Is Kate a Role Model?

[TLLK]

Thank you Cindy.

[Eri]

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.

[AyVey]

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.

[Orchid]

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. 

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.  :)

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.

[AyVey]

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.

[TLLK]

 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. ;)

[ForeverYoung]

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.

[SophieChloe]

Fantastic post!   :notworthy: :goodpost: :notworthy:

[AyVey]

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.

[Orchid]

An interesting read, ForeverYoung.

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.

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.  ;)

[Princessinwaiting]

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:

[AyVey]

An interesting read, ForeverYoung.

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.

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

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.

[Orchid]

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). 

[sandy]

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.

[SophieChloe]

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. 

[sandy]

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.

[Trudie]

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.

[Lothwen]

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.

[Lady Adams]

 :goodpost:

[FanDianaFancy]

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.

[PaulaB]

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.

[sandy]

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.

[good221]

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.

[cinrit]

^^ IMO, that's all very harsh.

Cindy

[Eri]

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 ...