The problem of Catherine Cambridge?s womb watchers | Tanya Gold | Comment is free | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/17/catherine-duchess-of-cambridge-kate-pregnancy-women)
Quote
I cannot begin to imagine what sort of person puts a bet on the mysteries of a stranger's uterus, although I can imagine all sorts of tasteless variables relating to the royal condition (or non-condition) I could bet on. But I will not write them down. They are too unkind.
I hesitate to write about the internal miseries of the monarchy because, simply put, who cares? Pity for the royal predicament may have resonance in a less unequal age, and when applied to a more graceful and longstanding figurehead. But when blind men beg for pennies in the City of London, and I read about the specifications of the Cambridge kitchens, which are multiple and huge, divided between their newly restored palace in Kensington and their newly restored country house in Norfolk, it is hard to summon sympathy for a duchess. She is modern in the sense – and only in the sense – that she chose her destiny; should she not be left to it?
The enhanced income of the royal family, a gift from this ragingly unimaginative government, has surprisingly few critics. The unwillingness to show even silent solidarity with the victims of austerity by spending less money is just as surprising – if you swallow the fantasy that, actually, they care for us. (The opposite, in fact, is true. They recently bought a helicopter; and Catherine Cambridge's wardrobe allowance will never be made public, for reasons, I suspect, relating to national security). In which case, do we mind if a personal appearance on a betting slip is considered part of the payoff? The royal family has always been a source of entertainment to those who subsidise it, although that is not the darkest part of the bargain (that accolade goes to the inequality that's bound in the very bones of Britain; it teaches us to look fondly – and nostalgically – on tyranny). It is a cruel and efficient arrangement, and it is often tasteless. Not that I think they mind particularly. They'd rather we scrutinise their bodies than their bank accounts.
Even so, I resent the objectification of any woman, even of a woman who compulsively objectifies herself. The secondment – the gifting – of Catherine Cambridge's body to the public sphere is revolting and comprehensive; first her sister Pippa's buttocks, roped in for a global obsession of the most moronic kind; then her own breasts; now the womb. It is not forgiven by noting that royalty has always endured this because the golden – the divine – dynasty must be secured. A news culture that transformed the birth of Prince George into a carnival compounds the offence.
guess what. kate gave up her privacy. so she needs to deal with what ever happens to her. she's a public figure now. she's fair game.
^^Kate has so few genuine achievements to her name that commentators are reduced to writing about her hair, clothing and when she will produce her next baby.
By the way, the writer of the article repeats the error that the royal family has bought a helicopter.
Becoming a member of the BRF absolutely makes you a public figure and reduces your privacy in some ways. You must appear with your newborn on the steps of the hospital for a photo call, for example. But I don't think it means (or should mean) that every bit of scrutiny of your life, no matter how gross or sexist, is justified. Just like actors who (legitimately, IMO) complain about paparazzi stalking and terrifying their children, there should be lines of basic decency that aren't crossed. Some speculation about Kate's womb is to be expected; fictional tabloid stories about miscarriages are over the line, in my view.
As an aside, that article is flat-out wrong on several facts. In addition to the helicopter thing, it's not true at all that the BRF has not made austerity adjustments. But why let facts get in the way of a good rant... :orchid:
Quote from: Curryong on July 31, 2014, 11:38:54 AM
^^Kate has so few genuine achievements to her name that commentators are reduced to writing about her hair, clothing and when she will produce her next baby.
By the way, the writer of the article repeats the error that the royal family has bought a helicopter.
:goodpost: :nod: , its almost as if she isnt even trying ! I mean if you look at the women before her none of them were as aimless pre marriage and post as she currently is :( her place in history books - married to /mother of ... ;)
Quote from: Curryong on July 31, 2014, 11:38:54 AM
^^Kate has so few genuine achievements to her name that commentators are reduced to writing about her hair, clothing and when she will produce her next baby.
I don't think Kate's achievements, or lack of them, has much to do with it; the press always speculates about royal pregnancies.
And really, other than the Queen, what royal ladies have genuine achievements? Anne's Olympics perhaps?
I can't think of much for the others, frankly.
What about Queen Maxima of the Netherlands (an economist who has served on international committees for the UN,) or Queen Letizia, journalist and nationally known anchorwoman before marriage, for two?
Yes sandor but those women are dedicated to their royal duties , they actually do royal work more than twice a month :notamused: with kate she was idle both before and after . No passions or ambitions .
Even the lady in my icon has worked/has interests and she isnt going to marry the crown prince , she isnt even married yet and she started her charity work .
Whether or not Kate is doing enough Royal duties is certainly up for debate. But I really dislike the idea that being primarily known as a wife and mother is somehow a bad thing. Many women make that choice (and some men choose to be primarily in the role of husband/father), and there's nothing wrong with it. Yes, as Will's wife, she also has Royal duties and can't just be a traditional stay-at-home mom. But if her primary accomplishment is raising happy children and supporting her husband, that's not a bad thing.
Canuck, I do not think that being a wife and mother is a "bad" thing-- and I don't know anyone who would say that, frankly!
And if Kate wants to be solely a wife and mother-- I say go for it! But, then she should not take any money from taxpayers. She should give up her title and live off William's trust and salary. No more free accommodations at KP (or more extensive renovations), no jewels from the vault, flights on the BRF's leased helo, free admission to the best seats Wimbledon, etc...
Remember when George's birth certificate was released? Instead of keeping her occupation blank or putting "wife/mother," William wrote that Kate's occupation was "Princess of the United Kingdom" It's time she start acting like that is, indeed, her genuine occupation.
I believe if the Queen and Prince of Wales wanted her to do more than she's doing now, she would be. The Queen has already indicated her trust in Kate by sending her to Malta as a representative.
Cindy
Thank you for posting the article Limabeany. :thumbsup: It's an issue that all hereditary royal couples have to tackle even the men. IMHO CP Nahurito and CP Masako have had an especially difficult time with the IHA/media stork watchers.
Quote from: Lady Adams on July 31, 2014, 02:14:58 PM
Canuck, I do not think that being a wife and mother is a "bad" thing-- and I don't know anyone who would say that, frankly!
I was referring to georgiana's statement criticizing Kate because "her place in history books - married to /mother of ... ;) "
I agree, as I said in my post, that Kate has Royal duties to do and will not be a traditional stay-at-home mother. But I also agree with cinrit that if the BRF wanted her to be doing more, she would be. I think that the firm probably prioritizes her having a lot of time with George (and their other child(ren), eventually) when he is very young. They are blessed right now with HM/DOE still being very active as well as Charles and all of his siblings. They have room to let Kate have some quieter years with her children.
That was my statement , and I didn't mean it as an insult but unless kate is going to work more or have like others have said any accomplishments to her name other than wife of /mother of , my statement was accurate .
Apologies, georgiana, I've edited my post to say it was you who said it.
I'm afraid I still see it as a criticism, though -- you're implying it's a bad thing if her accomplishments are just being a wife and mother. And frankly, I'm not sure what Kate could do about it. Even if she does as many engagements a year as HM, she will still be known in the history books as Will's wife and George's mother. I just don't see why that's a problem.
Its not a bad thing but I would say its a sad thing , as much as motherhood and being a wife might be satisfying to almost all of us its not something that would stick her out from the crowd , its not a great achievement , its natural to have a baby its natural to fall in love and get married , you dont spend years in school , then uni and grad school to do those things . I wont be giving her a medal for it .
And she is living on tp money , she married the wrong man if wife and mommy was all she wanted . Royal wives have never been just that ..
And back on topic , unless she does more and has genuine achievements , the rags will only give her merit for her womb .
Quote from: Lady Adams on July 31, 2014, 02:14:58 PM
Canuck, I do not think that being a wife and mother is a "bad" thing-- and I don't know anyone who would say that, frankly!
And if Kate wants to be solely a wife and mother-- I say go for it! But, then she should not take any money from taxpayers. She should give up her title and live off William's trust and salary. No more free accommodations at KP (or more extensive renovations), no jewels from the vault, flights on the BRF's leased helo, free admission to the best seats Wimbledon, etc...
Remember when George's birth certificate was released? Instead of keeping her occupation blank or putting "wife/mother," William wrote that Kate's occupation was "Princess of the United Kingdom" It's time she start acting like that is, indeed, her genuine occupation.
Amen !!! :clap:
Wonderful post, LA! :notworthy:
Quote from: Canuck on July 31, 2014, 03:26:08 PM
And frankly, I'm not sure what Kate could do about it. Even if she does as many engagements a year as HM, she will still be known in the history books as Will's wife and George's mother.
Oh dear. I'm afraid I must disagree with that... Queen Elizabeth I, was never seen as just the wife of King George and the mother of Queen Elizabeth II-- just ask any of her
350 patronages!
If you work part-time are you not allowed to list your job as your occupation? I think you can.
And of course Kate is a Princess of the UK--she is Princess William as well as the DofC. Camilla is also the Princess of Wales, but chooses to use her DofC as her tiltle. I'm still a grandmother even though the kids call me Nana.
Quote from: Curryong on July 31, 2014, 01:26:00 PM
What about Queen Maxima of the Netherlands (an economist who has served on international committees for the UN,) or Queen Letizia, journalist and nationally known anchorwoman before marriage, for two?
I was really just referring to the British in my post.
What you say is undoubtedly true, but don't forget that both Maxima and Letizia were considered unsuitable choices at the time of their (respective) marriages, and some still regard them in that way.
I'm not saying it is due to their careers, of course. But...there it is, as the Emperor would say. :shrug:
Quote from: Lady Adams on July 31, 2014, 04:06:09 PM
Oh dear. I'm afraid I must disagree with that... Queen Elizabeth I, was never seen as just the wife of King George and the mother of Queen Elizabeth II-- just ask any of her 350 patronages!
I'm sure she was very important to the 350 charities that she was patron of, but if you were to ask the general population ... those millions of people on the street, which is who I assume we're talking about when we say "remembered as" ... what is she remembered for, they would probably say she is remembered mostly as the mother of the current Queen and the wife of George VI.
And of course, we know it took several decades for her to reach that number of 350 charities.
Cindy
:goodpost:
Also, just a minor point, but I'm pretty sure Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon wasn't known as Queen Elizabeth I -- that was the title of the 16th century Queen Elizabeth. Since George's wife was not the actual ruler, she isn't given a I, II, etc. numerical modifier. She was just Queen Elizabeth, and then after her husband's death, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.
^ Thanks Canuck. Everyone makes mistakes :hug:
No problem! :flower:
I'd agree that the main reason for this being speculation is because that's what's done with most royal women after they marry. But I'm not quite sure what the issue is with it because I think that's really all Kate wanted to be. Now as a princess of the UK, it is reasonable for citizens to expect more since they partly pay for her. But I do think that William and the family prefer someone that keeps her head down and just looks pretty because smart headstrong women might cause them trouble. Control seems to be what they're interested in (not at all saying that's the route I would take or that it's right)
Maybe that's how they want it ...... just a trophy wife :( :Jen: every body chooses their own life , I guess this is all kate ever wanted ,if not with William with another well to do husband , that's the route her best known friends have taken .
This leads to an important question: who's approval actually is necessary-- The Queen or the public?
Great question Lady Adams. In my mind, it should be the public; however, in practice, I think it's probably the Queen.
I would say both. The queen is the "boss" and I would guess that what she says (when she gets involved) goes. Of course public opinion also matters, but it can be fickle and hewing too closely to it seems unwisely short-term focused to me. The Queen has been very successful in maintaining the role and popularity of the BRF over the past six decades, I think in part because she thinks in a longer-term way rather than just trying to do whatever polls well at a given moment.
I doubt William sees Kate as a "trophy wife". I also think that "trophy" belongs to second wives who are much younger than their wealthy husbands.
I also have problems with saying someone is "just a (trophy) wife". I have been a stay-at-home mom as well as taking a full-time job when the kids went to Kindergarten. I'd wager staying home with little ones is far more work than most jobs. It's much harder than having others watch your kids while you work. When I saw how much help working moms have, I was jealous! Anyway, "just a wife" or "just a mother" isn't easy, no matter how many hours you put in at a job outside the home.
It sounds as if there is no value to someone who is "just" a wife or mother. Beyond a doubt, there is great value there, not just for the family, but for society as well.
Personally I don't think its easy to be a wife or mother; there are days where I think that's what I wanna be and others where I think it'd be too much. However, I don't think it's fair to women that have jobs and don't want to be mothers that they don't have a difficult life that involves a great deal of work. I don't see anything wrong with being a housewife; which is why I don't see it as an insult when someone mentions that that's what Kate wants to be/is.
Quote from: HistoryGirl on July 31, 2014, 08:15:31 PM
Personally I don't think its easy to be a wife or mother; there are days where I think that's what I wanna be and others where I think it'd be too much. However, I don't think it's fair to women that have jobs and don't want to be mothers that they don't have a difficult life that involves a great deal of work. I don't see anything wrong with being a housewife; which is why I don't see it as an insult when someone mentions that that's what Kate wants to be/is.
The problem is she is a woman with a job she is expected to do, in addition to being a wife and mother, so although it is wonderful to be a housewife, for Kate it is not an option that shows her as a woman of integrity, especially given that she is living in the lifestyle and with the means and budget, not of a housewife but of a future queen of the UK.
In the wise words of Lady Adams:
:clap: :goodpost: :clap:
Quote from: Lady Adams on July 31, 2014, 02:14:58 PM
Canuck, I do not think that being a wife and mother is a "bad" thing-- and I don't know anyone who would say that, frankly!
And if Kate wants to be solely a wife and mother-- I say go for it! But, then she should not take any money from taxpayers. She should give up her title and live off William's trust and salary. No more free accommodations at KP (or more extensive renovations), no jewels from the vault, flights on the BRF's leased helo, free admission to the best seats Wimbledon, etc...
Remember when George's birth certificate was released? Instead of keeping her occupation blank or putting "wife/mother," William wrote that Kate's occupation was "Princess of the United Kingdom" It's time she start acting like that is, indeed, her genuine occupation.
Oh I know Lima; I was responding to the post that said some take it as an insult to imply that Kate is "just" a wife and mother. And I was saying that's what it appears she wants to be so I don't see how anyone could take offense. Of course, I agree that because she's not a regular housewife she also has a responsibility to do more.
I've said throughout this thread, as has everyone else, that OF COURSE Kate has to do Royal duties as a result of marrying Will and that OF COURSE she cannot just be a traditional stay-at-home mom. My objection was to a statement earlier in the thread that suggested there was something wrong with her primary accomplishment being wife/mother -- which, given her role, is basically guaranteed to be what she is remembered for.
Double post auto-merged: July 31, 2014, 08:25:05 PM
I don't really think you and I are disagreeing, HistoryGirl. :flower: My problem wasn't that someone was describing Kate as wife/mother, but that they were implying there was something wrong with that.
Quote from: HistoryGirl on July 31, 2014, 08:15:31 PM
Personally I don't think its easy to be a wife or mother; there are days where I think that's what I wanna be and others where I think it'd be too much. However, I don't think it's fair to women that have jobs and don't want to be mothers that they don't have a difficult life that involves a great deal of work. I don't see anything wrong with being a housewife; which is why I don't see it as an insult when someone mentions that that's what Kate wants to be/is.
:thumbsup:
She has more than enough help with her house work and not to mention a full time nanny , shes not a housewife . She is a trophy wife , there is a difference .
You know at the end of the day I dont feel she should be compared to housewives because she clearly doesn't do the same amount of work ,and she doesnt perform royal duties either so that leaves me no other choice but to call her a trophy wife .
If people are getting offended then they would be the ones who view it as an insult , not me , for me its merely a fact . Kate is what she is .
Quote from: Canuck on July 31, 2014, 08:23:59 PM
I've said throughout this thread, as has everyone else, that OF COURSE Kate has to do Royal duties as a result of marrying Will and that OF COURSE she cannot just be a traditional stay-at-home mom. My objection was to a statement earlier in the thread that suggested there was something wrong with her primary accomplishment being wife/mother -- which, given her role, is basically guaranteed to be what she is remembered for.
Double post auto-merged: July 31, 2014, 08:25:05 PM
I don't really think you and I are disagreeing, HistoryGirl. :flower: My problem wasn't that someone was describing Kate as wife/mother, but that they were implying there was something wrong with that.
:) no problem. I agree with georgiana in that it is what it is. She is a wife/mother that enjoys spending time with her child. I just didn't get the offense to saying what she is. And also that it isn't right to assume that because you're not a wife/mother your work isn't as tough or demanding, just different. And I'm not saying you were saying that at all, im just reiterating to clarify :)
Quote from: georgiana996 on July 31, 2014, 08:25:31 PM
She has more than enough help with her house work and not to mention a full time nanny , shes not a housewife . She is a trophy wife , there is a difference .
You know at the end of the day I dont feel she should be compared to housewives because she clearly doesn't do the same amount of work ,and she doesnt perform royal duties either so that leaves me no other choice but to call her a trophy wife .
I think it might just be a difference in terminology. I (and I think some other people here) would use "trophy wife" to describe a woman who was married purely as a status symbol for the husband -- because she's young and hot. I think trophy wives can (though probably less often do) have full-time jobs or do all the housework and childcare themselves. The thing that makes them a trophy wife to me is that they're a status symbol -- a trophy. Kate pretty clearly doesn't fit that definition, since she and Will are the same age and dated for a decade before getting married, suggesting they were actually compatible and married for love rather than because Will thought she'd look good on his arm.
I dont think age matters :shrug: not all trophy wives are younger and not all young wives are marrying for the money . You would think in the 21st century women wouldn't want to live like this ( I certainly wouldn't) but they do and a lot of times they end up getting MRS degrees , mind you the degree can be in the arts , sciences even humanities [law] , they find someone who will be able to support them , comes from a good family (has property and a trust fund) these girls dedicate their time to staying above average and keeping the imo future trophy hubby , 4 years later they are engaged or married and assuming all the responsibilities of the perfect stepford wife mostly with "help" of course , its all graceful and if anyone utters a word , theres always the love at first sight story how dare you question it and thats the end of conversation lol .
I am not saying this is all relationships but it does happen and trophy wife can be subjective , I view the MRS as a trophy wife in the making . You see thats where my problem is , these girls are honest about it and they dont pretend to be something they're not . Now kate she was supposed to hit the ground running but 3 yrs later all I can see is a trophy wife . And kate isn't even 21 shes in her 30s , its safe to say this is who she is , she didn't recently graduate and is busy finding herself ..nope this is kate and those were her goals
Quote from: cinrit on July 31, 2014, 05:05:53 PM
Quote from: Lady Adams on July 31, 2014, 04:06:09 PM
Oh dear. I'm afraid I must disagree with that... Queen Elizabeth I, was never seen as just the wife of King George and the mother of Queen Elizabeth II-- just ask any of her 350 patronages!
I'm sure she was very important to the 350 charities that she was patron of, but if you were to ask the general population ... those millions of people on the street, which is who I assume we're talking about when we say "remembered as" ... what is she remembered for, they would probably say she is remembered mostly as the mother of the current Queen and the wife of George VI.
And of course, we know it took several decades for her to reach that number of 350 charities.
Cindy
Hardly Cindy Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother is remembered for more then merely being the wife of a King and Mother of a Queen she is remembered for her work and duty during the War refusing to leave and supporting not only her husband but the nation who suffered during the blitz. Hitler even called her the most dangerous woman in Europe. Her role in history books is as secure as Eleanor Roosevelt.
^^ I said if you were to ask the millions of people on the street, meaning people who don't follow Royals closely or at all. I think I'm close to being accurate.
Cindy
Quote from: Trudie on July 31, 2014, 10:39:41 PM
Quote from: cinrit on July 31, 2014, 05:05:53 PM
Quote from: Lady Adams on July 31, 2014, 04:06:09 PM
Oh dear. I'm afraid I must disagree with that... Queen Elizabeth I, was never seen as just the wife of King George and the mother of Queen Elizabeth II-- just ask any of her 350 patronages!
I'm sure she was very important to the 350 charities that she was patron of, but if you were to ask the general population ... those millions of people on the street, which is who I assume we're talking about when we say "remembered as" ... what is she remembered for, they would probably say she is remembered mostly as the mother of the current Queen and the wife of George VI.
And of course, we know it took several decades for her to reach that number of 350 charities.
Cindy
Hardly Cindy Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother is remembered for more then merely being the wife of a King and Mother of a Queen she is remembered for her work and duty during the War refusing to leave and supporting not only her husband but the nation who suffered during the blitz. Hitler even called her the most dangerous woman in Europe. Her role in history books is as secure as Eleanor Roosevelt.
I'm inclined to agree. Her work during the war really did cement her place in general history since the blitz is one of the most famous events during WWII.
Even the Queen Mother is being brought in to help the "Kate Middleton isn't work-shy, just a normal royal" cause? Well, after seeing the Queen dragged down to Kate's level to make Kate's lifestyle of leisure seem "normal", I shouldn't be surprised... :no:
Quote from: Trudie on July 31, 2014, 10:39:41 PM
Quote from: cinrit on July 31, 2014, 05:05:53 PM
Quote from: Lady Adams on July 31, 2014, 04:06:09 PM
Oh dear. I'm afraid I must disagree with that... Queen Elizabeth I, was never seen as just the wife of King George and the mother of Queen Elizabeth II-- just ask any of her 350 patronages!
I'm sure she was very important to the 350 charities that she was patron of, but if you were to ask the general population ... those millions of people on the street, which is who I assume we're talking about when we say "remembered as" ... what is she remembered for, they would probably say she is remembered mostly as the mother of the current Queen and the wife of George VI.
And of course, we know it took several decades for her to reach that number of 350 charities.
Cindy
Hardly Cindy Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother is remembered for more then merely being the wife of a King and Mother of a Queen she is remembered for her work and duty during the War refusing to leave and supporting not only her husband but the nation who suffered during the blitz. Hitler even called her the most dangerous woman in Europe. Her role in history books is as secure as Eleanor Roosevelt.
Fantastic comparison, Trudie!
Off topic, but I must admit I loved her official biography. It's a long read but worth it: The Queen Mother: The Official Biography (Vintage): William Shawcross: 9781400078349: Amazon.com: Books (http://www.amazon.com/The-Queen-Mother-Official-Biography/dp/1400078342)
Quote from: Limabeany on July 31, 2014, 11:29:10 PM
Even the Queen Mother is being brought in to help the "Kate Middleton isn't work-shy, just a normal royal" cause? Well, after seeing the Queen dragged down to Kate's level to make Kate's lifestyle of leisure seem "normal", I shouldn't be surprised... :no:
I don't think that's a fair characterization, given that the first person to bring up the QM in this thread was Lady Adams, and it sure wasn't to help any cause of Kate's.
Definition of trophy wife from the Oxford dictionaries:
A young, attractive wife regarded as a status symbol for an older man.
Kate is not younger than William, not attractive according to some posters, not a status symbol and Will is not an older man. Therefore, she is not a trophy wife. William married her for love, not as a status symbol.
She is not "just" a wife. That implies it isn't worthy of respect, just as it would be if someone said a woman is "just" a secretary, "just" a shopgirl, or "just" works at McDonalds. It's elitist to say all of those, and borders on insulting.
_______
Queen Elizabeth might have been important to the UK, but she is nowhere near as well-known as Eleanor Roosevelt, who was outspoken in politics and even had a newspaper column. After Franklin's death, she served in the UN and helped write the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Before she married, she worked in settlement houses. She was controversial and very supportive of other women. I'm older, and I remember her with great respect.
Quote from: Lady Adams on July 31, 2014, 04:06:09 PM
Quote from: Canuck on July 31, 2014, 03:26:08 PM
And frankly, I'm not sure what Kate could do about it. Even if she does as many engagements a year as HM, she will still be known in the history books as Will's wife and George's mother.
Oh dear. I'm afraid I must disagree with that... Queen Elizabeth I, was never seen as just the wife of King George and the mother of Queen Elizabeth II-- just ask any of her 350 patronages!
The late Queen Elisabeth was consort to George VI, mother of the current queen and lived a rich full life that did involve her charities, many fluffy hats, a love of horse racing and good gin. :)
So question: does the consort of an English royal have to be simply an accessory to the them or can they forge their own path as their own individual?
Quote from: Rebound on August 01, 2014, 12:48:08 AM
Definition of trophy wife from the Oxford dictionaries:
A young, attractive wife regarded as a status symbol for an older man.
Kate is not younger than William, not attractive according to some posters, not a status symbol and Will is not an older man. Therefore, she is not a trophy wife. William married her for love, not as a status symbol.
She is not "just" a wife. That implies it isn't worthy of respect, just as it would be if someone said a woman is "just" a secretary, "just" a shopgirl, or "just" works at McDonalds. It's elitist to say all of those, and borders on insulting.
_______
Queen Elizabeth might have been important to the UK, but she is nowhere near as well-known as Eleanor Roosevelt, who was outspoken in politics and even had a newspaper column. After Franklin's death, she served in the UN and helped write the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Before she married, she worked in settlement houses. She was controversial and very supportive of other women.
Wrong before the War during the U.S. tour the King and Queen actively tried to enlist FDR and the U.S. to assist in the event of war. The Queen Mother set the tone of living like her people observing austerity measures a BP that even Eleanor Roosevelt wrote about including no heat and red lines painted in baths for water restrictions. During World War 1 a young Elizabeth helped in her family home that had been turned into a hospital for the wounded and helped with basic nursing and feeding and cheering up the soldiers. Elizabeth was not political but she rose to her duty and worked.
As much as I like Kate she has not worked much before or since her marriage she is a wife and mother for sure but just what else has she accomplished that the media and public have nothing better to do then look for signs of pregnancy?
Also Kate is not a housewife. She married into the Firm and is expected to give back. If she wanted to stay home all the time and do no work, she married the wrong man. And even if housewives don't "work" they have outside interests and are not chained to the house, they have sitters and they can have hobbies and charity work that they enjoy outside the house. And housewives do have help from housekeepers, au pairs and that does not make them "bad" wives or mothers.
Trudie, we can disagree about who has a more lasting legacy in the world, but that doesn't mean I am "wrong". I think you underestimate the influence Eleanor R. had on the world, and has today. She was outspoken about the role women have in the world and in their families. You really should look up some of her still well-known quotes. One of my favorites that has often bolstered me:
"Noone can make you feel inferior without your consent."
Quote from: HistoryGirl on August 01, 2014, 12:57:27 AM
So question: does the consort of an English royal have to be simply an accessory to the them or can they forge their own path as their own individual?
IMHO it would depend upon the individual's personality, the era they're living in and the mood of the nation. Middle Eastern consorts have had their "wings clipped" in recent years since the Arab Spring. Queen Rania stopped her international travel and focused on domestic needs. She stopped standing next to Abdullah on national day at the military review. Lalla Salma had to scale back on her high profile events due to the unrest in the region. The time to be seen as "western" had to end.
Queen Elizabeth during WWII in someways had to play a different role to the one she'd cultivated as DoY and pre-WWII. The glamorous figure who toured North America was modified to supporter in chief to the nation. Post war as the Queen Mother she could be more relaxed and was well suited to the role of the nation's grandmother figure.
The DoE has been the longest serving consort and has been a mover and shaker in modernizing the BRF and the firm much like Prince Albert. He had the opportunity to serve during the post War era and see the kingdom change in many ways. The end of the Empire and the rise of the Commonwealth. He's full of energy, ideas and opinions which sometimes cause his spouse and the government some angst. Our neighbor had the chance to meet him during the 1960's. They were both fluent in German so their conversation was in her words a bit risque but very enjoyable. :wink:
I'm curious to see what role Camilla will choose for herself in the future as she is the next to be consort. I see her as relaxed and friendly which is how many people in the UK appear to find her if recent polls are to be believed. She'll likely keep her charities that she is most attached to ie: osteoporosis but will likely have to relinquish some to other members of the family. I believe that she'll cherish time with her grandchildren.
With respect, Rebound, Queen Elizabeth (the Queen Mother) wasn't just 'important' in the UK. At the time King George came to the throne in 1936 he was the head of the British Empire, (now the Commonwealth) which consisted of over 450 million people.
During the war George and Elizabeth's resolve gave a great deal of encouragement to people of the Empire and there were many admiring articles in newspaper articles especially in the Dominions, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. After the war and in her widowhood Queen Elizabeth undertook many royal tours to Empire/ Commonwealth countries, assisting her daughter.
Quote from: TLLK on August 01, 2014, 01:27:38 AM
Quote from: HistoryGirl on August 01, 2014, 12:57:27 AM
So question: does the consort of an English royal have to be simply an accessory to the them or can they forge their own path as their own individual?
IMHO it would depend upon the individual's personality, the era they're living in and the mood of the nation. Queen Elizabeth during WWII in someways had to play a different role to the one she'd cultivated as DoY and pre-WWII. The glamorous figure who toured North America was modified to supporter in chief to the nation. Post war as the Queen Mother she could be more relaxed and was well suited to the role of the nation's grandmother figure.
The DoE has been the longest serving consort and has been a mover and shaker in modernizing the BRF and the firm much like Prince Albert. He had the opportunity to serve during the post War era and see the kingdom change in many ways. The end of the Empire and the rise of the Commonwealth. He's full of energy, ideas and opinions which sometimes cause his spouse and the government some angst. Our neighbor had the chance to meet him during the 1960's. They were both fluent in German so their conversation was in her words a bit risque but very enjoyable. :wink:
I'm curious to see what role Camilla will choose for herself in the future as she is the next to be consort. I see her as relaxed and friendly which is how many people in the UK appear to find her if recent polls are to be believed. She'll likely keep her charities that she is most attached to ie: osteoporosis but will likely have to relinquish some to other members of the family. I believe that she'll cherish time with her grandchildren.
True. So pertaining to this thread, some have taken offense to Kate's "womb" being up for discussion, does that speak to her own role as someone who is "William's wife" instead of "Catherine, who happens to be Williams wife"?
Double post auto-merged: August 01, 2014, 01:36:11 AM
Quote from: TLLK on August 01, 2014, 01:27:38 AM
Quote from: HistoryGirl on August 01, 2014, 12:57:27 AM
So question: does the consort of an English royal have to be simply an accessory to the them or can they forge their own path as their own individual?
IMHO it would depend upon the individual's personality, the era they're living in and the mood of the nation. Queen Elizabeth during WWII in someways had to play a different role to the one she'd cultivated as DoY and pre-WWII. The glamorous figure who toured North America was modified to supporter in chief to the nation. Post war as the Queen Mother she could be more relaxed and was well suited to the role of the nation's grandmother figure.
The DoE has been the longest serving consort and has been a mover and shaker in modernizing the BRF and the firm much like Prince Albert. He had the opportunity to serve during the post War era and see the kingdom change in many ways. The end of the Empire and the rise of the Commonwealth. He's full of energy, ideas and opinions which sometimes cause his spouse and the government some angst. Our neighbor had the chance to meet him during the 1960's. They were both fluent in German so their conversation was in her words a bit risque but very enjoyable. :wink:
I'm curious to see what role Camilla will choose for herself in the future as she is the next to be consort. I see her as relaxed and friendly which is how many people in the UK appear to find her if recent polls are to be believed. She'll likely keep her charities that she is most attached to ie: osteoporosis but will likely have to relinquish some to other members of the family. I believe that she'll cherish time with her grandchildren.
True. So pertaining to this thread, some have taken offense to Kate's "womb" being up for discussion, does that speak to her own role as someone who is "William's wife" instead of "Catherine, who happens to be Williams wife"?
I guess we will disagree on who has had a lasting impression on the world, and that's OK with me. Eleanor R., though, was a goddess, a goddess to women in the 60's, I tell you! :hug:
^^^From reading the comments regarding Kate's potential pregnancies most of our posters have stated what I'd expect from western societies and that the subject is a private one between mother, father and physician. IMO she is Catherine married to William. Like all hereditary monarchies there has to be a legitimate heir so couples know this is part of the job, but not the only one.
Now if this was CP Masako the Imperial Household Agency would consider her to be the wife of the Crown Prince and she's failed in her duty by only producing one female child. (IHA overlooking that there hasn't been a male born in the Imperial family since the 1960's. Many of the Imperial family members are involved in science and would understand sexual reproduction, however their minders don't seem to get that the male is responsible for the child's gender.) :no:
Quote from: Rebound on August 01, 2014, 01:17:04 AM
Trudie, we can disagree about who has a more lasting legacy in the world, but that doesn't mean I am "wrong". I think you underestimate the influence Eleanor R. had on the world, and has today. She was outspoken about the role women have in the world and in their families. You really should look up some of her still well-known quotes. One of my favorites that has often bolstered me:
"Noone can make you feel inferior without your consent."
I beg to defer with you I don't underestimate the importance of Eleanor Roosevelt I admired her very much and have been to her grave at Hyde Park many times. The topic has to do with a woman of the BRF which Kate is apart of and the subject of. The Queen Mothers role is very much on topic since she was a woman of substance like Eleanor Roosevelt and was not merely the wife of a King and mother of a Queen. All of the previous Queens either regnant or consort worked and were not merely noticed to see if they had a baby bump even Williams mother was not subjected to the bump watching that Kate is merely because they were noticed for their work ethic unlike Kate who has not done much so therefore all people have and the media can do is look for her to get pregnant.
But let's say that she picked one cause to actively work (I mean making regular visits and actually work at it, not just as a photo op) would that not be what is more focused on until she truly was pregnant?
TLK, I may be totally wrong but wasn't Hisahito, the son of the Crown Prince of Japan's younger brother, born in September 2006. His birth ended the absolute primogeniture debate, and he will eventually succeed instead of Princess Aiko as things stand today.
Quote from: HistoryGirl on August 01, 2014, 01:58:07 AM
But let's say that she picked one cause to actively work (I mean making regular visits and actually work at it, not just as a photo op) would that not be what is more focused on until she truly was pregnant?
As one would imagine, I'd say yes- the media would focus on the regular work :shrug: And then, if it really was regular, they'd get over it. Look at Princess Eugenie-- she goes to work every day in NY was photographed frequently in the beginning, but now is rarely pictured.
Quote from: Rebound on July 31, 2014, 08:11:40 PM
I doubt William sees Kate as a "trophy wife". I also think that "trophy" belongs to second wives who are much younger than their wealthy husbands.
I also have problems with saying someone is "just a (trophy) wife". I have been a stay-at-home mom as well as taking a full-time job when the kids went to Kindergarten. I'd wager staying home with little ones is far more work than most jobs. It's much harder than having others watch your kids while you work. When I saw how much help working moms have, I was jealous! Anyway, "just a wife" or "just a mother" isn't easy, no matter how many hours you put in at a job outside the home.
It sounds as if there is no value to someone who is "just" a wife or mother. Beyond a doubt, there is great value there, not just for the family, but for society as well.
Kate has a full time nanny , cook and someone who takes care of the home because she is expected to WORK as a ROYAL !!! Otherwise she would do it on her own and not expected to do other things ... another problem with Kate is that TAX PAYERS PAY for her life style so yeah she has to answer to them !!!
Quote from: Rebound on August 01, 2014, 12:48:08 AM
Definition of trophy wife from the Oxford dictionaries:
A young, attractive wife regarded as a status symbol for an older man.
Kate is not younger than William, not attractive according to some posters, not a status symbol and Will is not an older man. Therefore, she is not a trophy wife. William married her for love, not as a status symbol.
She is not "just" a wife. That implies it isn't worthy of respect, just as it would be if someone said a woman is "just" a secretary, "just" a shopgirl, or "just" works at McDonalds. It's elitist to say all of those, and borders on insulting.
_______
Queen Elizabeth might have been important to the UK, but she is nowhere near as well-known as Eleanor Roosevelt, who was outspoken in politics and even had a newspaper column. After Franklin's death, she served in the UN and helped write the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Before she married, she worked in settlement houses. She was controversial and very supportive of other women. I'm older, and I remember her with great respect.
She is just a wife she isnt a career woman she isnt doing royal work . I am not interested in giving her a medal for existing on earth , if kate was a private citizen or a celebrity's wife, you can bet I would not expect her to do anything but however she is a royal by marriage , she is living on the tp money , tp funded refurbishments that costed millions of £ s , she is expected to do her job .
Like I said if you find the statement rude or offensive its really your own decision because I dont feel stating what she is , is an insult .
I have been very supportive of kate and am still in her corner rooting for her , but unless she does the job that gives her the perks she has , I will point it out .
But she does do Royal work. She just doesn't do what some deem to be enough, or as often, or as public (where she can be seen to be working).
And taxpayers do not pay for her (or William's) lifestyle.
Cindy
I guess every human being is "just a....." In fact, everything is "just a..." Just a dog, just a tree, just a patient, just a student, just a soldier. The word "just", to me, implies "merely" or not valued. I think everything, especially human beings, has intrinsic value. No one gets a medal for just existing on earth, but they do have value and deserve respect, even if they are wives, students, or critics.
After all, we all could do more and be better.
Quote from: cinrit on August 01, 2014, 12:14:09 PM
But she does do Royal work. She just doesn't do what some deem to be enough, or as often, or as public (where she can be seen to be working).
Cindy
She doesn't do what any working woman or man would deem enough, especially given the fact that she is in her 30s and not a teen or recent Uni graduate.
I gotta say I still don't get the insult. When someone asks me what I am, I oftentimes say "I'm just a student right now" and I don't think I'm offending myself by saying that, but that's just all I am at the moment; won't remain that way for long, but that's what it is.
I don't either, I think it is what comes after that makes it an insult... But, sometimes, it is up to us to change what comes after the "just a", and it is within our power to change instead of expecting others to find synonims we are comfortable with...
Yeah, I agree with Georgiana; if someone sees an insult it's more how they themselves view the profession/work.
Quote from: Limabeany on August 01, 2014, 01:50:24 PM
Quote from: cinrit on August 01, 2014, 12:14:09 PM
But she does do Royal work. She just doesn't do what some deem to be enough, or as often, or as public (where she can be seen to be working).
Cindy
She doesn't do what any working woman or man would deem enough, especially given the fact that she is in her 30s and not a teen or recent Uni graduate.
Well I'm a working woman, and I think she's doing enough. For right now, anyway. I expect she will ramp up Royal duties as older family members significantly decrease theirs/as her child(ren) get older.
Well, goodness, turn around what I was saying! I value the profession/work, of course I do, history girl. I can't make it any plainer than to say when you call yourself "just a" you devalue what you are doing. I would never call you "just a student" because being a student has value in itself.
That's it--can't make it any plainer!
:hug:
Quote from: Curryong on August 01, 2014, 02:28:17 AM
TLK, I may be totally wrong but wasn't Hisahito, the son of the Crown Prince of Japan's younger brother, born in September 2006. His birth ended the absolute primogeniture debate, and he will eventually succeed instead of Princess Aiko as things stand today.
No you are not wrong. I should have clarified that prior to Hishato's birth there had not been a male born in the IF since the 1960's. Which would have been before technology could select a child's gender. IMHO that did play a role in Hishato's conception.
:hug: I guess I see it differently :) I dont really think being a wife will reduce the weekly "she is pregnant again!.." articles , but working or trying to accomplish something will divert attention towards her as a person and not just as Williams wife :D
Rebound just a wife and just a soldier are two such different things , the meaning completely changes . We all are a part of a family and we are given ascribed roles / status that cannot be bought or changed , we are known in the world most of the time by our achieved status /role /profession .
Quote from: HistoryGirl on August 01, 2014, 02:01:17 PM
I gotta say I still don't get the insult. When someone asks me what I am, I oftentimes say "I'm just a student right now" and I don't think I'm offending myself by saying that, but that's just all I am at the moment; won't remain that way for long, but that's what it is.
Exactly :nod: . I'm just a student too but I wont compare studying , taking exams , (theory and practical ) to being a wife . The Two are very different things , one is an education , a pathway to a career the other well ....I wouldn't put the two beside each other and compare.
Quote from: Rebound on August 01, 2014, 03:22:09 PM
Well, goodness, turn around what I was saying! I value the profession/work, of course I do, history girl. I can't make it any plainer than to say when you call yourself "just a" you devalue what you are doing. I would never call you "just a student" because being a student has value in itself.
That's it--can't make it any plainer!
:hug:
I get what you mean, Rebound. In this sense, the word "just" seems to be used as a synonym for "only", indicating that there should be more.
Cindy
Quote from: cinrit on August 01, 2014, 12:14:09 PM
But she does do Royal work. She just doesn't do what some deem to be enough, or as often, or as public (where she can be seen to be working).
And taxpayers do not pay for her (or William's) lifestyle.
Cindy
Where does the money comes from they are a 32 years old unemployed couple !!! Two kitchens Kate couldn't pay for "her" kitchens so please ...
William has money that he inherited from his mother's estate in addition to what he may have saved during his years with SAR. I don't know what money, furniture etc... Kate brought into the relationship but she may have had some savings as well. It's possible that she did receive some inheritance over the years from her late grandparents.
I understand that the couple were given access to some of the furniture owned by the BRF that is kept in storage, so that could have been used to outfit their home.
Quote from: Rebound on August 01, 2014, 03:22:09 PM
Well, goodness, turn around what I was saying! I value the profession/work, of course I do, history girl. I can't make it any plainer than to say when you call yourself "just a" you devalue what you are doing. I would never call you "just a student" because being a student has value in itself.
That's it--can't make it any plainer!
:hug:
So I'm devaluing myself?
Double post auto-merged: August 01, 2014, 04:41:12 PM
That was an enlightening concept to grasp. But back on topic, I suppose a part of it is that the concept of being a princess is antiquated to a degree and will remain so, and with that notion, some of the things that come along with it will also appear antiquated; such as simply waiting to ask a woman if she's pregnant.
Quote from: HistoryGirl on August 01, 2014, 04:14:43 PM
Quote from: Rebound on August 01, 2014, 03:22:09 PM
Well, goodness, turn around what I was saying! I value the profession/work, of course I do, history girl. I can't make it any plainer than to say when you call yourself "just a" you devalue what you are doing. I would never call you "just a student" because being a student has value in itself.
That's it--can't make it any plainer!
:hug:
So I'm devaluing myself?
I think it's fair to say that it's generally accepted that self-labeling and imposed labeling are different. I don't think that's any less true with generally un-stigmatized terms than it is with the stigmatized ones.
Sort of lost and jumping in after read back...many topics going on.
The baby watch for these women, many women in the media these days is really boarding silly and a waste of magazine space. I think the the public is not concerned. I think the media outlets all want to be first on the story that one day will be true.
Jennifer Anniston, per the media, has been pregnant every month for about 10 years, LOL!!
That is, obvious, something she does not want in her life and therefore , she has not and even ending her marriage to BP was part of that and that is ok for that is her choice for herself.
"Just a______" does sou nd degrading of what one does esepically when another person says it. She is just a wife. She is jsut a Teacher's Aid. She is just a commonor.
When somebody says it about him/herself, maybe it is different depending on context. PK ,it seems, just wants to be firts a wfie and mother and secondary for her , it seems, is the duty of working in charities, etc.
YES, she does the BRF duties for her role, but it seems to more sports, galas, tours, and fun things. She does not seem to have a big calendar. Lots of off time.
Some of you say she does not. Fine.
The BRF media that keeps track of her work days says differently from you guys that are all things pro-PK.
She DOES , IS supported by the taxpayers in her country. No one, not even you guys who are of that country knows how much, from what , where , what percentage of the money comes from where. That annual report is a simple and easy read of keeping the public at bay.
YES,PW inherited money from his mother....blah..PC via the Duchy of C...blah....STILL it is all part of the taxpayers . Security ? Household staff of cooks, cleaning people, building engineers, nannies, drivers, office staff, outdoor garden staff, doctors, shopping , mani/pedi salon visits, indoor floral /garden staff from X company, the list of staff is endless, LOL? the Duchy is part of the British land so still.... Comforts of castles and palaces and estates uitlities are paid by?
THEREFOR as PART of the tradeoff of being BRF in W and K's roles, their public expects them to seve their country as ammbassdors sort of in all things British and serve their subkects in roles of supporting charities and causes.
If they were living to a great degree on the public dollars, then why bother.
Mrs. X, wife of Mrs. X , Rev. , Owner, or CEO or or Dr. does NOT have to do anything. If she chooses, fine.
I am only suing a female as an example because K is a woman. Actually,. W does not do too much either in his role.
THEY are not private cirtizens in which they owe no one nothing. I do not care how wealthy you are ON YOUR money, you owe no one nothing if you are a private citizen. Bill and Melinda Gates OWE the public , the world, $0.00. THEY CHOSE to want to do somethings for humanitarian causes because of their wealth, knowledge , ablility, etc. Bono and his wife , Allison, OWE his fans $0.00. A good show per ticket is ALL he OWES to the public . HE CHOOSES to give back to humanitarian causes.
The Gates and Hewsons(Bono) are private citizens in a sense, differnt from KnW.
KnW are NOT private citizens.
Quote from: HistoryGirl on August 01, 2014, 04:14:43 PM
Quote from: Rebound on August 01, 2014, 03:22:09 PM
Well, goodness, turn around what I was saying! I value the profession/work, of course I do, history girl. I can't make it any plainer than to say when you call yourself "just a" you devalue what you are doing. I would never call you "just a student" because being a student has value in itself.
That's it--can't make it any plainer!
:hug:
So I'm devaluing myself?
Double post auto-merged: August 01, 2014, 04:41:12 PM
That was an enlightening concept to grasp. But back on topic, I suppose a part of it is that the concept of being a princess is antiquated to a degree and will remain so, and with that notion, some of the things that come along with it will also appear antiquated; such as simply waiting to ask a woman if she's pregnant.
Don't worry about other people's interpretations of "just". Semantics arguments are silly. You're fine. If you want to go into etymology. "just" as in "merely" is a recent adaptation. "Just" by it's origins means that you're doing yourself justice by being honest with yourself. It's more a admission of humbleness if you want to get the bare bones of it.
Not sure why people are so offended by it either.
Thanks Daisy. Again, the emotional connection just doesn't come to me when analyzing something, certainly not enough to pay attention to such a simple word, but to each their own I suppose.
:goodpost: daisy .
I personally dont agree with the devaluing argument , come on! People have to have thicker skin than that . And I'm not a fan of playing the victim card , no one can decide something like that for me , goes back to if your offended then its your issue .
Quote from: HistoryGirl on August 01, 2014, 06:14:28 PM
Thanks Daisy. Again, the emotional connection just doesn't come to me when analyzing something, certainly not enough to pay attention to such a simple word, but to each their own I suppose.
Analyzing the emotional reaction of people to circumstances is just as much analysis as analyzing facts.
BTW, from your response, I get the feeling I wasn't clear earlier; when I said that self-labeling and imposed labeling are different, I was pointing out that it's perfectly reasonable for you to label yourself as "just a student" while someone else is reluctant to label you so. Your self-labeling does not have to be affected by others labels, but nor should other people feel compelled to label you as "just a student" because you self-label that way. TL:DR: The answer to "So I'm devaluing myself?" is "No, you're not, but that doesn't mean other people can't feel that they would be devaluing you."
I responded to the post that stated that by saying i was "just" a student, I was devaluing myself; not that someone else doing it was devauling myself. Gauging emotions perhaps might be analyzing, but reacting emotionally to a clear cut factual analysis is not the same either.
Quote from: HistoryGirl on August 01, 2014, 08:00:36 PM
I responded to the post that stated that by saying i was "just" a student, I was devaluing myself; not that someone else doing it was devauling myself. Gauging emotions perhaps might be analyzing, but reacting emotionally to a clear cut factual analysis is not the same either.
Frankly, this isn't physics or math; whenever you get people involved and get out of the realm of numbers and measurable data, the concept of "clear cut factual analysis" gets very, very dodgy indeed. Which is to say that, in both my experience and according to the training I received, it's more important to understand one's own biases than to try to eliminate them, or pretend that one has.
History is all about people...people and the things people do...so um yeah, I know that people have emotions. however, that does not mean that it is beneficial to insert oneself into the analysis. Yes, you're right, it's imperative to understand your biases, but not to implant them into the argument, but to limit it as much as possible to try to get as clear cut as possible since that is what the end product should be in order to present a picture for the public to then analyze themselves.
The difference I then pointed to was that the topic was the press "watching Kate's womb". People then mentioned the *theory* that it was perhaps because she was just a housewife and perhaps if she were more involved in other things that would distract the press some. That then became a disagreement over the word "just". What started as a logical attempt to explain why the press pays so much attention to Kate and her possible pregnancies became one of the emotional reaction one might feel when reading the word "just".
That would be an intriguing poll to implement to then try to gauge how much the public care about the semantics and the theories behind why the word just has evolved over time, but that wasnt was the original debate was. Which was why I said there was a distinction between a) an analysis of a particular emotion to a word and b) an emotional reaction to an argument. The former is perfectly fine and ive oftentimes had to do it in order to profile individual in history; the latter is an attempt to deviate a debate elsewhere. Now if that is what is desired, it is perfectly fine since this is a forum, but perhaps that could be the beginning of another thread.
A little bit of advice---Don't ever say in a job interview that you are "just a..." student, bartender, forester, whatever. You won't get the job. A ton of people interpret that exactly the same way I do. They will think you don't value what you do if you say you are "just a".
the study of history teaches - or it should - critical intelligence. The world could use a lot more of that! So study history!
Re: the pregnancy watch - it is ultimately sexist and just goes to show how little real progress women have made that these media outlets think it is okay to go here. But it is also about the fact that there are 5 zillion cable channels and 5 zillion gossip websites so they constantly need to find stories - even made up stories just like we get so much garbage programming on the 5 zillion cable channels.
The fact that a woman is famous only for marrying up is sexist as well... :happy15: Kate Middleton's fame is the embodiment of sexism... :wink:
I disagree, limabeany. Philip is only famous for who he married as well. Will is a man and married a woman, so Kate's fame comes from being a wife -- but if Will had instead been a girl he would (in all likelihood) have married a man, and then that man would be famous for his marriage just like Kate is.
Quote from: Rebound on August 01, 2014, 10:22:35 PM
A little bit of advice---Don't ever say in a job interview that you are "just a..." student, bartender, forester, whatever. You won't get the job. A ton of people interpret that exactly the same way I do. They will think you don't value what you do if you say you are "just a".
Got it. I'll be sure to hide my shame at how much I devalue myself; I can only hope they can be fooled...
Re: Lima and Canuck: I've wondered how Philip feels about his public position. I mean traditionally it has the man that has been seen as the dominant partner, but with him it's not the case when it comes to his public title. But pertaining to the baby question, William gets that too. Maybe the press are just dying for baby fever.
I like that Prince Philip seems to take his duties seriously-- even in his 90s!-- and seems very involved with his family (in fact, I believe I read that the Queen has made sure Philip is in charge of their family, even if she's in charge of the Firm).
PS: HG, I've interviewed plenty of college students. "I'm just a student now, but I hope to..." is a perfectly acceptable phrase and, in fact, I like seeing a bit of humility and ambition. We can't all be perpetual students! :wink:
Well, I guess the question that pops into my mind is, is it Kate, herself, that cultivated a sexist image of herself? Is it the media? Is it the public? For God's sake, we're talking about sexism and there's a thread devoted to Kate's hair and "stuff" on here.
Who is really doing the "devaluing"? Is it a combination?
Quote from: Lady Adams on August 01, 2014, 11:40:16 PM
I like that Prince Philip seems to take his duties seriously-- even in his 90s!-- and seems very involved with his family (in fact, I believe I read that the Queen has made sure Philip is in charge of their family, even if she's in charge of the Firm).
PS: HG, I've interviewed plenty of college students. "I'm just a student now, but I hope to..." is a perfectly acceptable phrase and, in fact, I like seeing a bit of humility and ambition. We can't all be perpetual students! :wink:
Thanks Lady Adams :)
Double post auto-merged: August 01, 2014, 11:58:58 PM
Quote from: DaisyMeRollin on August 01, 2014, 11:50:58 PM
Well, I guess the question that pops into my mind is, is it Kate, herself, that cultivated a sexist image of herself? Is it the media? Is it the public? For God's sake, we're talking about sexism and there's a thread devoted to Kate's hair and "stuff" on here.
Who is really doing the "devaluing"? Is it a combination?
Fantastic point, Daisy. My first inclination would be to say it's a combination. Kate has always clearly focused mainly on being reliant on William and their relationship while paying a great deal of attention to how she dresses, does her hair, and make up. But at the same time, that's the main thing the press discusses about her. Yet on top of that, the media wouldn't be publishing it if the public didn't eat it up.
^^^ Exactly the Gordian Knot of a situation, as I perceive it.^^^
Or like a boa constrictor or python mistakenly choking on itself inch-by-inch. (Weird analogy, admittedly.)
In my opinion, nothing proves that more than when Hilary Mantel made her comments about royal women. The backlash was somewhat shocking at first, but then I thought it through and realized that the issue is complex. You would think that the public that claims to uphold strong, independent women would see her argument, but in reality the "sexist" mentality still remains with many (perhaps all of us; of course, some to a much smaller degree)
Quote from: Canuck on August 01, 2014, 10:47:57 PM
I disagree, limabeany. Philip is only famous for who he married as well. Will is a man and married a woman, so Kate's fame comes from being a wife -- but if Will had instead been a girl he would (in all likelihood) have married a man, and then that man would be famous for his marriage just like Kate is.
Actually Phillip isn't just famous for who he married as well Phillip was born a Prince of Greece and Denmark and was a war hero before his marriage to Elizabeth. When he married it was thought he had to give up his titles and citizenship however it was proven in the 70's that wasn't so since he was also descended from Sophia the Electress.
Quote from: Trudie on August 02, 2014, 12:39:07 AM
Quote from: Canuck on August 01, 2014, 10:47:57 PM
I disagree, limabeany. Philip is only famous for who he married as well. Will is a man and married a woman, so Kate's fame comes from being a wife -- but if Will had instead been a girl he would (in all likelihood) have married a man, and then that man would be famous for his marriage just like Kate is.
Actually Phillip isn't just famous for who he married as well Phillip was born a Prince of Greece and Denmark and was a war hero before his marriage to Elizabeth. When he married it was thought he had to give up his titles and citizenship however it was proven in the 70's that wasn't so since he was also descended from Sophia the Electress.
Not only that, but one of his older sisters that took him in during his mother's "exit" was married to the Landgrave of Hessen, who died along with her husband and family in a plane crash during WWII. Phillip was royalty before Elizabeth.
Do people not know where Elizabeth, the Queen Mother's, "Hun" comments came from, despite her marrying into a German family?
Quote from: HistoryGirl on August 02, 2014, 12:19:02 AM
In my opinion, nothing proves that more than when Hilary Mantel made her comments about royal women. The backlash was somewhat shocking at first, but then I thought it through and realized that the issue is complex. You would think that the public that claims to uphold strong, independent women would see her argument, but in reality the "sexist" mentality still remains with many (perhaps all of us; of course, some to a much smaller degree)
What I initially drew the most from Mantel's commentary was when a public figure, male or female, is upheld as an "idol" of sorts, they will inevitably lose credibility. It becomes more about celebrity culture, which I thought was the crux of Mantel's argument.
To bring this back to what Trudie mentioned, maybe it's just a matter of
modern public misunderstanding of what monarchy is suppose to encompass and a lack of information on what monarchy was, that makes it easier to legitimize or comfort their perception of what it is in the modern context?
Yes, however I was more pointing to the backlash of the public of misunderstanding Mantel's argument and immediately calling her jealous and ugly compared to Kate. Her criticism was toward the media and their painting of Kate, but the looks were what was upheld with Kate instead of her education which could perhaps point to what ppl view Kate Middleton as first and foremost: a pretty girl.
Totally agree with you on that, but it was increasingly obvious in the DM commentary section that people didn't actually read what Mantel's full analysis of Kate. The source link eludes some people, and like you mentioned earlier, people react on initial impulse. Snippets from the DM makes for good click-bait, ad revenue, etc.
What people said about Mantel, in turn, was absolutely repulsive. I stopped reading commentary shortly after that, but not for that specific reason.
It's particularly annoying to me when some ppl don't bother to read an entire argument (of anything) and then pass judgment on the tid bit that they read. Yet something came to mind when that happened, if the same misunderstanding had occurred, but the comments were aimed at someone like Letizia of Spain or Crown Princess Victoria would the comments on their defense have focused mostly on their looks or their personal accomplishments?
@rebound , what's with your obsession with the word just ? It was a comparison , she is first and foremost a royal , and expected to carry out duties , not sit at home and be a home maker . As a royal being just a wife isn't enough . You took that to mean All housewives are deemed useless , or "undervalued" or insulted , which was not the case at all .
I wont change the way I view her and context is everything , say what you want but her marrying up isnt going to make her special in my eyes .
I don't think the general public could be bothered to read all of Mantel's speech and dissect them. Articles reported in tabloids like the Daily Mail are designed for the instant knee-jerk reaction of their readers.
Both Philip and Elizabeth were royals from birth as they were grandchildren of a reigning sovereign, (their fathers were princes) even if Philip did have to go into exile very early in life! I took the Queen Mother's remark about Philip being a Hun as him appearing very 'rough around the edges', brusque, not well-mannered or urbane, not a matter of racial origins. Apparently courtiers found the young Philip a bit that way, too.
Quote from: Trudie on August 02, 2014, 12:39:07 AM
Quote from: Canuck on August 01, 2014, 10:47:57 PM
I disagree, limabeany. Philip is only famous for who he married as well. Will is a man and married a woman, so Kate's fame comes from being a wife -- but if Will had instead been a girl he would (in all likelihood) have married a man, and then that man would be famous for his marriage just like Kate is.
Actually Phillip isn't just famous for who he married as well Phillip was born a Prince of Greece and Denmark and was a war hero before his marriage to Elizabeth. When he married it was thought he had to give up his titles and citizenship however it was proven in the 70's that wasn't so since he was also descended from Sophia the Electress.
That's all well and good, but in terms of what he's known for: it's being Queen Elizabeth's husband and Charles' father. Just as Kate will be remembered primarily as William's wife/George's mother.
^^ Well, in my opinion-- which I share with others here-- Philip is known for more than than who he married and his children, as was the Queen Mother, and Princess Diana. :windsor1: Kate may still be known for her causes and patronages, but as of now, she is known for being a wife and mother. :shrug:
Quote from: HistoryGirl on August 02, 2014, 02:00:26 AM
It's particularly annoying to me when some ppl don't bother to read an entire argument (of anything) and then pass judgment on the tid bit that they read. Yet something came to mind when that happened, if the same misunderstanding had occurred, but the comments were aimed at someone like Letizia of Spain or Crown Princess Victoria would the comments on their defense have focused mostly on their looks or their personal accomplishments?
We've been privy to the spin in comparisons to presented in certain media outlets that continually pit contemporary royal families against each other *coughs*, and I think it highlights the desperation. It's even conveyed in the most vapid aspects with people years Kate's senior, even with Rania of Jordan and Mary of Denmark.
In that, maybe the celeb sexualization of monarchs is most pronounced. It's always pitting someone against another, and with Kate, more often than not, sometimes that's the only defense people have for her. That speaks volumes. (Commentary sections are the pits.)
Quote from: Curryong on August 02, 2014, 04:21:55 AM
I don't think the general public could be bothered to read all of Mantel's speech and dissect them. Articles reported in tabloids like the Daily Mail are designed for the instant knee-jerk reaction of their readers.
Both Philip and Elizabeth were royals from birth as they were grandchildren of a reigning sovereign, (their fathers were princes) even if Philip did have to go into exile very early in life! I took the Queen Mother's remark about Philip being a Hun as him appearing very 'rough around the edges', brusque, not well-mannered or urbane, not a matter of racial origins. Apparently courtiers found the young Philip a bit that way, too.
Agreed.
I think it's unfair to trivialize Phillip's accomplishments as an individual when he had his own struggles with abandonment, being tossed from household to household at a very early age, and untimely DEATH within his immediate family in comparison to William. People may or may not like Phillip for his own un-PC gaffes throughout the years, but maybe they forget that he had it really rough in comparison?
I see the comparisons to Harry and Phillip. Unabashed lifestyle and humor might be a coping mechanism for both of them in light of tragic circumstances. Then again, I'm partial to underdogs and anti-heroes. :shrug:
I got irritated with Mantel's comments at first, the. I read what she actually said and it made a lot of sense. I remember someone stating that the media purposely misled the public on what she said because she was mostly criticizing them. This issue that Mantel brought up is clearly present in a documentary on WnK in Canada and all the host can talk about is her freak in clothes. She asks the crowds why they like her and the answer, a part from her being a normal girl, are she's pretty, her clothes, and her hair. In another documentary one commentator had the nerve to say her job was to have a baby. I thought I had been thrown back into the Tudor period with this crap. Instead of the husband seeing his wife as a brood horse it is the masses that hold such archaic ideas.
Actually, a few posters here, have used that phrase to say that Kate doesn't need to work because giving birth is her duty and she has done that.
Kate clearly does work for the Firm. We can debate whether she does enough but her engagement totals since her wedding day put her right in between William and Harry.
Kate has taken part in three very successful foreign tours and is patron of a multi-million £ charitable foundation.
There is no modern precedent for a royal in either Kate's or William's position and in my opinion at least Kate is doing a wonderful job and opinion polls in Britain would back me up on this.
Quote from: HistoryGirl on August 01, 2014, 10:54:07 PM
Quote from: Rebound on August 01, 2014, 10:22:35 PM
A little bit of advice---Don't ever say in a job interview that you are "just a..." student, bartender, forester, whatever. You won't get the job. A ton of people interpret that exactly the same way I do. They will think you don't value what you do if you say you are "just a".
Got it. I'll be sure to hide my shame at how much I devalue myself; I can only hope they can be fooled...
Re: Lima and Canuck: I've wondered how Philip feels about his public position. I mean traditionally it has the man that has been seen as the dominant partner, but with him it's not the case when it comes to his public title. But pertaining to the baby question, William gets that too. Maybe the press are just dying for baby fever.
My feeling is that Phillip with his personality has struggled with that position for years especially in the early years of his marriage to Elizabeth. When his uncle Lord Mountbatten mentioned that the House of Windsor would now be known as the House of Mountbatten declarations went out that this would not be the case. The BRF would not follow the tradition of a woman taking her husband's name like Victoria did when she married Albert. Phillip has been known to declare that he was just a "bloody amoeba."
Phillip's reaction to this is what likely prompted the Queen to reveal that their untitled descendents would have the "surname" of Mountbatten-Windsor. On occasion Phillip and Elizabeth's descendents have used the name on official documents ie: marriage certificates.
Phillip had to find his place within the BRF as someone who more than Elizabeth's consort. His DoE scheme, his nearly year long trip through the Commonwealth, his solo trips and his place as head of the nuclear family are IMO his way of establishing himself as a distinct figure. At times his engagement numbers have higher or lower than HM's but as the UK's longest serving consort, he's certainly created his own place in 20th-21st century history.
IMO other male consorts of the reigning female monarchs have struggled as well at different times in their marriages. The late Prince Claus of the NL began as one of the more controversial members of the family due to his German citizenship and conscription into the army during WWII. There were protests on his and Beatrix's wedding day. He suffered from severe depression bouts and later Parkinson's disease. His father-in-law's financial scandal affected his role as Prince Consort when his wife ascended to the throne. However by the end of his life he was one of the more popular figures in the Dutch royal family and had an excellent partnership with his wife. He was influential in guiding his eldest to find a cause to support during his years as Prince of Orange and encouraged his younger sons Friso and Constantijn to establish careers outside the royal world.
Prince Henrik of Denmark has also had his own issues within the family. He very publicly aired his displeasure at his wife and his eldest over his role within the family in the early 2000's. The family feud was quickly ended, but Henrik made his concerns known that he had felt overlooked and wanted to assert himself. He too takes charge as head of the family while his wife is HoS.
In summary, depending upon the individual's personality it can be a struggle for the male consorts as well. I hope that the Swedish royals are considering this with Prince Daniel.
Quote from: KaTerina Montague on August 02, 2014, 11:46:40 AM
I got irritated with Mantel's comments at first, the. I read what she actually said and it made a lot of sense. I remember someone stating that the media purposely misled the public on what she said because she was mostly criticizing them. This issue that Mantel brought up is clearly present in a documentary on WnK in Canada and all the host can talk about is her freak in clothes. She asks the crowds why they like her and the answer, a part from her being a normal girl, are she's pretty, her clothes, and her hair. In another documentary one commentator had the nerve to say her job was to have a baby. I thought I had been thrown back into the Tudor period with this crap. Instead of the husband seeing his wife as a brood horse it is the masses that hold such archaic ideas.
:goodpost:
As with any hereditary monarchy, the heir and his/her spouse do have to have a legitimate offspring to continue the line of succession. If that is impossible than it would fall to the next sibling in line of succession ie: situations in Belgium and Japan.
However, the press can consider how they remark upon this fact and use tact and sense.
Quote from: DaisyMeRollin on August 02, 2014, 05:17:43 AM
Quote from: HistoryGirl on August 02, 2014, 02:00:26 AM
It's particularly annoying to me when some ppl don't bother to read an entire argument (of anything) and then pass judgment on the tid bit that they read. Yet something came to mind when that happened, if the same misunderstanding had occurred, but the comments were aimed at someone like Letizia of Spain or Crown Princess Victoria would the comments on their defense have focused mostly on their looks or their personal accomplishments?
We've been privy to the spin in comparisons to presented in certain media outlets that continually pit contemporary royal families against each other *coughs*, and I think it highlights the desperation. It's even conveyed in the most vapid aspects with people years Kate's senior, even with Rania of Jordan and Mary of Denmark.
In that, maybe the celeb sexualization of monarchs is most pronounced. It's always pitting someone against another, and with Kate, more often than not, sometimes that's the only defense people have for her. That speaks volumes. (Commentary sections are the pits.)
Quote from: Curryong on August 02, 2014, 04:21:55 AM
I don't think the general public could be bothered to read all of Mantel's speech and dissect them. Articles reported in tabloids like the Daily Mail are designed for the instant knee-jerk reaction of their readers.
Both Philip and Elizabeth were royals from birth as they were grandchildren of a reigning sovereign, (their fathers were princes) even if Philip did have to go into exile very early in life! I took the Queen Mother's remark about Philip being a Hun as him appearing very 'rough around the edges', brusque, not well-mannered or urbane, not a matter of racial origins. Apparently courtiers found the young Philip a bit that way, too.
Agreed.
I think it's unfair to trivialize Phillip's accomplishments as an individual when he had his own struggles with abandonment, being tossed from household to household at a very early age, and untimely DEATH within his immediate family in comparison to William. People may or may not like Phillip for his own un-PC gaffes throughout the years, but maybe they forget that he had it really rough in comparison?
I see the comparisons to Harry and Phillip. Unabashed lifestyle and humor might be a coping mechanism for both of them in light of tragic circumstances. Then again, I'm partial to underdogs and anti-heroes. :shrug:
IMHO Phillip was the one grandparent who could truly comprehend what William and Harry were going through with their parents' separation, divorce and her death due to his own circumstances in life. Phillip may have been in worse financial shape, but his parents' marital breakdown was not front page news. As to who had it worse, I'll call it an even draw. Considering his past and theirs, I believe this has forged a close bond between the three men.
Quote from: Canuck on August 02, 2014, 04:33:52 AM
Quote from: Trudie on August 02, 2014, 12:39:07 AM
Quote from: Canuck on August 01, 2014, 10:47:57 PM
I disagree, limabeany. Philip is only famous for who he married as well. Will is a man and married a woman, so Kate's fame comes from being a wife -- but if Will had instead been a girl he would (in all likelihood) have married a man, and then that man would be famous for his marriage just like Kate is.
Actually Phillip isn't just famous for who he married as well Phillip was born a Prince of Greece and Denmark and was a war hero before his marriage to Elizabeth. When he married it was thought he had to give up his titles and citizenship however it was proven in the 70's that wasn't so since he was also descended from Sophia the Electress.
That's all well and good, but in terms of what he's known for: it's being Queen Elizabeth's husband and Charles' father. Just as Kate will be remembered primarily as William's wife/George's mother.
Wrong again Philip will be known as a war hero and for his many accomplishments such as The Duke of Edinburghs Award Scheme, President of the World Wide Wildlife Foundation and more.
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on August 02, 2014, 03:05:48 PM
Kate clearly does work for the Firm. We can debate whether she does enough but her engagement totals since her wedding day put her right in between William and Harry.
Kate has taken part in three very successful foreign tours and is patron of a multi-million £ charitable foundation.
There is no modern precedent for a royal in either Kate's or William's position and in my opinion at least Kate is doing a wonderful job and opinion polls in Britain would back me up on this.
Actually there is King George and Queen Mary. When they first married his father was still Prince of Wales and they also did royal engagements on behalf of Queen Victoria though in those days Queen Mary was constantly pregnant as was the norm, However they did do considerable work.
OK...Many good points/posts. However, we are getting WAY off topic :hug:
I have the option to lock it and do some housekeeping...I'd rather not :love6: :hug: :love6:
Let's get back on track... :vday4:
^^^Pssst hire a cleaning crew. I'll send you some references. :wink:
You are part of the cleaning crew, as are all moderators. :blush:
What????? I need to look at my contract again!!!! :teehee:
Prince William got estates from his mother when Diana's passing in 1997 and he took around £25-£30 million when he was 25-30 years old and Harry will taking also when Harry turned 30 on sept 15 include his mother's beloved jewels and mores needs they can fit for Kate or Harry's future wife chosen..
Kate had her own asst they can help her include dressing,secretary,nanny,etc what needs for her and George's needs..
Kate will get pregnant but no hurried when George become 2-3 or mores years old if Kate says time get pregnant some days we have wait for official from couple and palace to announce.