Monday, 24 March 2014

Prince George's New Nanny & A Look at William and Harry's Former Nannies

Hello-Hello, we hope you had a splendid weekend!

For today's post we're focusing on George's new nanny and the importance of the role. Confirmation and information regarding Prince George's new nanny, 43-year-old Maria Borrallo, has come to light in recent days. The Palace released the following statement:

'Prince George's new nanny is Maria Teresa Turrion Borrallo. She was trained at Norland College. Maria is a full-time nanny who started work with the Cambridges recently, and will be accompanying the Duke and Duchess and Prince George to New Zealand and Australia next month.
 Kensington Palace will not be giving further details on Maria or her employment, except to say that the Duke and Duchess are delighted she has chosen to join them.'

Whilst the Palace declined to further divulge information, the Spanish and UK press uncovered details about the nanny. Locals in Maria's home town of Palencia in Northern Spain where she grew up said they would not have been surprised if Maria had ended up choosing a church job like her brother Luis, who was ordained as a deacon three years ago. She is said to have been lovingly nicknamed 'Santa' (Spanish for saint) by friends and family when she was a youngster. She is single, said to be "married to the job", and totally committed to the family she's working for.

PA/Mail Online

Naturally, Maria's family and friends are incredibly proud of her. More from the Daily Express story:

'Her retired housewife mum reportedly uses her free time to teach handicapped children. Speaking yesterday, she said, "I am very proud of my daughter, that's all I can say. On the personal front, and professionally, my daughter couldn't be better." Brother Luis revealed, "I'm very happy for her because she's worked hard to get where she has. Children are her life and great passion."'

Maria is employed on a full-time basis and has been given her own accommodation in Kensington Palace. Choosing a nanny to look after your child is a huge decision which would have naturally required enormous consideration. Maria's training at the prestigious Norland College in Bath will have undoubtedly helped the Cambridges reach their decision.  The college has educated generations of royal nannies.

Norland College Facebook Page

Norland College was founded in 1892 by Emily Ward and its mission is to provide the very best early years education and training for its students, giving them the knowledge, experience and skills to maximise their potential. Prior to the introduction of formal training at Norland, children would be cared for by 'untutored' housemaids before going to school. Norland was the first college to offer any kind of childcare training.

Emily Ward Norland College

Emily Ward quickly recognised that Norland Nurses (as Norland graduates were originally known) needed to be recognised as professionals and not mistaken for housemaids so she introduced a uniform. Norland Nurses would not only wear the uniform at the college but also, once qualified, in the workplace - so they were recognisable wherever they went. The uniform is still a strong part of Norland's tradition and nannies are expected to wear it with pride. However, graduates are no longer expected to wear it when working within a family. When Maria was photographed with George she was casually dressed in a jumper and slacks.

Norland College

Norland students pictured during a cooking lesson.


Indeed, the role of a royal nanny has always been an important one. One only has to look at the bond William and Harry shared with their former nannies to gauge the vital roles they played in their upbringings. Less than two months after Prince George was born, William turned to 71-year-old Jessie Webb to take care of the new arrival on a part-time basis. Jessie spent time with the family in Anglesey and helped to care for George during the transition to London full-time. She was a guest at Prince George's christening last October and is said to have helped Maria settle into her new role.


Miss Webb was first employed by Prince Charles and Princess Diana to look after William and Harry when the future King was aged seven and about to start prep school. It was a difficult time within the family, as Charles and Diana's marriage was crumbling. Jessie, with her cockney accent and no nonsense attitude, provided a sense of stability for the boys. She felt the princes needed feeding up and ensured the nursery fridge was stocked with sausages, bacon, bread, buns, cakes and biscuits. Palace chef Mervyn Wycherley was once overheard saying of Miss Webb's practice, 'If I didn't lock the kitchen door we would have no food left.'


More from the Mail Online:

'"She knew how to swoop up the boys when their parents' arguments became too loud," a police bodyguard said. When William went away to Ludgrove in 1990, Jessie only had Harry to look after. If anything William's absence made the atmosphere even worse. By the summer of 1991, the fairytale marriage was over in all but name.
 It was inevitable perhaps that as Charles and Diana lashed out, others got hurt too. One casualty was Jessie. "In fact both Charles and Diana had decided it was time she should move on," said a former Palace figure. "He found her too big, too brash and generally too loud. Diana just stopped talking to her. Jessie never really knew why."'

Jessie's influence remained with William and Harry who are said to have greatly missed her following her sudden departure. William ensured Jessie was a guest at his 21st birthday and the royal wedding.

Of course, William and Harry had other nannies with whom they formed close bonds. No one more so than Nanny Olga Powell, who arrived at the Palace in 1982. She was 52 and recently widowed when she came to work for the royals; William was just six months old. Diana adored Olga according to the late Princess's former bodyguard Ken Wharfe: "Olga didn't take any nonsense and was a stickler for good table manners. She was stern, but she was fun. I remember on one occasion her dumping the boys on me and saying, "Ken , look after them, can you?" And if there is any bloody nonsense, and they don't behave, you can give them a good clout."


After Charles and Diana separated, Diana retained Olga's services while the boys were with her. In fact, It was Olga to whom William sent a sad letter when he discovered his parents were splitting up. She regarded William and Harry as grandsons and also attended William's 18th birthday, the royal wedding, Harry's confirmation at Windsor Castle, and his passing out at Sandhurst. When Harry was deployed in Afghanistan she wrote a letter of support and admitted her fears for his welfare. Olga passed away in 2012 and a solemn William attended her funeral. Olga requested donations to Prince Harry's charity, Sentebale, in lieu of flowers.


When the boys were with Charles following the separation, they were looked after by Alexandra Legge-Bourke, daughter of the late William and Shân, lady-in-waiting to the Princess Royal. She joined the Royal Family in 1993. A former nursery teacher, nicknamed 'Tiggy' after her love of Beatrix Potter's hedgehog, she was employed as assistant to Charles's private secretary, and later as an official companion to the princes. Interestingly she was not described as a nanny.


Tiggy was described as a cross between 'a mentor and a big sister' for the princes, accompanying them on holidays and spending hours outdoors with them fishing, climbing and go-karting. Tiggy became very close to William and Harry and affectionately described them as "my babies". 28-year-old Tiggy unwisely said of Princess Diana, 'I give them what they need, fresh air, a rifle and a horse. She gives them a tennis racket and a bucket of popcorn.'

Princess Diana was allegedly incensed and reportedly started a rumour Charles was having an affair with Tiggy, and insisted she leave the room when she was talking to her sons.

Royal biographer Penny Juror recalled an incident:

'She was very jealous. There was a terrible incident when Diana went up to Tiggy at the staff Christmas party and whispered in her ear, 'Sorry to hear about that baby'. Tiggy had just been into hospital for a minor operation and the suggestion was that she'd had an abortion. Tiggy was devastated and rushed out in floods of tears.'

Tiggy, now one of the country's few female fly fishing instructors, married Charles Pettifer, a former Coldstream Guards officer in 1999. The wedding was attended by William and Harry. Today she runs a bed and breakfast and her 11-year-old is William's godson. Indeed, she was hotly tipped to be one of George's godparents.

It is interesting to see the important roles royal nannies played in the lives of the princes. The role is constantly changing, particularly as William and Kate are the most 'hands on' royal parents yet. I believe the Cambridges will want to spend as much time with George as possible, but while it may not be imminent, full-time royal duties are most certainly not more than a few years away.

With over twenty years experience and a highly sought after qualification, Maria sounds like a superb choice to look after Prince George (and possibly future siblings). I know many will be surprised William and Kate have elected to hire a full-time nanny following headlines claiming the contrary but I thought it an inevitable step. Perhaps it signals an increase in duties for Kate? And we know William will more than likely be taking on a role in public office (there's been talk of a 2-3 year posting in the Foreign Office starting this autumn).


Like royal nannies before her, Maria will play a significant and important role in George's upbringing. We leave you with a photo of William with his very first nanny, Barbara Barnes, stepping off a plane in Australia in 1983.


Perhaps we'll see similar photos of Maria and George :)

245 comments:

  1. Wonderful post, and not surprising they have chosen a Norland nanny. Minor correction, the college is in Bath, not London, I walk past it every day and have three trainees living just over the road from my house! :)
    Louise, Bath UK

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you so much Louise, sometimes I do wonder if there's a major disconnect between my brain and fingers :)

      Delete
  2. a blue polka dots dress… hmmmm…. I suspect the one of Catherine with newborn George wasn't a tribute to Diana but to the first nanny :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought it looked a lot like Kate's dress also when she left the hospital.

      Delete
    2. Gosh, Paola, that was such a historic moment and I'm not sure it would have been appropriate to honor William's nanny ahead of his mother (assuming Kate's dress was intended as a tribute).

      Delete
    3. of course Royalfan, I was just joking :)

      Delete
    4. I agree with royalfan (again...LOL) that Kate would honor Diana before she would a nanny.

      Delete
  3. Great nanny recap. I bet that William comes off the plane with George though in NZ. It is going to be the first time since his christening and everybody will want to see him. I think Wills and not Kate just because of the shoe factor. Kate has to come down the ramp in heels but he doesn't so it would be easier to for him to carry George. Nanny Maria can then blend into the royal party a bit.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jean from Lancs24 March 2014 at 12:36

    I do not find it surprising that the Duke and Duchess have employed a full-tine nanny--after all, she will not work 24/7 52 weeks per year--leaving time for Catherine to enjoy her time with the baby.
    After all, even those women who declare they went back to work immediately, must have left their baby with someone.
    I read that the Countess of Wessex employed two nannies right from the start---understandable because she was so ill.
    Over the weekend I read "What Kate wore" and on her report of the St Patrick's day outfit, she amended to state the shoes and bag were carbon not green---I assume that is dark grey.
    Colours on photographs can be deceptive and certainly some of the khaki uniforms that day looked orange.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I have s Q about why only 3 pics of PG have been released. If W/K were full time working totals, would there have been more? A lil bit off topic, but I am curious. Than you

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Bonnieux,

      I believe it's a case of William and Kate wanting to shield George as much as possible. I think there will be the bare minimum in terms of photos released and appearances with George. We all know how William feels about the press..

      Delete
    2. bluhare in Washington State24 March 2014 at 23:13

      bonnieux, I agree with you. If William's so freaked out about the press, the best thing to do is release his own photos of George so the fervor to get a photo of him will lessen as the price drops, not restrict everyone so that the value actually increases.

      The latest fracas over photographing the nanny and a pram in the park seemed a bit over the top to me.

      Delete
    3. Charlotte, I totally agree with your statement.

      But I do believe it was a mistake not to release a casual family photo around the holidays. It would have been a nice mid-point between the christening and their tour Down Under.

      Delete
    4. We didnt see that many pictures of William and certainly not Harry as v young children. So what William is doing is in line with BRF practices. Frankly, what is interesting or different between one baby and another? Its when they get to walking and talking the fun starts - that that is when C&D really introduced William to the media. So - its be patient ;)

      Delete
    5. Daisy, we did get to see photos of William (and Harry) as young children. Many of them, as a matter of fact.

      Official photos of William were released within weeks of his birth in June 1982 followed by the christening in August. That was followed by holiday photos in December 1982 (in KP). In February 1983, there were more official photos from KP, followed by the trip to Australian in March. In December 1983, there was the KP garden photo shoot with William in his navy "ABC" snowsuit, and another garden session in June 1984 with William dressed in light blue dungarees.

      And in between, there were many, many other photos of the royals traveling to and from Balmoral, etc., where we got to see him. (And ditto with Harry once he was born.)

      I understand William's reasons for wanting to protect George, but it isn't the wisest or most realistic move on his part. (My sense is that Kate is going along with him, just as she would if they did release photos periodically. I believe this is William's issue.) But his approach is a mistake from a PR point of view AND he cannot change the fact that his son was born to be king and, within reason, his childhood should be documented officially.

      Did my little trip down Memory Lane age me or what!? :)

      Delete
    6. Not to worry, royalfan, some of us here, well at least one of us, remember watching the Queen's children grow up! William's early childhood is but an eye blink away.

      Delete
    7. Bless you for that, Anon. :)

      Delete
    8. bluhare in Washington State25 March 2014 at 03:56

      Daisy, I'm sure that there are mothers here on the blog who will be delighted to let you know what is interesting or different between babies. They are not blobs.

      There is also one huge difference between George and other babies. He will be king one day.

      Delete
    9. You're 25, right? In these days of the internet, everyone's memory is ageless.
      Little George may have been born to be king, but his destiny may not come to fruition.It is hard to imagine the UK without a monarchy, but it is possible
      I'd love to see. him have a real career, maybe as a physician or a professor or whatever. His parents are just trying to keep as many options as possible.open for him.
      I just hate realizing I will never know how he turns out...(or my own grandchildren, for that matter.)

      Delete
    10. RNNOKC, 25 with an ageless memory. SOLD. :) Lol.

      Delete
    11. At the risk of being called a syncophant- can't find that word in the dictionary, but from its Latin root imagine it means chiming in together- anyway, royalfan, an ageless memory and a youthful spirit ,,no matter the chronological years.

      Delete
    12. Addendum to my comment, which is yet to be printed. The word is"sycophant-" no " n" and comes from Greek meaning fig shower. I like syncophant better. I would hate to think I sought favor by flattering people of wealth or power. I actually don?t know anyone with wealth or power to flatter. I don't think showing empathy for the Cambridges qualifies one for sycophancy.

      Delete
  6. I was a huge fan of Princess Diana's when I was young, but I do appreciate that she was not the saint that some people make her out to be. She was too young and unformed when she got married and it was understandably overwhelming for her. She did wonderful things, but she made mistakes and acted selfishly as well. Kate knows who she is and carries herself with confidence. If she chooses to be a mother and wife, that is her choice and it should be respected, just as the woman who chooses career over family (or both) deserves respect for making her own choce. She will probably make mistakes as well, but I look forward to the good that comes of her appearances and patronages.

    mapiab

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely.

      So if she wants to be a stay-at-home mother and wife, then she needs to leave the monarchy and stop living off the dime of the public she is meant to represent.

      I wish this would be understood.

      Delete
    2. Absolutely not. Leave the monarchy? For what reason? That's exactly what the former queens consort were for centuries: stay-at-home mothers and wives with the difference that their children were brought up by the nurses. They also performed a little charities and made some appearances and that's all. Nevertheless, they remained queens consort and never left the monarchy. And it was the same in all other Royal countries.

      And Catherine is not even the queen-to-be, Camilla coming before her. Give this young woman a break so that she can enjoy her motherhood. Time flies so fast!

      Delete
    3. You know what was also true in ye old times? Queens consorts were expected to be regents when the King was indisposed - History has many examples of consorts doing this. in Britain and Europe. They were expected to lead armies, parliament and the judiciary.Now can anyone see Kate doing any of that??

      Royal women were never ever expected to be stay at home mums. the child-centric society is a recent construct in the last 40yrs, so anyone who says royal women or women in general except for the ones who were too poor to afford outside help were stay at home has no history education in society and women's roles. Especially the fact that royal women had more freedom than the average women even setting aside the 'womb for heirs' argument. Acquitaine.

      charlotte, please please print my answer.

      Delete
    4. bluhare in Washington State25 March 2014 at 14:32

      I think we all know that the monarchy, and times, are not what they were when Queens Consort were under total control of the King. Also, they did not do nothing. They gave alms to the poor and other charitable endeavours that their husbands allowed.

      Delete
    5. Hahaha nah, I won't even get going on the fact that she employs a full staff, and is not even a full-time mother.
      The Queen Consorts and senior royals represent the people. Her and William are lacking in that area. They behave as though they wish to be private citizens, which is fine. The problem is, they want the perks too. This is not fine with many people, whose criticism shall not be silenced.

      Delete
    6. So, Step.- it's a crusade thing? My appologies to my Muslim friends and one US president.
      We shall overcome etc. Re:..." whose criticism shall not be silenced."

      Delete
    7. If we are to debate what William and Kate should be doing in 2014, it might be more relevant to consider history that is a tad more recent than when Queen Consorts were leading armies. Call me crazy but..... :)

      Delete
    8. bluhare in Washington State26 March 2014 at 02:33

      They were responses to a poster who brought it up.

      Delete
  7. Thank you, I love reading this blog it is up-to-date and informative.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Lynn Georgia USA24 March 2014 at 15:02

    I so much hope we'll soon see some pictures (or a picture!) of little George. I feel quite conflicted because I do want him to enjoy privacy and normalcy--but I want to see him, too. Maybe a posed picture would satisfy me--and keep the paps somewhat at bay! Wasn't William the cutest little boy ever? I imagine, based on the christening pictures, that George looks a lot like him but probably with darker hair.

    P.S. Wasn't Tiggy's son the precious little blond page boy at Kate and William's wedding?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've noticed that in the past, posed pictures don't always keep the paparazzi at bay. It certainly didn't work for princess Diana. In fact, in princess diana's case, it only made the paparazzi more hungry and relentless. The price of pictures only went up. In my opinion, if they are given an inch, they will take a thousand miles. I don't blame William for being protective of his child. I'm sure William would give up his wealth, fame. and future throne to change what happened to his mother as well.

      Delete
    2. Yes he was. He was so excited.

      Delete
    3. True, jenndog. And regarding your last statement in particular....I'm sure he would.........

      Delete
    4. As a general rule, maybe it would be helpful to preface one's comments with the addressee..And taking a user name also avoids confusion.

      Delete
    5. Thanks royalfan, I always feel so bad in regards to the way the princess was taken from her two boys. They recovered quite good but one can't help think what a profound impact that had on them...especially William now that he has a son

      Delete
    6. You're welcome. And yes, I think about that too, jenndog.

      Delete
  9. Nannies are very important and especially shape the upbringing of royal children since their parents are away a lot. In history many of them have been abusive though for instance, King George's nanny deprived him of food and beat him so bad he suffered intestinal problems for the rest of his life and made him more nervous and stutter worse. Thanks for the interesting post Charlotte hope this new nanny is kind and splendid.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Charlotte Great post. You are always bring so much information to your post. I was just a little surprised that they got a full time nanny at this time. I knew they would have to later but not right now. Unless Kate will be doing more engagements when they return from the tour. And with William getting a full time job. I just hope that with William raking on a full time job that they will still be able to do joint engagements.

    And I am I reading this right that the new nanny has her own apartment at KP and is not living with William & Kate? That would let them still be hands on and have their privacy.

    Again thanks for this great post.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Excellent post! I love getting a glimpse into the day-to-day of the Royal families as the whole assembly of moving parts is just as fascinating to me as the individual royals. Thanks Charlotte! - Mrs. T. in Chicago.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Whole assembly of moving parts." Love it!

      Delete
  12. carrie from the rockies24 March 2014 at 17:12

    Wow I never knew that stuff about diana. I guess she did have a few demons in her after all. But I can see how hard it was trying to keep a man happy who was married to royalty more than her.

    I applaud William for keeping his nannys in his life throughout the years. They knew him best after all.

    I'm a little dissappointed in their choice for PGs nanny. I understand why they chose her and she's perfectly fine. But I had wished they had chosen someone younger to actually be able to run around with him and go on rollar coasters with him. She seems very stern and and her age says she's wise but will take care of him more than shell play with him. I hope I'm wrong.

    I attended several nanny seminars while I was in training to be a nanny but never went to a school for it. Its interesting to hear how this school runs. So is there no child education or development classes in universities? Most universities in the us have programs we can take to help us study child development and child curriculum.

    Have a great week everyone. I'm working my 9th day of work and have 8 more to go before I get a day off. You can imagine how I feel about kates easygoing year right about now.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Nice post.

    Mel in California

    ReplyDelete
  14. Speaking of nannies...I was catching up Downton Abbey season 4...It was very boring...but they mentioned that nannies don't belong to upstairs nor downstair...so in English upper class, what status has a Nanny? totally unrelated but I am honestly curious...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @The Way We Were, I guess you could consider nannies senior staff. And since they spent more time with the kids of their employer then they did with the rest of the staff, they may have felt somewhere in between. But they were certainly not part of upstairs.
      From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanny
      "In the 19th and early 20th century, the position was usually known as a "nurse", and was, as for many childcare jobs, invariably female. In a great house the nurse was a more senior member of the household staff and ran her own domain, a suite of rooms called the nursery, supported by at least one assistant, known as a nursemaid (or nurserymaid). Because of their deep involvement in raising the children of the family, nannies were often remembered with great affection and treated more kindly than the junior servants. Nannies may have remained in the employment of the same aristocratic family for years, looking after successive generations of children."

      It may be different in present days. I somehow doubt the same household hierarchy would apply 100 years on. But then, it's still a employee/employer relationship.

      Delete
    2. I'm curious, too. Anyone know?

      Victoria, Oregon

      Delete
  15. I can't wait for the first photo of William, Kate and George when they land in Australia. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope you won't have to wait until they land in Australia, royalfan. Would be great to see them on the 7th upon their arrival in Wellington which happens to be the capitol of NZ. : )

      Respectfully
      Proud kiwi

      Delete
    2. Anna, won't they be landing at a military base in NZ? Pictures allowed?
      Anyway, your country and Ireland are the only two countries I ever wanted to visit.
      All the gorgeous greenness, the mountains..
      Although, if I go as far as NZ, I suppose I would have to bop over to Aus. and see my family.

      Delete
    3. Good point RNNOKC, didn't think of that. They will arrive at the military terminal of Wellington Airport. We will see. Following landing the schedule lists
      • Public Drive to Government House via Oriental Bay
      • Welcome ceremony at Government House
      We may not see gangway photos, but surely pictures from the subsequent events. And speedy Charlotte will be the first one to publish them!

      Before moving to NZ I used to live in Ireland for a few years and I can tell you all that lovely greenness comes at a price. Keeping up with rain, rain and more rain isn't easy for someone used to a different climate. But absolutely wonderful for a visit. I prefer New Zealand though ; )

      Delete
    4. bluhare in Washington should be able to relate
      . I hope that didn't sound insensitive. The mudslide tragedy is always at the back of my mind.
      If I had to choose, it would be New Zealand for.me, too.

      Delete
    5. bluhare in Washington State26 March 2014 at 02:36

      Yup, it's raining again today. the mudslide is in an area that apparently has been geologically unstable. There was a slide back in 2006 (nowhere near this bad) in the same place.

      Delete
  16. Hello lady Charlotte. Hi girls.

    love the picture of the Norland Nannies lovely girls And the other picture of them with the 'Hot cross buns' so traditional British. Reminds me of home, where ever I am.

    I bet they make a nice cuppa tea. .

    ReplyDelete
  17. I have to say I always thought Charles' action in hiring Tiggy was inappropriate. A nubile young unmarried woman to be a "pal" to adolescent boys is hardly a good idea. Tiggy had no burden of trying to raise them to be successful members of the royal family, she was just there for fun. Her emphasis on the value of shooting has certainly not benefitted William later in life. While there is little chance he would not have ended up shooting, what with the traditions of the royal family, he might have been given a more nuanced view. As it is, his passion for blood sports has done considerable damage to his wish to be a spokesman on behalf of conservation.

    While he may not hunt endangered species, a rich man shooting for sport is not the best person to speak out against poachers whose livelihood may depend on their catch. I'm no supporter of poaching, far from it, but I do think William's obsession with blood sports has made him a poor spokesman for the cause he claims to care most about.

    Tiggy also smoked in the presence of the boys. One can't expect for William and Harry to see it this way - anyone indifferent to rules is bound to be a lot of fun - but she did not serve the boys particularly well and I believe Diana had a right to be angry that some of the values she raised the boys with, such as her emphasis on anti-smoking were tossed out the window by Tiggy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 22:02, yes, it was inappropriate and from what I have read Camilla wasn't thrilled with Tiggy's presence either. And you raised a good point about her smoking; both C&D had issues with it so the irony of his choice is even more interesting. (As a matter of fact, one of the rooms in KP had a "No Smoking" sign above the fireplace.)

      But do you really think William is "obsessed" with hunting, or simply following in the Windsor footsteps? Don't get me wrong, I don't support hunting and I could never imagine myself shooting a living creature, but William was raised in an environment where hunting is part of the fabric of their lives. Perhaps George will be the first future king to say "no" to hunting........ :)

      Delete
    2. that is a nasty post full of innuendo. Truly awful.

      The boys really love Tiggy and William had her son (his godson) as one of the pages at his wedding.

      Delete
    3. Do either of the Princes smoke cigarettes? I think not. But they seem to have been scarred by their unfortunate mother's emotional instability. Can't imagine what sort of corrupt mind turns a much needed "older sister" into some salacious influence on young boys . Seriously, Eeeuw!

      Delete
    4. Greybird, I don't think Anon 22:02's post was over the top. I honestly don't.

      But I don't share that opinion regarding your comment about "Diana's emotional instability." And for the record, Harry did smoke (and for a number of years, although I don't blame Tiggy for that). Supposedly, he gave it up thanks to Cressida. Hopefully, for good.

      Delete
    5. bluhare in Washington State25 March 2014 at 03:57

      I understand Harry quit smoking while he was training for the South Pole trip. I do not know if William smokes, but I believe Kate used to.

      Delete
    6. I highly doubt that William is "obsessed with blood sport". Isn't that a bit exaggerated? I don't think that hunting a few boars bred to be hunted, cooked and eaten is in the same category as killing rhinos for the horns..

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    8. Obsessed may not be the correct word but I wonder if someone told William he would be a better spokesman if he quit shooting and stalking, if he would do so. I rather doubt it. Yet, he cares enough to speak of destroying all the palace's collection of ivory. I would be amazed and very pleased if William gave up blood sports but I don't see it happening.

      Obviously, Tiggy isn't mostly to blame for this. But her tasteless boasting of how she gave the boys guns while Diana gave them tennis rackets does make her part of it. I can't blame Diana for being a bit upset with this sort of remark. And few divorced mothers are going to appreciate a young woman "surrogate sister" calling teenage boys "her babies". I don't blame William and Harry for Tiggy and her actions, but I do blame Charles.

      As for the boars, they may be wild and not intentionally bred but are no doubt pests. Culling is unfortunately a neccessary part of country life but shoots where hundreds of birds are slaughtered are another matter. Killing animals is a sport for the royal family well beyond supplying food or benefitting the countryside.

      Poaching is horrific and nothing is more tragic than the photos of rhinos who have had their horns hacked off. There is plenty of money behind poaching but most of the actual poachers are desperate to feed their families in impoverished countries. That is why it is a sensitive issue when a fabulously wealthy man who shoots simply for pleasure is put forth as a figurehead for conservation. If William would give up his guns, it would make a much stronger statement than destroying some selective artifacts of long dead animals.

      Delete
    9. And there I was, thinking an invitation to dining on wild boar cooked to perfection with onion, garlic, red wine and roast vegetables was on the cards. Served with a Chateau Margaux Oh well maybe not then .... Lol

      Delete
    10. Portia from Chicago25 March 2014 at 14:55

      Oh golly ! I was gone for a few days buried under work, kids and my own and hubby's travel and it seems that I have missed a lot on my favorite blog !

      I agree with Anon about Tiggy. She was probably a whole lot of fun and a good sport but I do think that it was *outrageous* to criticize Diana publicly. I have had full time nannies for the for the first 3 years of my kids' lives and if any of them publicly (within earshot of my kids) demeaned me or put me down, they would not only be fired on the spot, but I would make sure that they were not hire-able anywhere - I would *personally* call every single nanny agency in town and put down their name as a persona non-grata. Trust me - they would rue the day they did that.

      It is absolutely distasteful and awful to condescend a parent in front of the kids. I have always been surprised that people are ready to brush Tiggy's actions under the rug and say that Diana reacted neurotically to her words. Well, yes - her reactions were not rational, but then neither was Charles. How exactly was she supposed to deal with a petty man like him and his support of a person who was willing to demean her in front of her kids? Divorces between petty, irrational individuals are often like this - ugly. But usually it is both parties who are to blame.

      As for William, well, I just have nothing good to say. Whoever points out that there is a whole economy behind poaching is correct. William, with his deep intellect (lol) , of course *does not* speak of the entire story, but is very quick to condemn poaching and be done with it. The problem needs to be solved ground up, first and foremost by providing honest and respectful livelihood to those who do it.. but does William actually do anything about that? Or even understand it?

      Delete
    11. Tiggy's remark is being interpreted by people who don't understand the dig she was making at Diana and why Diana got upset.

      After her separation, Diana was associating more and more with the jet set and we all know where that lead her. Anyways, the jet set are symbolised by tennis and roller coasters - superficial and transient. Traditionally in britain, fairs with rollercoasters/circuses etc were seasonal thing run by people who were only passing through.

      Guns symbolise tradition and reverence for down to earth traditions that have lasted centuries.

      So Tiggy was saying that Diana was giving the boys superficial treats and values.

      We can argue whether it was a good assessment, or if Tiggy was right to say it, but there it is.

      Also, Tiggy wasn't some random person picked to be the boys companion. Her Parents are the Lord Lieutenant and the High Sheriff of Powys respectively. They are the principal officers to the crown for Powys which is a rural community in Wales with countryside values which include hunting fishing and sports, so not such a surprise that those would be the values Tiggy would have over the jet set ones. it's a townie vs country attitude. acquitaine.

      please please charlotte print my answer

      Delete
    12. bluhare in Washington State25 March 2014 at 22:57

      Acquitaine, that's a point that had never hit my radar screen. Thanks for the food for thought.

      Delete
    13. Portia- Welcome back, although I am a "newbie," I believe I can still say that.
      Re: ground up. There are multiple groups funding low-cost loans for cottage-type businesses in Africa, but am not sure if the political climate of the areas in question allow that. A lot of tribal war, too.
      I agree, it is a complicated problem, but we have to start somewhere.
      The real criminals are those who profit most and I doubt they are the poachers.
      PS. There have been worse,may I say , less intelligent members of the BRF.Please don't ask for an . example.
      Prince William appears to be quite passionate about the cause. Surely, there is some way to use that.

      Delete
    14. Portia from Chicago26 March 2014 at 03:43

      Acquitaine, thank you for enlightening us of the metaphorical meaning of her remark, but I don't really think that it is relevant. No matter what my opinion is of my enemey I would never stoop so low as to put her down in front of her kids. Would you? It is basic kindness and decency. Heck even divorced parents who may want to bash each other over the head refrain from making remarks such as these in front of the kids. For the sake of the kids themselves.
      IMO by putting Diana down in front of Harry and William she did a great disservice to the kids and also herself.

      What does Tiggy's family have to do with this ? Is this some sort of couched class snobbery ? BEcause she comes from old money and has old money friends she can put down Diana's new money friends? I hope you were not implying that.. because ugh. just ugh.
      I can't get whether you are defending her remarks and taking a stand or merely explaining the context. But whatever it is, regardless of which opinion you hold and whether you are a townie or an old country sort you should see my point (I hope) - you don't corrupt kids like that.

      Delete
    15. Portia from Chicago26 March 2014 at 03:59

      RNNOKC: oh yes - use away. I agree. I am all for using PW's passion for conservation. Except that his little jaunt into Spain to hunt boar literally cost him that little conference he was holding.. didn't it? It was quite the what's the word... damp squib.

      Delete
    16. Please note that Diana was old money all the way. The Spencer family being much older and finer than the Windsors.

      Delete
    17. Portia. 1455. regarding Prince Wlliam's knowledge of poaching problem. It might be helpful if you would read his speeches on the official royal site.
      From his speech at the IWT reception: "...crucially, we need to support local communities to ensure their livelihoods improve as a direct result..."

      Delete
  18. I find it interesting that people are surprised they hired a full time nanny. William and Kate do not have typical 9-5 jobs, but their commitments often keep them away for an entire day, a long evening, or almost fully booked for three straight weeks with the Australia tour. In order to hire a complete professional who is available whenever you need them, you have to pay someone full time wages. My guess is that Kate and William will still spend a lot of time with George and use the nanny when they need her. They have a lot of evening engagements so will most likely just use her a bit differently than a typical full time nanny. Once baby #2 comes along -- and it will eventually -- it will be wonderful to have someone in place who knows the family and can help smooth the arrival of a second child. It sounds like Kate and William have done their research and hired someone with a ton of experience who is still young enough to keep up with the kids. Well done.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Momstheword, that has to be the most realistic and reasonable post I've read on the nanny issue. In my humble opinion, you summed it up beautifully! :)

      Delete
  19. Great post Charlotte- now.....on with the tour!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Thanks, Charlotte, for the description of William's nannies. It would appear that Barbara Barnes was with him from his birth until he entered nursery school. Olga Powell seems to have been the head nanny for many years, from soon after Barbara Barnes left until William and Harry were well into their teens. Olga may have left when Diana died, since she had stayed to look after the Princes when they were with Diana after the divorce.

    Jessie Webb must have been an assistant nanny; she was present for a few years between William's going to boarding school and the collapse of the Wales marriage. In one picture above, she is removing William from the vicinity of a horse. His swiveled head and one finger advertise his displeasure!

    William honored his nannies by including them in the important celebrations of his life, and by making Tiggy's son an attendant at his marriage. William is obviously a man of strong loyalties. It will be interesting to see how the relationship with Nanny Maria Theresa works out, especially as nannies are probably a new thing in Kate's life.

    ReplyDelete
  21. PS I want one of those hot cross buns! They are not, by the way, only an English Lenten treat.

    ReplyDelete
  22. overthehillandacross25 March 2014 at 02:17

    Thank-you royalfan and bluhare.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're welcome, but I'm not sure what you are thanking us for......... :)

      Delete
    2. bluhare in Washington State25 March 2014 at 03:58

      Me either, although I'm sure we deserve it. :)

      Delete
  23. Hello everyone,

    I thought I'd chime in here. It really isn't case of choosing one or the other. I have it on *very* good authority the Palace have no wish for William and Kate to take on a full-time schedule of royal duties now. There's three generations of royals at the moment and until Charles becomes King the feeling is there isn't a need for full-time.

    I think there should be more charity work personally but it's a far bigger decision than Kate simply saying "I want to stay at home".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. THANK YOU, CHARLOTTE. :)

      I'm not an insider, but that has always been my opinion on the subject. But I do agree with you that there should be more charity work. I think this is a short term strategy with potentially long term effects that are 1.) not being considered.... or.... 2.) being ignored (at W&K's expense).

      Delete
    2. I simply don't buy this. I do have to ask: what is the source of this information? And if true, why is this not official?

      Tell me then: why are things different for Harry, then ? While he does not have a full schedule of duties, he is certainly taking on a well-defined role that allows him to go back to the military when he is done with his desk job, while also developing his charities and causes.
      It is William who is rudderless, and Kate. I simply do not see the logic of letting them be in the background while letting Harry continue to thrive publicly.

      I think that it is William's will to continue to take time off and the palace is going along with it. The fact that the Palace is unsure to do with them, as you say, Charlotte is a function of William's reluctance to take on his duties. I do not believe that the Palace is guiding them to be out of the spotlight.

      Delete
    3. bluhare in Washington State25 March 2014 at 04:30

      Hold on a minute, Anonymous, I've got to put my tinfoil hat on for a minute and make some adjustments so the aliens don't hear me, but here's a thought. What if Harry is the future? You make an interesting argument about his work schedule vs. William and Kate's, and why would that be??

      King Henry IX anyone? (Come on, this is just fun and for discussion!!)

      Delete
    4. I'm afraid I cannot disclose the source at this time.

      I am not suggesting they want to take on a full-time schedule. It appears the young royals have no real love for the job at the moment, however there is more to it than William and Kate refusing to do more.

      We have seen more of Harry lately and he's been championing some amazing causes and looking at the number of engagements for 2013 we have the following:

      Kate: 44
      William: 62
      Harry: 52 (25 of these were carried out overseas)

      Obviously various factors affect the numbers. Kate's pregnancy, Harry's tour in Afghanistan, William's time in the RAF etc They are very low numbers compared to senior royals. We'll never know definitively what's going on, but it is very much believed there is no desire from the Palace for them to take on a larger role just yet

      Delete
    5. Thank you for the numbers, Charlotte. I'm *very* glad that you chimed in on this subject. :)

      Delete
    6. Portia from Chicago25 March 2014 at 14:58

      Charlotte, I believe that the truth lies somewhere in between. Is it possible that William is reluctant to take on duties and therefore the palace is letting him have breathing space? That is why they claim that they are not willing to have them take full time duties? Maybe William is leading this whole thing, and the Palace is playing along?

      As for Harry - please don't forget his entire trip to the South Pole. It takes tremendous self-sacrifice to do what he did. That, in my (and I believe many others') book counts as 100 engagements. Will William give up hunting for one of his causes? No. But Harry put himself through tremendous hardship to do precisely that.
      There is simply no comparison between William and Harry in how they approach royal life. Maybe bluhare is on to something here.

      Delete
    7. bluhare in Washington State25 March 2014 at 22:37

      Thanks Portia. I guess there was a TV show that aired in Britain about the South Pole, and Harry got pretty sick, along with some others which was the biggest reason it turned into a trek rather than a race. No one can say Harry doesn't get stuck in!

      Delete
    8. Portia and bluhare, I don't mean to minimize Harry's accomplishments at all; I totally respect what he did, the dedication it required, and the reason behind it. But does William's job as a rescue helicopter pilot not count for anything? Let's face it, he was not going to rescue people from a beach on a calm, sunny day.

      And of course there's a difference in how the brothers approach royal life. God wiling, Harry will never be faced with the same obligations or have to suffer the same restrictions on his private life. He can be the dashing dare devil prince while William faces a tremendous responsibility ahead and prepares his son for the same destiny. To a degree, Harry can have fun with his role, but William will never have that luxury.

      Delete
    9. bluhare in Washington State26 March 2014 at 02:40

      I don't recall ever reading anything about Harry not living up to expectations, royalfan. I have read things about William.

      Delete
    10. That's the point, bluhare. There are no expectations for P Harry, other than to be amusing and cute. Anything useful he does is just.icing on.the cake. This doesn't just apply to the spare; younger brothers tend to be more out-going and fun-loving.. And sisters, too.

      Delete
    11. bluhare, if you don't remember articles questioning Harry, then you are only considering the most recent period. I won't repeat details because I thought some of it was slanderous (and I blamed Charles for having other priorities and not reigning him in), but there *were* questions out there about him.

      And I still wonder why some folks won't give William credit for the risks involved with being a helicopter rescue pilot. He could just as easily have requested a desk job, if he was as reluctant to work as some people like to suggest, but he didn't. He risked his life and his royal rank would have been meaningless if, God forbid, something had happened to him during the dangerous conditions he had to fly under at times.

      And RNNOKC, I like your icing on the cake analogy. Again I don't mean to diminish Harry's accomplishments, but that's the reality of it.

      Delete
    12. bluhare in Washington State26 March 2014 at 14:44

      I meant about Harry's work ethic. There have been plenty questioning his activities, but I honestly don't remember one questioning his work ethic.

      But I suspect I might now be shown one!

      Delete
  24. Ultimately it seems the Palace are somewhat unsure of what to do with them. They need to forge a consistent role for them in terms of charity work, that's for sure but I expect full-time duties are a long way off.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here I go again, but if that's true (about the Palace not knowing what to do with them), it has Charles' fingerprints all over it. And I'll take it a step further in guessing that Diana would never have allowed her son's reputation, and that of his wife, to suffer like this.

      Delete
    2. I find this so odd. The Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra both have a number of important patronages and both have faced ill health.
      Even if the queen doesn't want to back off, there is ample work. A while back a large group of badly injured soldiers were setting off on an adventure scheme for charity and the best that the palace could come up to was one of Andrew's daughters. I thought at the time, why William and Kate weren't doing something like that. And why they didn't take on some of the queen's engagements when she was forced to cancel for health. It would have lead to so much good will even if they weren't fully briefed.

      And good will is what the couple needs. William burying himself in some job where he's not seen won't make it. The couple are becomining seen as painfully work shy and the time to win support from a doubtful public is now.

      Delete
    3. Excellent points, I totally agree.

      Delete
    4. Portia from Chicago25 March 2014 at 14:59

      Anon: exactly. It does not make sense to me. The only thing that makes sense is that William does not want to do it and the palace is being nice to him.

      Delete
    5. Lynn Georgia USA25 March 2014 at 17:47

      I agree, too, royalfan! Has anyone noted that the virtual disappearance of Kate and William from public view coincided with the merger of press offices, placing them all under Charles's aegis?

      Delete
    6. Whoever is behind this at the palace I hope rethinks this plan quickly.

      William and Kate at this moment are the most noticable members of the royal family. What they do - or don't do - tars the whole family and makes the royals seem a waste of money as a whole family. Except on specific sites like the Royal Digest, it doesn't bring more attention to other family members.

      Hello isn't going to start running cover shots of Camilla. The Daily Mail isn't going to run a feature on the Princess Royal's work. (Actually no one pays much attention to Anne.) The Telegraph isn't going to take over featuring Sophie. (Most of the country barely knows who she is and that's not likely to change.)

      All the vast majority of people are going to see is a handsome young couple supported in some way by the public purse (not as much as most people will assume, but nothing will change that assumption) who aren't carrying their weight and a family behind them, who, with the possible exception of the queen, aren't carrying their weight either.

      Until the couple take on a reasonable load -at least similar to what they did in the first year of their marriage - every shopping spree of Kate's, every private evening out for the couple, every addition to their homes, every action of the Middletons, every holiday, will be granted disporportionate attention, most of it negative, because that's what sells.

      Charles can take on hundreds of engagements and maybe briefly be in favour over William but at the end of the day, it won't bring more than miminal attention to his work and do enormous damage to the royal family as a whole. Its future is being put at risk for some strange short-term agenda by an unwise someone.

      Delete
    7. Charlotte,
      If the monarchy seems uncertain what to do with Kate and Wills, why have less senior royals been taking on so many duties?
      I don't think there is anything stopping the two of them from doing more for their patronages on their own accord. They lack initiative.

      Delete
    8. bluhare in Washington State25 March 2014 at 22:33

      By the way, please explain "Charles can take on hundreds of engagements and maybe briefly be in favour over WIlliam but at the end of the day it won't bring more than minimal attention to his work and do enormous damage to the royal family as a whole".

      Because I do not see how Charles doing more engagements damages the royal family. Just the reverse actually.

      Delete
    9. bluhare in Washington State25 March 2014 at 22:35

      royalfan, you don't think that the royal family not knowing what to do with William has William's fingerprints all over it rather than Charles? William's the one who can't decide what to be when he grows up, not Charles.

      Delete
    10. a non 1750: no one pays much attention to what Anne does, because the merchandise is not packaged attractively. I saw a photo of Princess Anne recently at some horse event She was relaxed-looking and smiling beautifully She needs to sell herself, before she can sell her causes Prince Charles finally seem s to have learned that. Sophie Wessex has natural charm
      And then we have a gorgeous couple that could sell milk to cows Use them
      And I freely admit I do not actually know whose plan they are following. Maybe it is Prince William's idea.Please stop saying you know something as a fact, until the Cambridges invite you over for potluck and confide in you.
      Hope someone reads this, as it has taken an hour to type it Darn auto correct Dont kow how it got switched back on

      Delete
    11. bluhare, I think the RF is in a very awkward position right now. They know what they *don't* want to happen (a repeat of the Diana eclipse), but in trying to prevent it from happening, they are not doing themselves any favors in the long run.

      William may be stubborn, but I don't think he's lazy. It's unfortunate that the frustration he appears to have at times is interpreted as unwillingness, even laziness, rather than the desire to have more control over his life....more of a say in what he wants to do, and how.

      Delete
    12. I still think Charles is behind William & Kate not being seen in public either together or solo. All you have seen lately is Charles & Camilla. He is trying to get Camilla all the press he can knowing that the public love W&K. This is just my opinion.

      Delete
    13. Bluhare, my remark meant that Charles taking on a full schedule of engagements is not, ironically, going to counterbalance William and Kate not working much. It's fine and good that he does work hard but most of the British public will never notice.

      The public is very attuned to William and Kate. and Harry's actions. The public is not much attuned to what Charles does, and frankly, given her lack of popularity, doesn't care what Camilla does. She took on a new charity this week but I doubt even most readers of this blog know what it is, let alone the general public.

      I actually went looking to see what Charles did this week. It took some effort. I got nothing immediately out of the Telegraph until I Googled it and Charles. Then I got the selfie report as well as the news that royal consent is likely to be abolished. (Hardly good news for the monarchy.) The Daily Mail also reported on him having a selfie taken with a boy at "Yaldin" (sic) but didn't make clear what Charles was doing there. With that hint, I was able to find out from the BBC that Charles visited flood victims in Yalding with the duchess. As for what he did the rest of the week, I would have to do a lot more looking.

      Most of Charles' future subjects aren't going to try that hard. But they will pay attention to Kate and William who garner a lot more immediate front page publicity. It's always that way. Young royals will always get more attention so we are more likely to hear about Harry skiing, with oligarch links, or Andrew's daughters off on another holiday than we are about the worthy engagements of older royals.

      Being royal is not a popularity contest as such, but unfortunately, the representatives of the monarchy have to be seen to seem relevent. It's always been that way. Behind the scenes work won't make it because for every person who believes a royal is working hard behind the scene, three more will think they're doing nothing and a waste of money.

      Do I think the monarchy will collapse? Certainly not while the queen is alive and hopefully not after that. Do I think that lack of public enthusiasm will affect the monarchy. Absolutely. That this happens to be the time that there is talk of abolishing royal consent is not a coincidence, in my opinion. (Hopefully, it won't get far.) It isn't the kind of action that would be likely after the royal wedding, or the jubilee when public interest was high.

      All this is to say that in a changing Britain with many immigrants who are here for financial benefit and have little attachment to old traditions, the monarchy can't afford to be complacent and needs to maximise their best resources, the once strong, and now slightly floundering attraction of William and Kate. The great gift of Diana was her ability to be in tune with the public. (And frankly, I don't think she had any more jet setting connections than Charles still does.) At the end of the day, William, Kate and George are the monarchy's greatest hope, not the future reign of King Charles III, and it is vital their reputations not be tarnished by lack of reasonable public works.

      Delete
    14. Anon 01:12- Very well-thought and written comments. It seemed even-handed. You did not resort to groundless speculation.Somehow, I don't think you are also anon. 1750;but if you are, my remark about the Cambridges po tential dinner companions was not directed at you. Unless you are the anon. who claims to.know what is going on.in Prince William's head.
      Please! Assume an identity.and post a lot.

      Delete
    15. bluhare in Washington State26 March 2014 at 02:46

      Thank you, anonymous. I appreciate your well thought out response. I think I agree with you. Although I did read about Camilla's new patronage . . . wait is it cancer sniffing dogs? Something like that, I think.

      By the way, I was bored the other evening, and was on the british monarchy website and the court circular now has a search feature. I should go see if you can go backwards as well as forwards.

      Delete
    16. I live in the uk. To be quite Honest there is not that much press coverage of any of the royal family. Kate may take a front page or so, but we don't see the other royals on their day to day engagements nor does it make the national news each evening. The British people just want to kbow that the royal family are out there working for 'us' not living the life of rich people doing nothing. We don't need to see them. A lot of oeople aren't that bothered about them, looked upon as rather stuffy and out of touch. They are not celebrities like the hollywood stars, but kate n will s are loosing public support with their work ethic and this part time status which is very perplexing. Ann London

      Delete
    17. Anonymous 01:12, the Court Circular on the Royal Web Site shows what each senior royal does each day. The number of functions attended is quite surprising.

      Delete
  25. Their office needs to do a much better job in terms of advisement and PR that's for sure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, but the truth is the William and Kate need to work. It is not a question of advertisement or PR, but simply a matter of accepting one's duties and earning one's keep. That is all there is to it.

      Delete
    2. Advisement, not advirtisement, a non.

      Delete
  26. Agree Charlotte and thank you royalfan, I'm with you there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know you are, Florence...and thank *you*. :)

      Delete
  27. I'm sorry, but I just can't let an "a. non " have the last word.
    bluhare, what about Queen Cressy?
    How cool was it that Charlotte blogged in real time? , (Almost)
    If the palace ( which one, by the way) puts out an edict , don't they have to obey? It would serve them right if the Cambridges took jobs at Selfridges. Then we could watch them on tv all the time.
    Was it bluehare or rf who said something about Charles going up in the polls? Mission accomplished!

    ReplyDelete
  28. This nanny looks like Kate when she was a child.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree!!Thats exactly what I thought when I saw that picture!!!

      Delete
    2. Siddhii-yet, some how I can't see her blending in with those giggly Norland girls.as Kate would have.
      Her brother is a priest? Is she Roman Catholic? Surely not. I don't think the Cambridges are.

      Delete
  29. This debate about William's and Catherine's work has become quite tiresome. It is so repetitive, and it changes nothing. It seems to me, also, that William is being given no credit here for the training he is undertaking. Harry is free to do what he can for his charities now. William has a heavily responsible constitutional future to prepare for, as well as overseeing the Duchy of Cornwall in the nearer term. Why should he be criticized for taking this preparation seriously?? And Catherine has a young family to care for. They are to be admired for their willingness to undertake arduous overseas tours, and whatever local events they are scheduled to attend. They do their job well when they are in public; using them sparingly seems to provide a balance for the royal family.

    William undertakes serious roles (university, military training, search and rescue, agriculture, diplomacy). He apparently enjoys substantive work. His quiet approach reflects his character, and someday he will be a wise and thoughtful king. It is not in his nature, and probably not in Kate's though she seems more outgoing, to seek the limelight. As for Catherine, she has put her arts degree to good use during her work for her parents' company, and in overseeing the renovation of part of Kensington Palace and a house on the Queen's Sandringham estate. These will be homes for her family and later perhaps for Prince Harry's. In addition, she is cheerful and beautiful when she is fulfilling a public role. She certainly boosts the clothing industry. And she is an engaging mother when we get to see her in that role. Behind the scenes, she is obviously a responsible mother.

    I think asking these two to grace magazine covers as 'work' is nonsense. Their work is more serious than that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous, I couldn't agree more. Thank you for that insight.

      Delete
    2. You're right, it is tiresome because the people have been wanting them to represent them better and they choose not to change.
      Lots of things in the world are improved because people continue to stand up for what they believe in, so I wouldn't expect the criticism to stop. You may be satisfied with them, but far too many are not.

      There is NO reason William should be at Cambridge taking this course. It is unnecessary. And even still, he has had 12-14 years to learn about this.

      "Arduous" overseas tours? Okay. They got you on that one, sorry to say.

      Kate does not boost the clothing industry as much as the press would have you think. And spending 45-120 minutes grinning away, going against protocol every single engagement since her marriage, is not work.

      I think she is probably a lovely mother and loves and cares for her son very much - but with a full staff, let's not fool ourselves into thinking she is even full-time at that.

      I love this site because I enjoy her fashion sense and the coverage on it. I also value to monarchy, and I wish for Kate and William to do well. I will partake in constructive criticism because it is necessary, and will help by increasing awareness about the problems, and hopefully it reaches the right ears - the RF, especially HM, are VERY attuned to what the subjects have to say.

      Delete
    3. Going against protocol every single engagement since her marriage....you might want to document that statement, Stephanie. So you hope what you share here will reach royal (HM) ears? Thereby doing your part by increasing awareness. OK.

      Delete
    4. Talk about hitting the nail on the head! Very well said (written)-thank you for saying all of this. I totally agree with all of it.

      Delete
    5. Going against protocol? What does that mean?

      Delete
    6. Anon 15:06 I totally agree with you. This work crap that has been brought up over & over agin is like beating a dead horse in the mouth. Yea alot of you would like to see Kate doing more but we really don't know how it all works. We are all arm chair fans good or bad who think what Kate should do.

      And now Charlotte here on her own blog thinking Kate should be doing more. This really surprises me. Never thought she would talk ill about the Duchess.

      Delete
    7. Never thought I would agree with you, Pauline.

      Delete
    8. RNNOKC, not only do I engage in constructive criticism here and in other wonderful sites such as this, I have tried to write letters to those who matter. The more this issue is understood, the more it will be reported, documented, and awareness is spread.

      Here is a post by someone who understands the monarchy EXTREMELY well, who will explain further the protocol issue: http://theduchesscambridge.tumblr.com/post/80677528498/you-say-that-kate-does-not-follow-the-rules-does-not

      Pauline - if "this work crap" is like beating a dead horse in the mouth, what do you think that says about them? You must see why this frustrates the subjects.

      Delete
    9. bluhare in Washington State26 March 2014 at 02:57

      Let me tell you the best way to learn something, anonymous. DO IT. William is doing everything BUT knuckling down. He could go to the Duchy and have the people actually doing the work show him what to do. Charles has hired people to manage it (and Highgrove for that matter), and they are perfectly positioned to show William the ropes. He's already taken this class once before; he went to Chatsworth and saw how they manage everything there but apparently thinks no one remembers. And i must confess, if not for one very informed poster here, I woudln't have known about that either.

      Kate just got blasted by The Sun as the Duchexcess of Cambridge. Even I thought that was a bit unfair (as William didn't even rate a mention), but they wouldn't be writing this stuff if people weren't starting to get a bit cheesed.

      So, yes, it IS tiresome, but not for the reasons you state.

      Delete
    10. bluhare in Washington State26 March 2014 at 02:58

      Well, you hit the nail on the head with that one, Pauline. It *is* Charlotte's blog and she can say what she wants on it. Whether you like it or not.

      Delete
    11. That post on tumbler in just nasty and if repeated would constitute cyber bullying. Stephanie pull your head in.

      Delete
    12. And the tumblr post makes no sense. Who dictates heel height? Princess Mette-Marit was criticized for *not* looking at QEII when curtseying. That caused someone to comment acidly about commoners teaching royals to curtsey. Catherine cannot help it if she is most of a foot taller than the Queen and takes much longer strides. It must be difficult for her to walk a step behind the Queen, though it is no doubt something she is concentrating on. She always looks very respectful when they are together. As for the York princesses, Catherine is the more senior royal.

      Delete
    13. .... No, Florence. That is not bullying, that is displaying the truth about her behaviour.
      Trust me, I know what cyberbullying is. Please educate yourself.

      Delete
    14. Actually Florence, Im a bit concerned... did that post lead somewhere else by accident!?
      I'm going to copy and past the text here so you can let me know if this is what you saw as cyberbullying:

      Question: "You say that Kate does not "Follow the rules - does not dress to protocol, walks in front of William, walks in front of the Queen, does not follow ettiquette, does not follow precedence, cannot curtsy properly……….I could keep going about all the rules she breaks." Could you give examples of all the above as I think her behaviour in public as a Royal has been exemplary."

      Answer:"Does not dress to protocol - she has never in all of her engagements dressed to protocol for example her heels are too high and her hems are too high
      Heels should be no more than 3 inches high and the hems should at least hit the knee
      Walks in front of William - countless times
      Walks in front of the Queen - example this event, Rebecca had to actually pull her back.
      Ettiquete and precedence, the above and also walking in front of other royals when they should go first. Walking in front of the York Sisters Christmas 2011 down the steps, Jubilee Pageant she tried to go before Camilla ect.
      She also curtsied to HM on the balcony at one event which is ridiculous. You don’t do that!
      Cannot curtsy properly, see everytime she does it. She curtseys like a little girl after a piano recital not like you do to a royal.
      She does not bow low enough, she looks at the royal when she does it which is disrespectful and she does it too quick as well."

      ^^... Isn't that what you saw?? Keep in mind this is someone who has studied the monarchy for years, respects it, and was answering a legit question.

      Delete
    15. Portia from Chicago26 March 2014 at 15:43

      Pauline - if even Charlotte is questionning their work ethic can you imagine how bad things must have become? I know it is tempting to keep giving them the benefit of the doubt and make excuses, but at some point that gets into 'worship' territory, which one may argue constitues irrational belief.

      Delete
    16. Portia from Chicago26 March 2014 at 15:48

      As for Kate boosting the clothing industry - she boosts as much as any celebrity out there. I hate to actually type out the name but the K's - (you know who I mean) have the same effect here among a certain demography. Jennifer Garner has the same effect among soccer moms - maybe you are not aware but she is a goddess among Midwestern Reddit/Reg magazine readers. Michelle Obama has a similar ( but not quite as much) effect on professional women - unfortunately she does tend to wear an expensive wardrobe most can only dream of. I personally follow SamCam's style quite a bit and often emulate one or two of her outfits, and I know that many of my friends do the same. Heck, even the Bush girls and Malia and Sasha inspire women to dress their girls a certain way.
      The Kate effect is not really a 'kate' effect - it is simply a result of being in the public eye.

      Delete
    17. @Stephaine I guess you have not been a reader of this great blog long. This work thing everyone is in a up roar about is not new. It has been going on in the blog for almost 3 years or longer. If you have a chance go back and read from the beginnign of the blog and you will see this subject is not new. So that is why it is "like beating a dead horse in the mouth" It is an old topic.

      Delete
    18. Stephanie, what source(s) are you quoting as far as this protocol is concerned? Kate is not the first member of this RF to wear short skirts or high heels. And if she walks with or ahead of William, then kudos to him. Regarding curtseying to the Queen, I know my knees would be shaking and I'd probably fall over so perhaps we could give her a compassionate passing grade on that one.

      Delete
    19. Stephanie. 02:43. Did you just compare Charlotte's blog to Tumbler? Yikes. Wonderful site, huh?

      Delete
    20. Anon 3:17, no I did not compare Charlotte's wonderful blog to tumblr, someone asked where I know about royal protocol from and I referred them to someone who studies the monarchy a great deal and has for years.

      Delete
    21. Agree Pauline and Royalfan. And just because a certain behaviour is happening, doesn't mean it needs to be pointed out in the manner of the "royal expert". I'm sure Catherine is learning and improving. Why judge and be so aggro about it anyway?

      Delete
  30. I do feel like the lack of engagements has something to do with Charles. He didn't like being overshadowed by his own wife, I can't imagine he likes being overshadowed by his son's wife. W&K have to know that public sentiment is not all happy with them at the moment, I've heard many say that Charles isn't looking so bad after all. I think that's exactly what Charles wants.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bluhare in Washington State25 March 2014 at 22:29

      His son's wife is not overshadowing him.

      Funny Charles doesn't mind Harry going out and doing engagements.

      Delete
    2. That's not how the monarchy works, and if Kate and William had initiative and drive, they would take it upon themselves to represent their patronages more. They don't need permission to do more.

      Delete
    3. bluhare, just might add that Harry- and we all love him- isnt breathing down Prince Charles's neck in the queue to the throne

      Delete
    4. bluhare, as popular and "hot" (lol) as Harry is, it's unlikely that he will be king. He does not represent quite the same competition (for the spotlight) as William who also happens to have an attractive young wife and a new baby.

      Stephanie, I think the way the monarchy works is that members of the Firm are not to step on toes of higher rank.

      Delete
    5. Royalfan- as bluhare would say, "Get outta my .head!"

      Delete
    6. I entirely understand royalfan :) My issue, as it is for others, is that Kate and Will have consistently undertaken less than most, not just those above them. This isn't opinion, this is stats.

      Delete
    7. bluhare in Washington State26 March 2014 at 03:01

      Whether Harry is going to be King is immaterial, IMO. Overshadowed is overshadowed, and future employment doesn't have anything to do with it. Harry could just as easily overshadow Charles by being out there, and it doesn't matter if he won't be King. It would still make Charles look ineffective, right? I'd also argue that of the two of them, Harry actually has the most potential to overshadow Charles, not William.

      Delete
    8. Jean from Lancs26 March 2014 at 12:30

      Bluhare,
      Between leaving the RAF and starting the course at Cambridge, Prince William did visit many of the farms in the Duchy and attended meetings with his father--- there were some pictures, but possibly not in the US.
      However glad to see you blogging--the mud slides in your State are so sad---but glad to see you were not involved.

      Delete
    9. Portia from Chicago26 March 2014 at 15:37

      To me the thing is, that I feel that some of the fans make excuses for William in a way that they never would for others. Say a friend of yours had a grown son, or a full-grown sibling of yours had come back home to live and mooch off your parents. Would you first hold the person accountable for their actions or the parents? Say someone's son turned out to be a thief and a robber of banks or a druggie- would you hold their parents responsible for their actions? Parents do try their best but ultimately the adult has to decide for himself/herself.
      To me the whole Charles-William debate seems similar. William is taking certain actions, and instead of taking them for what they are, some of us are attributing an intent to his father. Unless there is sufficient proof (and perhaps Charlotte has some proof - don't know !) why would we assume that William as an almost 32 year old is being dictated to by his father ? I am still open to believing otherwise - I am completely open to believing that Charles is manipulating them. Maybe royalfan has been right all along.. but the evidence seems to not be there. It is still a conspiracy so far.

      Delete
    10. After reading all these comments- and by the way there is certainly a ton of information here, I have to say I think Charles is behind a lot of the manipulation of W&K. More and more we see the Duchess of Cornwall- and Charles for that matter- front and center- almost daily....I don't recall seeing them out and about like they have been and also as we all know, his PR folks are taking care of all of the PR for W & K and Harry. I have to say I very much enjoyed reading YANKEE from California, Yankee you were right on target. I hope I read more posts from you.

      Delete
    11. Portia, I am a firm believer in personal accountability (trust me on that one) and I am not making excuses for William (or Kate); I simply offer possible, perhaps even plausible, reasons for their actions/decisions. You seem to suggest that William, at almost 32, is a free agent, but I beg to differ. Charles is 65 and I'm sure he would do many things differently if he was in a position to do so. But as long as the Queen is alive, he will not have complete control over his life and goals. Some people even believe that he waited to marry Camilla until after the Queen Mother died, and he was close to 60 at that point. There is so much protocol within the royal firm that it must feel both maddening and laughable at the same time.

      The royals cannot afford another Diana-like eclipse (and this one would include William); certainly not at this time when Charles is continuing on the long, and expensive, path to have Camilla crowned at his side. As others have pointed out, William and Kate have many years ahead of them to do a job from which one does not retire. It may be difficult to imagine right now, but most likely this period of time on W&K's royal resume will be a faint hiccup when historians look back and add a chapter to the history of the BRF. I strongly believe that right now the focus must remain on C&C as they become increasingly active, while the Queen and PP slow down.

      Having said that, would I like to see more of W&K? Absolutely. And certainly in the short term the current strategy isn't doing them any favors. But I just don't buy into the idea that they are lazy or refuse to do royal duties. Personally, I believe William's frustration is based on the restrictions of his role, and not an unwillingness to work. As I stated earlier, he could have chosen a much easier, and safer, occupation than flying a rescue helicopter.

      Delete
    12. Portia from Chicago27 March 2014 at 03:20

      royalfan - well, color me surprised but I do see your point ! I hear you on the restrictions. As I said, I am agnostic to a certain extent. I think that it will become clearer with time as to what is going on. I can see that William's frustration with the constraints getting in the way - that can be a plausible explanation as well.

      Delete
    13. bluhare in Washington State27 March 2014 at 03:24

      Thank you, Jean. You're right; those photos don't make it over here. And good news. I start a new job next week so I won't be posting as often.

      Delete
  31. In case anyone wants to prepare for the royal visit and learn lots about NZ, I recommend:
    http://www.newzealand.com/int/
    Have fun!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bluhare in Washington State25 March 2014 at 22:27

      You are a great ambassador for your country Anna. I'm going to go look at your link right now.

      Delete
    2. bluhare in Washington State25 March 2014 at 23:01

      I did, and while I am not exactly a Tolkien fan, I can seriously see myself on that beach right underneath the Middle Earth bit!!!

      Delete
    3. Thank-you, Anna for the link. And. It is so nice to have a name I can associate with specific ideas and background

      Delete
    4. : ) Glad you like it! Yes, our beaches are breathtaking and in my opinion all Duchess Kate reader deserve to be treated to a trip to NZ. This country has everything you can possibly wish for, except hobbits. But then, who needs hobbits?! I live in central Auckland and a 30 minute drive takes me to deserted beaches and native rainforest.

      Delete
    5. We went to NZ for our honeymoon (nearly 30 years ago) and I thought it was one of the most beautiful places I had ever seen. It's definitely on our list to go back when we retire!
      Lovely country, and warm, friendly people.

      Delete
  32. Yankee in California26 March 2014 at 00:50

    I have never commented on this or any other blog but I suppose now is my time. I am mystified by commenters who continue to post such critical opinions on this blog, whose main purpose is to highlight the DOC's fashion. That's why I love it but I have learned a lot reading so many of your comments on other issues. I typically appreciate the debate about whether or not the Cambridges are earning their keep, but it's been too much for me lately.

    William should absolutely be educating himself on his future responsibilities. That should continue in some form until those responsibilities arrive. If that is by shadowing his father, attending Cambridge or in some other form and it furthers his knowledge, good for him. Had he not been active military since university, I could understand some of the criticism, but he was serving his country during that time. Did he vacation, too? Of course. Most people do, too. That's an area of contention I simply don't understand. I wish I could travel like they do, but I do the best I can -- whenever I can.

    Is an overseas tour all fun? I seriously doubt it. I once travelled for work to England from California, felt fine until day three when jetlag really hit and I can't imagine doing that under a microscope. One morning, we flew from London to Dublin for a late-morning meeting, then walked around Trinity College and a half-pin to f Guinness in the Temple Bar District until our afternoon return flight. Absolute fun aside from my feet that were thrashed from walking over cobblestones in my 2-inch heels. Bad choice on my part, but I hadn't spent any time in that environment before. I'm sure the DOC has help preventing stupid choices like mine, but it's a real issue. My long-winded point is, I was on a fantasticly fun, work-packed 10-day trip, completely exhausted by the end, and a little chewed up! Three weeks of a schedule like the Cambridges' planned itinerary IS work and I doubt most of us would want to do it under the media glare and criticism they are used to experiencing.

    Being the heir to the heir is a perfect reason for them to take some time to properly prepare themselves and their son for what is to come someday. I have no doubt they will get there when the time is right. I would absolutely love to see more of them, but I remember the chase of Diana, even before it turned tragic, and I would like to think we learned to appreciate the Royal Family's need of some privacy and normality. I think it is perfectly acceptable for them to take this time with their son. Judging the amount of time they may or may not be spending with their son is fruitless and none of us have any idea what the truth is there. Some employ nannies to take over, others to help. How would any of us be able to call her full-time or part-time at anything she does and really, what is the point of that?

    The Cambridges will never retire. The world will get to see them more and more over time. Personally, I would rather not see much of them while they have small children and have the benefit of generations of future world leaders who are well-adjusted and ready to contribute in a way most of us couldn't imagine.

    Apologies if I've offended anyone. Charlotte, thank you for the wonderful job you do. I look forward to each post!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said!! I agree with everything you said.

      Delete
    2. I was under the impression that What Kate Wore was mainly about Kate's fashion, and this blog was about many things related to Kate - which is why Charlotte covers different topics.
      However, I understand the confusion, as Kate is primarily known for what she wears, and that is mostly what is covered - for obvious reasons.

      Perhaps this isn't the place for those that are currently so very disappointed in Kate (and Wills) but who appreciate solely her style. I do sincerely hope Kate and Wills learn from their mistakes - I do like them and wish them to do well and hope someone hears the complaints of the people and guides them to make better choices.

      Thank you Charlotte for all your hard work - you do run one of the best blogs I have ever seen.

      Delete
    3. bluhare in washington state26 March 2014 at 04:10

      I hope this doesn't mean you're leaving Stephanie. I like your posts and the fact we tend to see eye to eye has absolutely nothing to do with it!

      Delete
    4. Stephanie: Are you two people? If what you say about TRH is an expression of your liking someone, I shudder to think of what you would say about someone you do not like

      Delete
    5. Stephanie: On second thought, to add. to a post that isn't printed yet, if you write letters about a cause you care about, that is more than I do. Unless one can count this bl o g, which I doubt. You do seem sincere and I have to respect that , although I don't always agree with you.

      Delete
    6. Anyone can use whatever name they like when they post. I think people who call themselves Royal Highness and expect people to curtsy to them is shameful and it smacks of bullying. Not to mention taking funds away from citizens, when the "royal family" is quite wealthy.

      Delete
    7. Yankee in California, there isn't any fashion to highlight at the moment...the duchess hasn't been seen in a while. When we do get to see her, she iis almost always wearing something recycled (already worn three or four times) everybody is supporting the blog in a duchess Kate drought. What else would you suggest we discuss?

      Delete
    8. Thanks bluhare! No, I like Charlotte's blog and all of you. I think I will simply try to lay off for a bit. I will continue to be critical, but perhaps I don't need to voice every thought. My intention was never to irritate people here.

      RNNOKC, I am not two people haha but, I suppose I could be hey! But no, I promise I do not post under anon or another name :)
      What I say about TRH is an expression of how I like someone, it is an expression of critical thought. I do like them though, and want them to do well. I think they could really, really improve, and I suppose that I am simply getting irritated by some of their actions.

      About someone I do not like? I rarely actually dislike people. And when I sincerely dislike them, I simply don't allow them to be present in my life.

      Delete
    9. Portia from Chicago26 March 2014 at 15:40

      RNNOKC - I hope that you will refrain from getting so personal with people in the future. There is an unwritten rule here - we don't use innuendos, we don't talk in riddles, we don't attack or demean people for their opinion. This is largely a sensible and respectful place where professional women come to take a break from their daily lives. I hope you will join us in keeping the blog nice and clean, honest and to some degree transparent.

      Delete
    10. me too I agree with everything you said Yankee

      Delete
    11. bluhare in Washington State26 March 2014 at 23:24

      Stephanie, I don't know if you saw when I went through when I first started posting here, but this is nothing. Please keep posting. You don't venture into hyperbole and state your case. I would like to see more of your posts, not fewer. Besides, I'm looking for a partner to tag team royalfan with!!!

      Delete
    12. @Portia I thought this blog belonged to Charlotte not you. If Charlotte did not like her post that she would not have posted the comment.

      Delete
    13. @Stephaine 15:00 I have been accused of being someone I was not. So don't feel bad.

      Delete
    14. Portia, I can't provide statistics because most people check their personal resumes at the door, but I think Charlotte's blog has a much wider appeal than you suggest. (And that's a good thing! :) I've read comments from teenagers, college students, stay-at-home moms, grandmothers, and even a couple of very brave gentlemen. :)

      Delete
    15. Portia from Chicago27 March 2014 at 03:32

      royalfan - again, I agree with you. Yes, it was stupid of me to draw such a narrow boundary like that. And I love this little community we have going here. Well, almost all of it :)

      Delete
  33. Eureka! I have figured out why some persist in going by "anonymous;" that way one can post as many times as one desires, without looking like a blog-hog. Which I am dangerously close to becoming, but at least everyone knows who to blame.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But then, one could post under many different names if one doesn't want to look like a blog-hog. One could create as many different identities as one decides to. All just made up. Who would know? There are no limitations, are there. Strange thought - I need to stop - it's getting weird.

      Delete
    2. Portia from Chicago26 March 2014 at 15:30

      Anna - yes I have noticed a few new people joining simultaneoulsy and posting profusely. For example RNNOKC and acrossthepond seem to have joined at the same time, sound the same, and even make the same typos !

      Delete
    3. I believe a few post back you stated that I was someone I was not. So please be careful on this blog of accussing people of someone they might not be unless you know for sure. It is not nice!!!

      Delete
    4. Jennifer from Wisconsin27 March 2014 at 02:21

      I pledge to only post as myself or bluhare or royalfan or Pauline. Maybe Portia, oh heck, why not Kate herself. Wills might be fun... Seriously folks, let's not start that mess. I highly doubt someone posts under more than one name. That's ridiculous. Depending on whether I use my phone or my computer, my auto correct changes what I intended to say and how it is said enough.

      Delete
    5. Jennifer from Wisconsin27 March 2014 at 02:26

      Again, without all of the people on here, it would not be nearly as much fun. Now, back to Real Estate again, mumble, mumble....

      Delete
  34. Many good points Yankee! I have also been thinking about how they will not retire in their 60's, travel around the country in a caravan and visit the grand kids.. They will in fact be stepping up the schedule at that age, as Charles will no doubt rule for a long time yet. So no their lives are not like our lives at all. I think continuous education is the key for the royals to keep informed and the tour down under will be wonderful for us arm chair viewers (thanks Pauline) but I have no doubt jet lag will kick in and they will as always maintain composure. Unlike myself who got jetlag between Orlando and LA and was sick all the way back to Auckland. I would never make it as a royal haha..

    ReplyDelete
  35. Great post, Yankee. Thank you for this. And thanks again Charlotte for all your hard work. Your blog is always a delight to read. Lee from Canada

    ReplyDelete
  36. Yankee, Well said! There are details of the Cambridge's life that we will never know, not should we.
    I am new on this, also my first blog effort; however, some remarks about the family seem unkind. and I was initially quite shocked about the apparent personal anomosity some demonstrate. toward the Cambridges, as though they had actually met and interacted with them.
    Maybe a bit of projecting going on?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps people are annoyed about having to give a wealthy family some of their hard earned money, especially when the economy stinks. I can see how that would create personal animosity.

      Delete
  37. Charlotte - I compliment your ability to fill the void of engagements with interesting reading! Perhaps the addition of a nanny will allow Kate more time to get more involved in the community going forward. Thanks for sharing the stats on royal engagements last year by the 30 year olds. I'll never be convinced that what the royal family does is "work" by any standard of the definition, but they can be useful to the community when they choose to be. One thing I am interested in learning more about - I am not quite sure why the British taxpayers foot the bill for security for royal foreign travel that is not official business. Such as the security recently needed for the Maldives vacation and Harry's trip to Kazakhstan. Why doesn't the wealthy royal family reimburse the taxpayer cost for such trips? Surely, that would lessen the flack they get as this travel would then really be no one's business but their own. Are there even established limits on such taxpayer supported travel? Does the crown have to report out on this stuff? I'm not suggesting you do all this research for this blog, which is intended to be about fashion and reporting on Kate's appearances -- it's just stuff I got to thinking about during the lull in activity. Perhaps some of the readers know the answers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bluhare in Washington State26 March 2014 at 23:26

      On the private vacations, it's the protection officers that cost the most money. I'm not sure how to get around that, unless they royal would have to pay for RPO's who have to travel and be away from home for a certain period of time. Not a bad idea, and I imagine the bill would be staggering!

      Delete
  38. RNacrossandover26 March 2014 at 19:36

    My final thought: Saying. (writing) something over and over again doesn't make it true. It is called propaganda and families, governments, and nations have been toppled by it. And sometimes it backfires.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm curious....what was your original thought?

      Delete
    2. Royalfan. Seriously? lol

      Delete
  39. Bluhare I enjoy your dry humour and banter with other posters. We all see the world through our own frame and when I think about William and his Cambridge course I come to a very different conclusion to you so I’ll try to explain why. There’s a bigger picture here. For a start William’s course was announced not long after the UK Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC) released its 25th report on the Duchy of Cornwall in mid November. IMO this was not coincidence. The PAC is one of the most powerful Committees of the UK House of Commons as it has oversight of Government financial administration, the Auditor-General reports to it and it’s highly respected and influential in the media.

    The PAC reviews the finances of the Duchy of Cornwall because they are managed under a Memorandum of Understanding between the Duchy and the UK Treasury Department. Under UK law the role of the Treasury is to safeguard the capital of the estate for future heirs. If the recommendations of the latest PAC report on the Duchy of Cornwall are accepted then management of the estate is going to become more not less complicated.

    The mantra in both the government and private sectors is ‘continuous training’ to keep pace with changes in best practice, technology and legislation so you’d expect William to be doing courses to prepare him to take over the Duchy. Anything less might well draw adverse comment from the Parliament.

    I’m a freelance researcher so I hit the databases to test some of the themes that have emerged in the comments on this blog over the last few weeks. I thought I’d share what I’ve found so far.

    There’s been some angst about whether the Maldives trip would cause a backlash in the UK and Commonwealth countries. As I live in a Commonwealth country – Australia - I looked at media monitoring reports (which include stories that are trending on social media) for the period from the time the trip hit the press to now to test the impact of the Maldives holiday. It didn’t register here at all. People are just looking forward to the tour.

    There have been comments about the Cambridges and their work ethic and the risk of fuelling republican sentiment. The poll data for the UK shows that in the period 1980 to 2013 support for a republic has never risen above 20 percent despite major scandals in the RF. In fact what the data shows is that while support for the monarchy has bounced around it has proven pretty resilient. In 2013 support for a republic in the UK was at 17%.

    There are people commenting here who have a deep nostalgia and sentiment for Diana. She was a remarkable woman but her impact on the RF was not all positive. The poll data shows that support for the monarchy was lowest in the UK in 1992 (annus horribilis) and 1997 (after Diana’s death). Diana’s bruising public standoff with Charles as their marriage disintegrated played a major part in bringing about the ‘annus horribilis’.

    Public support for William was last polled and published in 2012 – at that time his popularity was higher than Diana’s at any time in her life. This fact was commented on from the BBC to the tabloids and in social media. He’s young so over time his popularity ratings are going to go up and down just like those of Diana and other members of the RF have done.

    The data shows that the Duchess of Cambridge is by far the most popular royal among 18-24 year olds in the UK. This is important because this demographic represents the future.

    Take care everyone – and to our US friends we’re thinking of you as the terrible tragedy unfolds in Washington State




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is a fantastic post, thank you Bluewren.

      Delete
    2. Bluewren. Thank-you so much for caring enough about Charlotte and her blog to instill a bit of reality in this blog that had become like a snowball rolling down the hill, growing larger and gathering twigs and rocks along the way.
      Unfortunately, some on the site do not appreciate being confused by the facts.
      I am a faithful reader of ABC Aus and "The Drum " .You sound like one of the fact-checkers there.
      My family are in NSW, but I think I am more excited by the coming tour than they are.
      expat aussie

      Delete
    3. bluhare in Washington State27 March 2014 at 03:19

      Bluewren (why do I like your name so much . . . .hmmm), thank you for that very informative post. I will look up that report and take a look. Sounds like it might be good bedtime reading when I've got insomnia issues too. Nothing like having to slog through government documents; I used to have to interpret them for clients!

      And thank you for thinking of me (and everyone else who has mentioned it). This slide is the worst I've ever seen around here, but I am nowhere near it. It is in a fairly isolated area, which is good as the death toll would have been huge if it were populated. Life goes on, but I think all of us are looking at the hill we either live on or look up at!

      Delete
    4. bluhare. What a gracious response!

      Delete

Comments are most welcome! Constructive discussion is always encouraged but off topic or hateful remarks will not be published. If you wish to share your name and where you're from without using the sign in options, simply select the "Name/URL" option on the drop down menu and insert your name, and if you wish the country/state you're from. You can leave the URL blank.

If there are a large number of comments, it is necessary to click the 'Load More' button at the end of the comments section to see the latest additions.