasaraghi on July 03, 2014, 02:20:46 AM
If I was going to choose a princess to be a role model I would choose Princess Mary from the little that I know. Learning a new language alone is admirable. The media sells lies, this idea of little commoner/Cinderella Kate being swept away by her rich prince charming is a load of bull. I believe they did the same with Diana, building up the Cinderella image and skirting over that this was a rich girl. In documentaries about Kate and William they always focus on her being descended from coal miners; yeah that's only one side of the family. Her family is nouveau rich but they are still rich.
I like Kate, I support her and hope she lives a long happy life with her family. But she hasn't done anything for me to call her a real role model. Millions of girls meet a guy in college, live with him and end up married. I guess women who aspire to be home makers could call her a role model; or women who are wives of military men.
I feel the same about her ... mostly Kate doesn't bother me as I blame the mother about the way she is it's her fans and the media that rally bother me ... especially some of her most nasty fans who turned on Cressida because they saw a threat for Kate there ...
Cressida would never have been a threat to kate had she married Harry. Kate is higher up in the pecking order. Whoever Harry marries will be the "Fergie" of the scenario, the wife of the spare.
I don't view Kate as a role model but info admire her. I wonder if that is something people are confusing, admiration with having someone be your role model. It is true that in this day and age with Lohan's and Kardashian's running around, a simple girl who is pretty respectful discreet isn't obsessed with taking selfies and can get out if a car without showing her undergarments could be seen as a role model. Perhaps to some Kate's accomplishments aren't on a work or career level but are more personal and in how she carries herself. Maybe how she carries herself under stress could inspire some people, like how she never let on her pain when those pictures were released.
To be honest what royal women in the BRF are role models? They are all famous do either being born or for who they married, Kate is just the latest addition. England chooses to have a system that rewards people for nothing except being born, you want accomplishments to be admired over being pretty and getting married? Then you have a problem with the system.
Quote from: Eri on July 03, 2014, 01:02:52 PM
I don't get why anyone would see any of the girls we talk about here from Cressida , Kate to Chelsy as a "role model" sure you can like their new hair cut or what they are wearing but none of those girl I repeat none has done anything note worthy to be taken as a "role model" ...
Really I would choose Chelsy as a role model she earned her degrees broke up with Harry and is a working Lawyer she did not hold out for a ring and let that be known. Chelsy loved Harry but not the royal life
Quote from: XeniaCasaraghi on July 03, 2014, 02:20:46 AM
The media sells lies, this idea of little commoner/Cinderella Kate being swept away by her rich prince charming is a load of bull. I believe they did the same with Diana, building up the Cinderella image and skirting over that this was a rich girl. In documentaries about Kate and William they always focus on her being descended from coal miners; yeah that's only one side of the family. Her family is nouveau rich but they are still rich.
This is so true the media worked
overtime to sell the public the rags to riches story, but Kate actually has very powerful connections, another reason the marriage was arranged. :orchid:
If anything Kate is a dangerous figure especially the press's relationship with her ... here they had a lap dog who for Years took a man back with open arms as he tried to do better ... yet they worshiped or hated on her according to how her relationship with Willy was going ... now I have no daughter and perhaps I will never have one but if I did I would keep her away from Kate's figure ...
I wonder if there'll come a time, that William looks back and resents the way he was reeled in by Kate. This is my view. Ten years of being there, waiting for his call. Of course once it was public that they had lived together ( off and on?) how could he really cut her loose and come out smelling like a rose? He couldn't. He had that one chance ... when they publicly broke up and he wanted to see if there could be a relationship with Isabella Carthorpe (pardon the spelling error!). At that time, Kate took to the night club scene, showing a little more of herself then the norm. Since any relationship between him and Isabella was a no-go, Kate looked appealing. He didn't give himself enough time to test other possible relationships.
I don't see her as a role model. Queen Noor, Queen Rania, Princess Charlene, Princess Mary, the new Spanish Queen, they all worked and explored and grew, adding more depth and another dimension to their character... ..All IMO....
^I don't think he was reeled in. He's a Prince who thinks for himself. He didn't have to go back if he didn't love her, and want to marry her. It wasn't a matter of her just looking appealing. I think he genuinely loves her, and meant the vows he made.
Why is it so hard to believe that William loves Kate? It's harder for me to believe than a man would stay with someone for that many years and then marry her just because he's afraid the public will give him a bad rap. I'm sure William did find Kate appealing and that's what initially drew him to her. But people normally do find themselves attracted to someone, and getting to know them, either fall in love with them or not.
Cindy
I find it interesting that people say he is very stubborn and refuses to do anything he doesn't want to do but that he was manipulated by Kate and married her unwillingly
A wee bit contradictory IMO
I didn't know that Prince William was a Trout that he needed reeling in. Must ha been a whopper.
By all means he is more then comfortable with his wife and especially since the arrival of George. This is now... but during the 10 Kate waited for those phone calls she could have done something to make her more appealing to the public then doing what I see as nothing. She could have done many things, but she didn't want to do something that would take her from Williams space. She didn't want him to meet up with any other young lady. She also gave up any girl friends she had at that time.. Her whole focus was on "getting him", IMO.
For the person who made the comment about how awful The York sisters are to Kate... perhaps rereading some of the articles find the one, where Kate , at some function, had Beatrice in tears in a washroom. I feel that The York sisters are a little naive in some ways whereas I don't think that Kate and Pippa are ..
Speaking for any of her friends, just who are they? Perhaps the wives of Williams close friends, but certainly not The Royal young set..or even the outer circle, like The Branson's and their friends...Anyway , Not a Kate fan, but with George and other siblings to come, I'm sure she'll be a good Mom
I think whatever "romantic" feelings he had for Kate dies when they left Uni and it showed because that is when the relationship began to have serious problems who came to a head in 2007 when he dumped her ... of course I can only speculate because I don't know him but I think two factors made him go back to Kate's waiting open arms the fact no one else wanted him and yes the fact he got the worse press of his life when they broke up helped ... I do think he loves Kate but not as a husband should love his wife you could see it in the balcony where she was naked for God sake and he looked like he was with his dog there patting her :eyes: ... looking bored to death :teehee: ...
Idk if William is in love with Kate or not, but somehow I find it hard to believe that no one would want a prince.
I have never understood this "Will went back to Kate because no one else wanted him" theory. They were broken up for all of three months, and obviously he wasn't feeling pressure to get married immediately since they waited several more years before doing so. If he had wanted to look for another woman, he could have taken quite a bit more time to do so.
I agree. He probably needed time off like a lot of ppl , but that doesn't mean he didnt love her...now the depth of his love is something I can't even begin to speculate about.
Quote from: Lauraxx on July 01, 2014, 02:56:37 AM
Women should aspire to be strong, independent, and live their lives not relying on their husband to provide for them. They should never aspire to be painstakingly thin- and kate most definitely has got thinner since getting married if she keeps it up she'll be anorexic!
It would be hard to form an opinion on her personality if you don't know her personally but she seems like a nice person. It is clear she is a loving wife and devoted mother and that's great but ( in my opinion ) she is not a woman that the younger generation of women today should have as a role model. Of course, like everyone else, she isn't perfect and nobody can be!
Very well said!!!
Lmao! These theories never cease to make me laugh. Whatever happened in those ten years we will never truly know. What is clear is he perused her at college and he was the one who wanted her back after the 5 minute break up. He went after what he wanted and he wanted her.
Quote from: HistoryGirl on July 19, 2014, 08:41:34 PM
Idk if William is in love with Kate or not, but somehow I find it hard to believe that no one would want a prince.
Well just ask Harry ...
Hey history girl some people prefer the simple life, and that of a Prince is anything but!
I have no doubt that some ppl prefer the simple life, but to make the assumption that no one would want William and Harry is not something I can believe because there are plenty of girls that do want to be princesses.
^ As Harry said they like the idea not the reality of it ... I bet you every girl who says they want Harry wouldn't last 15 minutes after the press gets hold of her ...
Okay, sure.
Yes, yes, Eri! We all know that Harry sobs into a gallon of cookie-dough ice cream in a dark room every night. How will he ever cope with his all-consuming loneliness? Black make-up should be the sixth stage of grief. Everyone, prepare yourselves for Harry's final form! That of a sad clown.
Maybe he is currently working on his own solemn, solo interpretive dance performance to the tune of REM's "Everybody Hurts" or Duran Duran's "Ordinary World" to express to his lady love, Cress, the deep despair that has engulfed his entire being since she's been gone. Now, balancé-balancé-arabesque the tears away in your sad clown make-up, Harry!
Quote from: DaisyMeRollin on July 20, 2014, 04:02:59 PM
Yes, yes, Eri! We all know that Harry sobs into a gallon of cookie-dough ice cream in a dark room every night. How will he ever cope with his all-consuming loneliness? Black make-up should be the sixth stage of grief. Everyone, prepare yourselves for Harry's final form! That of a sad clown.
Maybe he is currently working on his own solemn, solo interpretive dance performance to the tune of REM's "Everybody Hurts" or Duran Duran's "Ordinary World" to express to his lady love, Cress, the deep despair that has engulfed his entire being since she's been gone. Now, balancé-balancé-arabesque the tears away in your sad clown make-up, Harry!
I would pay money to see that.
Quote from: XeniaCasaraghi on July 20, 2014, 04:54:15 AM
Lmao! These theories never cease to make me laugh. Whatever happened in those ten years we will never truly know. What is clear is he perused her at college and he was the one who wanted her back after the 5 minute break up. He went after what he wanted and he wanted her.
I'm of the opinion that the Middleton's know more about William than he was prepared to have exposed. Kate was not letting go and he relented.
Quote from: DaisyMeRollin on July 20, 2014, 04:02:59 PM
Yes, yes, Eri! We all know that Harry sobs into a gallon of cookie-dough ice cream in a dark room every night. How will he ever cope with his all-consuming loneliness? Black make-up should be the sixth stage of grief. Everyone, prepare yourselves for Harry's final form! That of a sad clown.
Maybe he is currently working on his own solemn, solo interpretive dance performance to the tune of REM's "Everybody Hurts" or Duran Duran's "Ordinary World" to express to his lady love, Cress, the deep despair that has engulfed his entire being since she's been gone. Now, balancé-balancé-arabesque the tears away in your sad clown make-up, Harry!
LMAO that was so awesome. :goodpost:
Quote from: HistoryGirl on July 20, 2014, 03:23:33 PM
I have no doubt that some ppl prefer the simple life, but to make the assumption that no one would want William and Harry is not something I can believe because there are plenty of girls that do want to be princesses.
Ah, I went back and re-read your post. I misunderstood it originally (I thought you were saying that every women would want a Prince!)