Tuesday, 3 February 2015

The Cambridges Photographed on Mustique Holiday

As expected, photos from the Cambridges annual holiday on Mustique have been published. In a selection of photos Prince William is seen relaxing on the beach with James, Pippa and Michael Middleton while Kate was photographed taking a beach stroll with Prince George and their nanny, Maria Teresa.

See the photos at NY Daily News (they have been exclusively obtained by the news outlet, obviously we are aware our readership has divisive opinion on paparazzi shots, however, I thought it appropriate to share a link for those who wish to view).

Wikipedia

There are several interesting talking points from the photos beginning with news their nanny, Maria Teresa, accompanied the group this year. The media reported she would not be joining the family this year, as a nanny didn't accompany them last year. Perhaps with Carole's birthday celebrations in the offing and with Kate expecting it was decided they needed her on board this year.


Speaking of Carole's "bash" over the weekend, there was considerable frustration from a very well known actor regarding the Daily Mail's reporting.

John Cleese Twitter Feed

I'm inclined to think a private family celebration may have been enjoyed on the Caribbean island as opposed to the ludicrously extravagant party complete with the snubbing of James's and Pippa's partners and Uncle Gary that was dreamed up by the press (and you all know how much the media loves a good Uncle Gary story :)) I understand the Middletons tend to opt for intimate, relaxed and informal celebrations. Perhaps a delicious meal with fine wine with a view like this?

Villa Rocina

More from the NY Daily News story:

'Photos of the clan showed Pippa, brother James, 27, and Prince William smiling and clutching snorkelling gear while picking their way across the sand at one of the West Indian island's famous beaches, which are renowned for their coral reefs.
 Middleton pa Michael was also along for the excursion, embracing a laid-back look in a rumpled Oxford, board shorts and some smart-looking boat shoes.
Kate, who is six months pregnant, and Prince George apparently didn't make it to the beach hang, but were spotted separately taking a sunny stroll together.'

A look at the stunning Villa Rocina where the family are believed to be staying.

Villa Rocina

William and Kate have previously been spotted at the island's hot spot - Basil's Bar. The bar's owner Basil Charles was a guest at the couple's wedding in 2011.

Basil's Bar

It is known for excellent cocktails, delicious seafood and the annual blues festival, which is currently underway. The Cambridges and the Middletons can relax here and I imagine they more than likely paid a visit over the past week.

Basil's Bar

In the photos which feature Kate you may have noticed the Duchess walking past a very popular beachwear store - the Lotty B Mustique Pink House which brings us to what Kate wore.


Ashley Marie ( @livelovelaughr) quickly identified Kate's dress as the Lotty B Shirt Dress. The shell blue crepe-de-chine silk piece is currently reduced from £302 to £108.

Lotty B

More from the product description:

'Featuring a bold pattern of seashell –skeletons, the beautifully tailored, above the knee shirtdress provides easy, but elegant fashion with a button-up front, a v-neck opening, mandarin collar and 3/4 length slim-fit sleeves with a narrow cuff.'

The Duchess is obviously enjoying a spot of retail therapy during her holiday. The brand opened their gingerbread-style boutique on the Island in 2008, The Pink House combines the talents of local craftsmen and women with top quality imported materials to produce beautiful clothing and accessories, creating a unique shopping experience whilst supporting the local community.

Lotty B Facebook Page

Below we see four styles from the brand all of which are available at Selfridges.

Selfridges

Kate carried an Anya Hindmarch beach tote she's had for several years.

Anya Hindmatch / @livelovelaughr

And completed the look with flats sandals and a panama hat by Lotty B (you can see it in the photo of the store above, with thanks to Blair). There's a selection of fabulous Repli-Kate's available at Nordstrom including the Vince Camuto Straw Panama Hat and the Straw Panama Hat.

Nordstrom

It looks like the family are all having a splendid time and according to reports adorable George is enjoying swimming lessons. We'll update with links should other photos emerge.

************

Also today, the very popular Kenneth Jay Lane earrings Kate wore in New York have been re-released.


Renamed The Duchess Clover Earrings - the clover drop earrings set in rhodium-plated brass are now available for $175. A stunning addition to any collection.

Kenneth Jay Lane

As promised, we'll be back with a 'Kate Loves' next!

220 comments:

  1. Finally!

    While people of their class/lifestyle have nannies (or more than one nanny), I understand it's a way of life for them. I also understand the perks on vacation, especially for the days the Middleton's weren't there yet. W&K could have had a night/day alone, for some important couple time. Or an adult-only night for Carole's birthday dinner. BUT I still find it a bit distasteful on a family vacation.

    Thanks for the speedy post!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rebecca - Sweden3 February 2015 at 02:00

      Distasteful with a nanny? Huh? I know for a lot of nannys for rich people, getting to go on trips like these are kind of a selling point. It might be that she doesn't enjoy it but I highly doubt she would work more than legal limits meaning she has had time off before and gets to go to mystique. And she is not allowed to work the full 2 weeks any ways meaning she gets vacation time there.

      Delete
    2. William was extremely close to his nanny's and it is likely George and the entire family consider Maria as part of the family. This trip is probably a holiday for Maria as well. Think its fantastic that she got to go.

      Delete
    3. I was acknowledging that it is "normal" for people in their position. I just think it would be nice to see them function as a normal family on family vacation.

      Didn't know their nanny would get so much time off to compensate for a long trip. Sounds like a decent balance and fun perk for her!

      Delete
    4. Sarah from Calif.3 February 2015 at 02:49

      Heck, I'll be the Nanny for George at the beach. Those are some of my most precious times with my boys at the beach on the Central Coast of California. Sounds like a great job to me!!!!

      Delete
    5. Sarah from Calif.3 February 2015 at 02:51

      P.S. hope they are all having a relaxing time with their families!

      Delete
    6. Really, really, really so tired of women judging the parenting and childcare decisions of other women. It is so unkind.

      Delete
    7. Maggie - Minneapolis3 February 2015 at 05:26

      Many people do indeed take nannies on vacation with them. It's not something I could ever imagine doing, having grown up in a family where all vacations were very family-oriented, rather than couple-oriented. But many people do it. Although most people I know that bring a nanny or babysitter along on vacation are people who don't have full-time nannies to begin with, and so prefer to take someone to watch the kids along on vacation so that they can get some much-needed private time with their spouse. But these people also aren't incredibly rich. And, Mustique doesn't seem like a very kid-friendly vacation spot. George isn't going to want to just sit around on the beach, or go to the bar/restaurant. For Kate and William to enjoy the perks of Mustique, it doesn't surprise me that they need a nanny. Kate probably managed last year because George wasn't mobile yet, and probably could be entertained more easily as well.
      I do find it interesting that Kate seems to take the nanny along often on "basic" outings. In this case, for a stroll on the island. She also took the nanny for the swim on George's birthday. They also took the nanny to Balmoral for that little break right after her HG subsided. I get wanting the nanny for the Mustique trip in general, but why for a walk that Kate is already going on herself? But who knows. It's possible that Kate wanted to walk with George to a certain location, like the restaurant, but then did not want George to stay there, so brought along the nanny to take him back. I'm sure a lot of mothers wish for the ability to do that.
      Rebecca - I agree with your point, but also, I hope the nanny doesn't have to use her own vacation time when they aren't using her in Mustique. It's not like she has the option to leave and come back. And while Mustique looks luxurious and enjoyable, I'm not sure it's much of a "vacation" for the nanny, even when she's not watching George. It's a pretty secluded island, and I doubt she has friends there. For me, at least, staying at my family's house is more of a vacation than sitting around lonely on a secluded island built for extremely rich people.
      Lastly, and this is not at all judgment on Kate because she is a living a lifestyle that many lead (and has every right to do so given William's great financial situation), but I hope this puts an end to the talk that Kate is raising her child like most middle-class mothers, or that she faces the same worries that all other mothers do. I'm sure she is very hands-on. And I'm sure she doesn't use the nanny all the time. But just having the OPTION of a nanny already makes her life much easier than everyone else's. When she is planning for things, she doesn't have the worry of what to do with her toddler. She can go on a luxurious vacation and take the nanny with her so that she can enjoy the adult things on the trip without having to worry about George being bored. Again, this isn't judgment. Just think it is interesting that so many on this blog spin Kate to be just like any other mother, when she really isn't (and that's not a bad thing).

      Delete
    8. Very middle class friends of mine with a business employed a nanny for their four children. As they were a couple with time shares who loved travel, they took the nanny with them on family vacations. Actually, it was better for the children who were accustomed to having nanny present. She put them through their regular bedtime routines while mom and dad enjoyed a little couple time in the evenings.

      Nanny was given proper time (hours and days) off according to her contract and the length of the vacation. During off hours she could freely enjoy the amenities of where she was working. But it was not a holiday for her. She was working, though some might find that more gratifying work than other jobs. But nanny isn't free to do as she pleases or go where she wants when she wants.

      I don't understand why taking a nanny along is distasteful or where that parochial kind of thinking comes from. It's less distasteful than taking granny along, letting her 'babysit' the kids and not paying her. Nanny is an integral part of the family even though she is not related by blood. It's an interdependent relationship that's anything but distasteful. What is distasteful about employing a person in a very good job with excellent benefits?

      Delete
    9. Just to put my two cents in.
      I'm an only child, and had a nanny up until the time that I graduated high school.
      My parents and I went on family holidays every year and my nanny accompanied us almost every time.
      I enjoyed having her there because I was so used to her being a part of my daily routine that it was weird when she wasn't around.
      She also enjoyed going and have a fun time as well.
      I can see peoples point though about how its odd that she's there, but when you have someone that's basically been with you for your whole life you begin to think of them as family.
      Even though my nanny retired, I as well as my family still keep in contact with her, she came to a birthday party my parents threw for me last year.
      So I'm guessing that George feels very attached to her, and misses her terribly when she's not around. He may even be more accustomed to her being his primary care giver rather than Kate especially with her being sick with HG.
      Now before people jump down my throat ago what I just said, I said that he MAY be accustomed to her, not that he is, and not that I'm accusing Kate of not taking care of George, because it's obvious that she does.
      I also agree with Maggie that people can put an end to the "Kate is just a regular mom like everyone else who always takes care of her child" she has help nothing wrong with it, but it would be naive to think she does it all on her own.

      Delete
    10. Maggie - Minneapolis3 February 2015 at 09:04

      Kate and William have every right to take a nanny along, although their situation is a little different than full-time working parents taking a nanny on vacation, since a vacation may be the only opportunity for full-time working parents to get alone-time and free-time, whereas Kate and William seem to have more opportunity for that than most. I grew up in a family that had a lot of money, but would have shuddered at the idea of bringing a nanny along on a family vacation. But my family is also one in which the children are much more the focus than the relationship of the parents. My parents could never imagine taking a vacation without me, and they could never imagine taking a vacation with me and then doing something without me. But that's just the way they are, and the way they were brought up. So, I can see how some may consider it "distasteful" to bring a nanny on a vacation. Maybe not distasteful, but just not in keeping with the sense of it being a FAMILY vacation. But, not everyone thinks this way. And there is in fact some new literature about how the focus on children to the detriment of the parents' relationship can often be bad for the family. And, like I said earlier, they're probably doing George a favor by bringing his nanny, given that much of Mustique's attractions are not meant for 1-year olds. This way, he can be kept entertained while they get full value out of the trip. Really, I wish they would vacation somewhere else. There are so many places George could have a fabulous time (especially since I doubt that he really values the swimming at Mustique any more than the swimming at Buckingham). But I understand their need for privacy, although clearly even Mustique trips cannot avoid pictures. And, at other locations, George will meet people other than the richest, and that's important too. But I don't blame them for valuing privacy and safety in order to have a relaxing vacation. But how cool would it be if William and Kate, and the Middletons, showed up one day at Disney in Paris with George?

      Delete
    11. Rebecca - Sweden3 February 2015 at 10:55

      Oh no, I did not mean that it would be her vacation-time there!! Just that she won't be allowed to be on the clock for the full vacation.

      Delete
    12. Maggie, we see Kate with the nanny in the picture. It's not like Maria is doing it all, for what we can see and you're commenting on.

      Also, you don't need to be a future Queen to have a nanny, honestly.

      And: we know they're rich. Nothing has changed evidence-wise.

      Camilla

      Delete
    13. My mother worked for some millionaires as a nanny
      and she went with them on holiday - to take care of their small daughter while they relaxed.

      Delete
    14. As for Kate taking the nanny along on basic outings, remember this nanny also has special security training. Perhaps Kate feels safer with her along.

      Delete
    15. Lynn Georgia USA3 February 2015 at 15:15

      Kate and Maria obviously have full beach bags. I think that they have a destination in mind, that this is not just a stroll on the beach.

      RE: The nanny--I don't think taking her on the trip should be such a big deal for critics or fans of the Cambridges. I always took our teenage babysitter along on our beach trips when my daughter was small. Otherwise, I didn't have time to read even one chapter of my book while on "vacation." You can't take your eyes off a toddler on the beach or around a pool! We took turns watching--and we gave the teenager plenty of "off" time. She loved our beach trips!

      Furthermore, I think we need to get over the penchant for trying to make Kate one of us. I don't think the Cambridges really try to communicate the ORDINARY FOLKS image. That's OUR dream--and the press often tries to foster that hope. Let's face it: Kate and William are not ordinary folks--and setting them up to be something they are not is unfair to them. Such an expectation results in disappointment for fans and naysaying among critics.



      Delete
    16. Philly, I think it's because most people could never dream of affording a nanny, let alone paying for one extra person on a trip to watch the children. It makes it seem very posh and different from how most people live.

      Delete
    17. One of my close friends is a nanny (albeit, in the US, and not for royalty), and she almost always accompanies the family on vacation. It's not as though the family can't function without her--she's part of the family, and they enjoy having her along (and she enjoys having a fabulous trip paid for by her employers).

      She's on the clock, of course, so she can't just up and do whatever she pleases as she might on a normal vacation, but in her situation they actually pay her the equivalent of overtime since she's normally a day-nanny and doesn't live with the family. Rest assured, Nanny Maria's being compensated for this trip, whether it's part of her contract or with compensatory vacation days.

      Delete
    18. I don't understand the fuss over the nanny. Traditionally, royals travel with an entourage so what is the problem with W&K including the nanny so she can be there to help out? I have always believed that Kate tries to be as hands on as possible, but they have a nanny to help out as needed. Sometimes more, sometimes less.

      My friend's daughter is a nanny for a wealthy couple and she has a three bedroom cottage on the grounds of their estate, her own villa when they travel to the Caribbean, etc. And these are not uninvolved parents, but they can afford to employ her and she is there when they need her. Trust me, she loves her job. :)

      Delete
  2. I think everyone needs to know when to give this family privacy and this holiday is one of them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed....but it comes with the territory. George is also the least seen future king of England. Many believe W&K are doing him a disservice by keeping him from the public so much.

      These kind of photos also work to their advantage. We get to see them being "normal". We get to see George walking. We get to see William enjoying time with his in-laws. These are valuable, and invaluable, peeks into their life that we need and they need to stay popular.

      Delete
    2. Baloney... he is not the least seen future king. We are so saturated with constant photos in this day and age that you are thinking you are being cheated.

      Delete
    3. Anon says: George is also the least seen future king of England. Compared to whom? Charles or William?Edward VII or VIII? George V or VI? When did people see them? Charles and William have had decades to be seen. How do you compare that?

      So far Prince George is the only future king of England to be a baby/toddler in the Internet age with it's ubiquitous liking and clicking and often dubious viral trends.

      I suspect that we do him a disservice through our insatiable need to see him. Why do we need to compulsively peep into anyone's life? Popularity is not based on visibility.Camilla doesn't get more popular if we see more of her. You can spin someone's image a bit with good PR, but you can't make someone popular. That's innate.

      Delete
    4. No he is the least seen future king...we last saw him in public in June 2014 at polo. I am very disappointed. The Swedish royals release photos of Princess Estelle on a much more regular (and controlled) basis. William is just plain mean.

      Delete
    5. Why, you don't think George walks when we're not looking?

      Camilla

      Delete
    6. I don't know, I can see if photographers are trying to sneak into their compound to take photos, that would be way out of line, but they are on a public beach or street in these photos, anyone with a phone could have taken some photos of them.

      Delete
    7. Scarf Addict, I think it's a bit over the top to call William "mean." While I agree with the way the Swedish royals include Estelle and she is growing up with an understanding (at her level) of what lies ahead, I also appreciate where William is coming from. I too would like to see more official photos released, but I get where he's coming from given his own experiences with the press. I don't see it as mean; I see it as protective (whether that's right or wrong in the end).

      Delete
    8. Sarah from Calif.4 February 2015 at 01:43

      royalfan,
      I agree.

      Delete
    9. Official George pictures in December, anyone?

      Camilla

      Delete
  3. Pippa has a beautiful figure. I love Kate's shirt dress it is perfect for a beach holiday. Baby George is so cute and big!

    ReplyDelete
  4. OHHH, to be there right now. :))) I'm glad they enjoyed a wonderful family vacation.

    After looking at the pictures, I can't help but wonder...didn't the unidentified lady have an urge to tug??? LOL.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She will feel it now, seeing herself in the pictures :)

      Camilla

      Delete
    2. The urge to tug. . .I certainly hope she did! But she didn't appear to care that she looked indecent. I considered whether she was Donna Air and then decided Donna is much more svelte and careful. There also seems to be an unidentified man in the pictures, maybe the uncle who is supposed to be in exile? The lady could be with him.

      I shouldn't be speculating about those pictures since I am sorry they have appeared. Intrusive and poor quality and mostly showing people's backs.

      Delete
    3. Intrusive? They were taken on the beach! Come on! This photo gate is just getting more and more ridiculous.

      Delete
    4. Sarah from Calif.4 February 2015 at 01:48

      Haha,
      Well whoever she is I hope she feels a little embarrassment :)
      ,a little mystery is a nice thing.

      Delete
    5. Someone took a rather close picture of me in an office waiting room one day, and did not explain why. I was puzzled. A newspaper photographer took my picture in a crowd on a public street one day when the President was visiting, and I thought nothing of it. The context of a photograph determines whether it is intrusive. I think these photos are. Only Pippa seemed aware of the photographer and posed appropriately. The rest were snapped more or less unaware and in somewhat awkward conditions. I do think it is about time for some released pictures of Prince George, though there were some before Christmas. But I don't see the point of these blurry snapshots.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous 3:13
      Pippa is ALWAYS aware when there's a photographer around lol. I'm not sure what to think about that.
      The "oh look at me I'm so causal cool" look when it's obvious she knows she's being photographed.
      I saw a pic of her a while of her where she was at a friends wedding and someone tried to take a pic of her, it looks like they were in the seats across from her on the other side of the aisle with their phone down low, and she still knew and was looking directly at the camera smiling. Lol.

      Delete
    7. I agree Blair, she likes cameras much more than Kate. I would also add if they released some photos here and there probably those candids wouldnt worth that much. Maybe the new pr guy will bring some sense to this people.

      Delete
  5. Hi, Charlotte,

    First-is that Carole Middleton in the pink bikini!!?? If so, she looks fantastic!!! Wow! If I looked like that, I would frame that photo. It would be the only present I would need for my 60th. Alas-I wouldn't look that good now, still shy of 6-0...sigh!-maybe it's not so bad to be in a cold climate with an excuse to wear lots of layers.

    I don't think these photos are intrusive. These people are very famous and must expect to be photographed at all times. It's a fact of life for them. The only person for whom I'd have an added degree of concern is George. The photos of him are quite ordinary in that he is obviously out and about in public. He is safely with adults and not being approached too closely. I think the Royals know that photos like this are expected from this vacation. If they "allow" them, they gain space in other places (on other vacations, when at the Middletons' house, in Norfolk, etc.).

    I had a nanny for many years. I was very much the exception to the rule in that I didn't ask mine to come along on vacations. Many of my friends with nannies always travelled with them. They went to the family vacation homes and away on trips with their families. I even knew families who would let their nannies take their charges back to their countries of origin (usually The Philippines) for their vacations. That was something I wasn't comfortable with at all. So bringing Nanny Maria along is not unusual at all. Also, George may want her to come at this point as he may need her as part of his world and not be happy without her.

    I also get the impression that Kate may be needing more help this time around. Whether she is more fatigued or feels ill (although she looks very well most of the time), she seems to be running a quieter schedule and arranging for more help for when the new baby arrives.

    Happy Groundhog Day!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello!

      I don't think it's Carole :) however I could be wrong.

      Delete
    2. I was told that the person in the red bathing suit was a friend named Katie Cecil. This was told to me by someone on Twitter.

      Delete
    3. Apropos "needing more help this time around", have you seen this article?
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2934883/Kate-Middleton-U-turn-maternity-nurse-opting-one-new-baby-sleepless-nights-Prince-George-took-toll.html

      Delete
    4. I did not have a nanny as a child even if we were very comfortable financially. My mother loved me enough to take care of me herself; didn't feel the need to dispense me to a contracted stranger when she was perfectly capable of looking after me, the house, the whole family herself. She still managed to be a woman, pursue her hobbies and have a healthy relationship with my father. Shocker!
      I don't think that the photos are intrusive, it's a public beach. If you don't want to be photographed stay home with the windows shut. If any other public person put on so much air about having their picture taken they would have been long branded a self-important idiot long time ago. Carole looks very good for her age although I think a two piece suit may be a bit too much after a certain age.

      Delete
  6. I don't agree that photos like this come with the territory; there needs to be SOMETHING, that is off limits; SOME privacy allowed. This was a private vacation; down time with the family. I'm not sure how exposed people think a toddler needs to be. They need to protect & raise their child as they see fit. And I don't see how it's doing HIM a disservice by not having photo ops all the time. Trust me, if they did THAT, they would get slammed for exploiting him. No matter what they do, they will get slammed.

    Yes, it's yummy to see George like this but I don't think they or he would lose any popularity if we didn't see these types of photos. It's obvious that they were taken without their knowledge or consent.

    As for Nanny Maria, most people who have nannies bring them on holiday; it's the norm & it is very likely that she had some quality down time while there. I think it was great that she got to go. I'd much rather that than being left behind. And I am sure she loves her job & that caring for George in sun & surf on a tropical island feels like a pretty good gig. xo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maggie - Minneapolis3 February 2015 at 08:52

      Honestly, as great as Mustique seems, if I was a nanny, I wouldn't want to go. Full-time nannies already have to give up so much of their personal lives in order to do their job. Maria probably spends a lot of time with the Cambridges. Even if Kate takes care of George most of the time, Maria still has to be "on call" for the most part, if it's like any other nanny-ing situation. Which also means she has to follow the Cambridges around to whatever residence they want to be in at the moment. She has to go to London, Norfolk, and Scotland on a rather regular basis. So if I were here, I'd rather go to my friends or family for two solid weeks of vacation time, rather than spend two weeks on a secluded island where I don't know anyone. And I'd certainly be more excited about accompanying a family on vacation if they went somewhere I really wanted to see or go. Mustique honestly isn't on that list. It seems gorgeous and relaxing, but that's about it. You can get great beaches and fantastic food in a lot of places. And other places also have many different types of interesting people, history, culture, etc. It's not just a bunch of rich people seeking privacy and exclusivity. I dunno, I'd just feel out of place as the nanny on Mustique. None of this is a reason for Kate and William not taking her. I just hesitate to call it at all a vacation for Nanny Maria, or even a pretty good gig.

      Delete
    2. Inside the premises is off the limits unless one of the guests takes pictures with his or her phone/camera.

      Outside is a different thing. Anyone can be photographed outside, no exceptions. That's why when Kate was photographer sunbathing topless on the balcony of that villa the paper published the pictures.

      Delete
    3. I doubt that Maria was the only nanny on the island. I'm not sure what the problem is there... And it's quite common for nannies to travel with the families they work for. Again, no surprises.

      Delete
  7. "The bar's owner Basil Charles was a guest at the couple's wedding in 2011."

    Ha, I'm starting to wonder if there is anyone who WASN'T invited to their wedding...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the Middletons wanted to thank people for their discretion. Thank those who allowed their family and William privacy. It's a kind gesture, and also really smart as it probably builds upon loyalty for the future. The Spar owners and Mustique bar owners have positively been involved in W&Ks life/relationship, it's just different than us "normal" people :-)

      Delete
    2. Rebecca - Sweden3 February 2015 at 10:59

      I guess they had to fill Kate's side of the list somehow :P

      Delete
  8. Maggie - Minneapolis3 February 2015 at 04:07

    I wish the pictures of Kate were as clear as pictures of the group swimming! As for whether or not the family deserves for pictures not to be posted - anyone can have pictures taken of them while on vacation, and there isn't much they can do about it. Do Kate and William have more pictures taken of them than most? Obviously yes, but I'm not sure why that means they deserve special treatment. The only time pictures are not okay are when they cause a danger to the subject, or harass the subject. The royal family and its millions of pounds in funding, free housing, and free security, are all dependent on public goodwill, which is dependent on being seen. I agree with the poster above who said that these pictures help their image. They are on a family vacation. They look to be having fun. It looks like they are just normal people on a beach, just like any of the rest of us could be. The only thing that the Cambridges should be unhappy about, image-wise, is that the nanny was seen in these pictures. That's definitely not going to help with their efforts to seem like any other normal family.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But Mustique is a private island and the pictures were taken by paparazzi, so no it is not like everyone else on vacation.

      Delete
    2. Why? Everybody knows they have a nanny.

      Also. Had she been seen with George alone, while Kate was sunbathing away, I may understand - though not share - a critique.
      But this? A 6-month pregnant woman would need some help with an active toddler, especially far from home, wouldn't she?

      Camilla

      Delete
    3. I thought the whole idea of monarchy was to NOT be like any other upper middle class family. It seems as if William isn't really cut out to be King. Harry, yes. But not William. And that basic inner conflict, in this day of "what;s in it for me?" is a major problem for him, one I doubt he will ever truly resolve.

      Delete
    4. Sarah from Calif.4 February 2015 at 02:00

      Anon. 14:23,
      That is a strange idea you have of Monarchy, well I suppose your not alone. Maybe outdated but, not alone.
      I think William is doing a splendid job of being a Husband, Father, working Monarch and studying for exams for Piloting, etc.......times are changing and I think this young couple have done Brilliantly!

      Delete
  9. Maggie - Minneapolis3 February 2015 at 05:09

    Charlotte - correct me if I'm wrong but the nanny hadn't been hired yet at this point last year, right? Wasn't the whole "point" of leaving George behind and going to the Maldives to promote George-nanny bonding? So there couldn't have been a nanny to take to Mustique? I only ask because you say it's believed they didn't take a nanny last year. Although I suppose they could have taken someone else!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are correct Maggie, Maria didn't start with the family until around the time of the Maldives trip.

      I thought it interesting Maria did accompany them on this holiday because much was made in the media about the fact she wouldn't be. I guess it goes to show how few "reliable sources" they have regarding the Cambridges. It was also stated by several reliable reporters William wouldn't be going along either.

      Delete
    2. Also on social media there was quite a lot of disappointment concerning the news Maria joined them and last year I remember a positive response because a nanny reportedly wasn't present.

      I guess it's an interesting debate regarding nannies and how people feel about them. I imagine Maria is incredibly close to George and a huge asset to the family. One never knows when there could be changes within the BRF and when William and Kate's roles may change, so in that sense having someone like Maria is particularly invaluable. The schedule for the first-in-line would be drastically different.

      Delete
    3. Nannies are the norm for the royals and rich families so I'm surprised with all the fuss and the fact that many believed the stories from the press in the first place! You shouldn't believe everything your read. Maria could do helpful things like take George home when Carole's party came past his bedtime.

      Delete
    4. Maggie - Minneapolis3 February 2015 at 08:46

      It is interesting to think about! Given that none of the reports of the Cambridges flying to Mustique mentioned the nanny, I do wonder if the Cambridges' camp leaked that the nanny wouldn't come along and then had her fly separately in order to make it seem that way. I can imagine a lot of people saying that if Kate needs to bring a nanny along on a vacation, it's presumably because she intends to spend some time not with George. If so, why can't she do the same in order to do more appearances? I have no problem with Kate taking a nanny along, just as I had no problem with the Cambridges leaving George behind when going to the Maldives last year. But leaving George for a vacation or bringing a nanny along to watch him while on vacation is certainly going to make the "Kate's focused on parenting" excuse for little appearances less persuasive to many. But like I said, it is probably the better parenting decision to bring the nanny along, so that Kate and her family can do adult things without having to worry about George being bored. Or heck, actually, I have no idea if it is a good parenting decision or not, because only the parents (and maybe the people intricately involved in their lives) can know if it is. But I'm not surprised that it's not working out PR-wise.

      Delete
    5. A nanny is a help, not someone who allows you to get away from your child. If you have to leave him, be it to spend time with your parents, to make an appearance at a charity or simply to take a shower, better with someone he knows and likes.

      Delete
    6. I don't see what the big deal with the nanny is. I don't have a nanny, but I do have a mom that lives 2 streets away from me. My husband works 12 to 14 hours a day, so she helps me all the time. If someone took pictures of us going about our daily lives, she would have one of my kids or be with me 75% of the time. I am also a very involved mom, so I think it is no different. My mom almost always comes with me on vacation to help, especially if my husband can't be there because of work. I really think it is no big deal.

      Delete
  10. I may be in the minority but I find those earrings unattractive. Ali

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Erika from Massachusetts3 February 2015 at 12:32

      Me too Ali!

      Delete
    2. Agreed, too big and not well designed, not one of her better choices. And with her past as an accessories buyer...

      Delete
    3. Lynn Georgia USA3 February 2015 at 14:44

      I'm with you, Ali.

      Delete
    4. don't like them either!

      Delete
  11. Voww, great pictures. Pippa looks amazing. But her lifestyle helps a lot to look like this for sure. I do not see anything wrong with the nanny going, she can make her own decisions. Kate is pregnant so she needs help especially if she wants to go out shopping during their stay as she did.ohh myyyyy.:))

    ReplyDelete
  12. well i think these photographs are good but not quite amusing they are on holiday and can somebody respect their own privacy i think the best way we can i say their family would being normal and we get to see how close william enjoying company with his inn - laws and enjoting family bonding despite james being interview about being duchess sis is just james prince george is cute and growing so fast

    ReplyDelete
  13. Charlotte the hat Kate is wearing in the photos look very similar to the one in the photo of the shop that you posted. It's possible it's the same one.
    Anyone else think so too?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Spot on Blair! I believe you are correct :)

      Delete
  14. I think there is no harm in taking the nanny on vacation. If the toddler is used to her and she is a significant adult presence in his life (as well should be) then going on a two week vacation without her would be too long. He would miss her and be miserable an it would be difficult getting back to regular routine.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Maggie - Minneapolis3 February 2015 at 10:17

    I really don’t get why these pictures are an invasion of privacy. The Cambridges are afforded an incredible and unprecedented amount of privacy by the press. It’s nothing like the Diana days. The Cambridges are not harassed or pursued. The British press won't even publish most pap pictures now. Given their status, they are VERY lucky about the amount of privacy they have. And, the royal family manipulates the media all the time. Kate manipulated the media to her advantage during her breakup with William. When Kate does an appearance that takes 90 minutes, it's spun as an entire afternoon. The articles about this vacation discuss all of the “hard work” she did in January. The royal family trades little tidbits of information with reporters in return for the promise of positive coverage. The media helps them keep their free housing, security, clothing, and food, by giving them positive press for often not very impressive endeavors. Kate gets much more credit for work than others despite doing less. Their livelihoods depend on good PR. Which relies on the media. So I find it hypocritical to complain about their privacy being invaded, because they let it be invaded all of the time in order to keep their benefits. Another example - they have been strict about George’s exposure. But, George was exposed more than usual on the tour (compared to William as a baby), which happened to be in countries with strong republican movements. It may have just been a coincidence, or it could have been a PR move (that worked). And that’s not bad. George isn't being hurt when someone takes a picture of him. He has no idea what is going on. And later on in his life, when he is less adorable and needs to worry more about keeping the public's goodwill, it can only help him if the public feels like they got to know watch him grow up, because that makes them more protective. Letting George have a childhood full of fun, education, and love, is important. But those things are not mutually exclusive with also beginning to expose him to the public life he will inevitably lead.
    I wonder if the royal family will complain about these pictures, and if so, how they will justify it after allowing last year’s pictures of Kate and George on the tarmac.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You couldn't have said it better Maggie. I agree with everything. Royal family totally manipulates the media and they are given so much more leeway than anyone famous. Spot on!!

      Delete
    2. There is a little difference between being seen when consciously in public, and during your daily life.

      Camilla

      Delete
    3. Maggie - Minneapolis5 February 2015 at 19:47

      Sure, there's a difference, but William (and the other royals) use the media to further their causes/image all of the time. They strategically leak things (even if not pictures) that make them look good. They can't expect the media to only report on the things they ask them too. If they are inviting the media into their lives, it's all or nothing. William and Kate's foundation, their very luxurious lives - all of these things wouldn't be possible without the coverage that the media gives them. And some of the examples I gave above are ways the royal family uses their personal daily lives in the media when it's to their adv. Can't have their cake and eat it too.

      Delete
    4. Maggie Everyone no matter royal or not deserves private time with youjr family without having camera in your face all the time.

      Delete
  16. I don't know about this pics. Kate and william yes. They are public figures with the perks and the cons. But the middletons and george.. i dont know. They didn't chose this life deliberately.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I never believed the stories in the DM about the party. No way would they have a big affair wit a jazz band, whist George was trying to sleep in the villa.
    My guess would be maybe a quiet dinner or a beach party where George could join in.
    I had a school friend who trained as a nanny and worked for a titled family. Going on holiday with them was one of the perks of the job.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I wish to have seen Kate's bump!!! Hope they're all having a wonderful tkme.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Does the woman in pink remind anyone else of Rebecca Deacon?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, she is blond and Rebecca is brunette.

      Delete
  20. Maggie - Minneapolis3 February 2015 at 19:40

    So here's my question for people - and I honestly am not just trying to make this into another "Kate needs to work more" post. I legitimately would like to know people's thoughts, especially because I don't know much about nannies aside from a few friends having one and being one myself but only for a summer, so not really the same. Anyways, it seems like most people agree that having the nanny in Mustique is smart because she probably plays a big role in George's life and he would feel weird without her. If that's the case, doesn't that contradict the depiction of the nanny as more of an on-call babysitter that many on here and in the Cambridges' camp have used to justify Kate not working? For me, it seems like if Kate did a majority of the parenting, and mostly only left George with the nanny for when she has appearances, the relationship of nanny Maria to George should be more like an occasional babysitter, not a full-time nanny. And you generally don't bring occasional babysitters on trips (although some do, but that's because they and their spouses work and so vacations are the only time they have to be alone, which doesn't apply to Kate and William). So, if Nanny Maria is enough a part of George's life and caregiving to be needed in Mustique in order to not disrupt his life, then how can it be said that Kate is not working because she is spending all her time with George? Wouldn't all this imply that the nanny plays quite a large role in his caregiving as well? Unless, it's not that George needs Nanny Maria to feel comfortable, but rather just that Kate wants time alone with William on vacation (or just to do other adult things on Mustique), and so needs the Nanny to watch George then. But if that's the case, then Kate is willing to spend significant time away from George on vacation. So then, why can't she do the same thing in order to work more? And yes, Kate is 6 months pregnant and has had a hard pregnancy with a hyper toddler, and thus deserves a vacation. I don't entirely disagree with that. But neither she nor William have had a non-parenting job in over a year now. For the Maldives - I got it. Kate had a tough first few months with George and then William was doing his course in Cambridge, so they needed time together. But for the past year, especially since the tour, she and William have had minimal appearances and plenty of time to spend together (the days in Norfolk in August without George, the trip to Balmoral after the HG subsided for which they also took the nanny so should have had alone time, the entire months of May and August off, the month-long Christmas break). So what am I missing about how nannies work and why they accompany families on vacation? I'm honestly curious and not just trying to start another "she doesn't work enough" debate. I don't know the lives they lead. So was just wondering if someone could offer some insight. Thanks in advance :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maggie I think you are just trying to stir the pot again. You say you are not but people here are going to jump on the band wagon and say that Kate needs to work more. We have on this blog been down this road many times and it just is like beating a dead horse in the mouth.
      We do not know why they brought the nanny with them. Why do we always have to question anything Will & Kate do? It is their businees not ours. There might be reasons tha tthey do not want to share with us wihich is alright with me. It is not our business.
      Formore it is not any of our business who they have looking after George, how much time they spend with him. By all accounts Will & Kate are very hands on parents and will continue to be with the second baby too.
      People stop looking for any reason why they do what they do.

      Delete
    2. My friends and family members who have employed nannies treated them like members of the family, a big sister, and extra pair of hands. Kate and Maria probably are good friends by now. The children grew up regarding them as friends with parental authority. All of those things lead me to believe that George would be very comfortable to have his nanny along and probably be better behaved because of her presence. It's all as usual for him. She gets a warm weather vacation and some time off. Everyone is happy.
      I don't think the endless debates about why Kate has a nanny or if she performs enough court duties are any of my business, not being a British taxpayer; but nannies seem to be very much a part of being royal, whether one works or not. Arranging her household is her own prerogative and by the time she becomes Queen Consort, this will all be ancient history ( and I'll be dust).
      Really do like that dress and hat, a fun vacation look.

      Delete
    3. Maggie - Minneapolis3 February 2015 at 22:33

      Anonymous at 20:37 - you are quick to make assumptions about my post (that directly contradict what I said), all the while jumping on me for apparently making assumptions about Kate. I'm not questioning what Will and Kate do. I'm saying that given the information we have (which of course is not even close to a full picture), it seems like if Kate uses a nanny on vacations or doesn't take George along (Maldives, Balmoral, Mustique this year), then she is comfortable not spending all of her time with George. So, then, why not do that in order to work more?
      And Greybird - I totally understand what you're saying and agree. I'm not at all questioning the decision to bring the nanny along. If she's needed, she's needed. But if George needs his nanny to be comfortable, then my question is - doesn't that seem to indicate that Kate isn't quite as hands on as the Cambridges/posters on here try to portray her as, in order to justify her small workload? And this isn't meant to make her seem like a bad mother - she can be a wonderful mother but still have the nanny do many things for George. Anon at 20:37 - I wonder what your response to this is as well. I'm honestly curious. We obviously do not know how much time they spend with George. But saying that "by all accounts Will & Kate are very hands on parents" is an assumption too. You don't know that they are hands-on just as much as I don't know that they aren't. I was simply bringing up the possibility that bringing a nanny along on multiple vacations indicates that perhaps the nanny is more involved in George's life than the Cambridges or many on here would have you believe. And if that's the case, then how can Kate say that she is not working much in order to spend her time with George?
      There are certainly other reasons for why Kate shouldn't have to work. Maybe she doesn't need to because William is second-in-line to the throne and they have a lifetime of duties ahead of them anyways. Maybe she really does just need more time to prepare for her life as Princess of Wales and then Queen Consort. Who knows. I'm simply curious about the most common reason given - which is that she is a stay-at-home mother who is focused on raising her child and does not want to use the nanny unless absolutely necessary.
      And Greybird - one last question, if you don't mind :) You mention that nannies seem to be very much a part of being royal, whether one works or not. How do you know this (I'm honestly curious; don't mean it rudely)? Sure, in the past centuries that has been true. But for the past 50-100 years, the royals have worked, and have also had nannies. Do we know if they would have had nannies even if they didn't work? We can make an assumption that they would, but Kate really is the first royal mother close to the throne in awhile to have a nanny and not work much. Sophie hired nannies fast, but she also had 175 appearances in the year she had her first full-term pregnancy, and 185 appearances in the year after Louise was born.

      Delete
    4. When I worked as a nanny for a wealthy family, the parents' time with the child was possibly 15-30 minutes a day. Period. Or less. One self-employed but with a lot of not working time, the other not employed at all (unless you count trying to line up another rich spouse). The nanny was a way to have the ultimate toy without any of the care and maintenance.

      Delete
    5. Plenty of families with live in nanny's bring them on vacation. Maybe Carole's bday party was late and for adults, in which case the nanny would have been there to take care of George while W&K are enjoying themselves. Maybe there were things going on during the week that were not for children, or W&K did not want to bring George. This is not unheard of - the nanny is getting paid so why not bring her as money is not a consideration.

      I think speculating on how much time W&K spend with George is crazy - they seem very hands on with him and he seems like a very lovely little boy. Just because they have help, doesn't mean they do not spend time with him. Also, plenty of women actually enjoy spending time with their nanny - she is with them almost every day, Kate should like her.

      Delete
    6. Maggie, please do not be discouraged by the same Anon, who does not dare to use her original name because she got what she deserved for attacking people here, not admiring her Beautiful duchess and her Prince Charming. Go for it Girl, every point of view matters.:)

      Delete
    7. They seem hands-on to me to but from what I understand caring for a young child can make it complicated even to take a shower or run an errand! Nanny's are perfect to jump in at that point and make life so much easier. Also, as someone stated, going on holiday to tropical paradise is one of the perks of the nanny job. Imagine the bad press if they had left Nanny in cold Britain.

      A last point is the possibility that William is actually continuing his studying on Mustique. It could very well be possible that he studies a few hours per day (child is taken care of by Kate or Nanny or a Middleton). I’ve done this on holiday, friends of mine have done this. The textbook stays the same, only the scenery changes.

      Delete
    8. Maggie - Minneapolis4 February 2015 at 23:18

      Thank you, blue27! It's nice to get some support :)

      Delete
    9. blue 271 well said. Wink wink
      Nancy from California

      Delete
    10. Jennifer from Wisconsin7 February 2015 at 21:41

      Thank you blue27. I thought I recognized that poster too. She claims never to be on here anymore, but it's obvious she is.

      Delete
    11. I see no issue with having a nanny while on vacation, but please do not say it is to take a shower. Seriously, mothers all over the world pregnant or not figure out how to take a shower while caring for a toddler. Having the nanny there is a choice, which seems perfectly fine if you can do it.

      Delete
  21. Courtney from NC3 February 2015 at 20:12

    I may be naive but I don't necessarily think every decision regarding the nanny has an ulterior motive. I think whilst Catherine's life is charmed in many ways, it must be awfully lonely sometimes. Not knowing who to trust. That is why I don't think how much she sees her family is a bad thing. If my life played out in the headlines I would only trust close family and those who have signed an iron clad non disclosureagreement, which I am sure the nanny has done.

    As far as the nanny accompanying Catherine whilst she takes George on walks, I also don't see it as a big deal. She may feel safer with the nanny there or maybe she likes to have someone with her while the paparazzi snap away. Who knows? Maybe the nanny and Catherine enjoy each others company. I hope they enjoy the remainder of their last big vacation as parents of one. The biggest change in my life was when I went from one child to two.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very well said, I think you have nailed it.

      Delete
    2. Rebecca - Sweden3 February 2015 at 22:06

      Very good post. I think the nanny is more like a ever present back-up. In pictures we've seen where both Kate and Teresa (Maria is the name of all women in Spain.....) Kate seems to be the main caregiver. As in the pictures above, she is the one holding his hand, in the snap taken of them leaving the natural history museum she is the one carrying George even though the nanny is present etc.

      Delete
    3. Deanne from Canada3 February 2015 at 22:30

      Along this same vein: I go by the old adage, believe half of what you see and nothing of what you hear. I see Pippa looking utterly fabulous on the beach. If only I could look as good! As for the nanny discussion: don't know "them", don't live in that socio-economic class, so I really don't care. I only see what their PR team wants us to. I'm cool with that. Tis all. :) I'm digging Kate's dress!

      Delete
    4. @Courtney from NC "it must be awfully lonely sometimes"

      She can't possibly be more lonely than most people and considering how close she is with her family she is less lonely than most anyway.

      Delete
    5. I think it's a different kind of loneliness, Anon 22.44. Trust is important to all of us, but it's a huge factor in their lives.

      Delete
    6. Courtney from NC4 February 2015 at 12:47

      If I am lonely I can attempt to make friends. Those people won't already know who I am because my face is all over the media. There aren't people looking to buy my "secrets" or photos. So yes I think it has to be lonely. Money can buy you company but not true friends.

      Delete
  22. I wish I had a nanny...a trip like this without one just wouldn't work if we brought our baby along! Lucky Kate!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I grew up in the south, and an unmarried cousin of my mother came to act as a paid nanny when needed. Times when there was a new baby, a house move, an illness, or just an unusually busy spell. Someone once said that every family needs a maiden aunt! Since my grandparents had all died before I was born, other relatives also filled in. A childless couple in my father's family joined us often for meals and sometimes took care of us. Today, with people so often living far from their families, grandparents fly in when needed, neighbors lend a hand, and teenage babysitters earn their pocket money taking care of children. What would we do without the assistance of various kindly souls? My grandson's other grandparents live near him and his parents, and it gives me a sense of security to know they are there.

      Delete
  23. This is a very experienced nanny, who knows when to fade into the background, when to take over with Prince George, and when to assist Kate. In addition, I expect she has also been trained to be a layer of protection for her charge, since she is usually the closest person to him if she is with him in public. And I doubt this is her first vacation in an exotic place with a well off family. She knows how to do that, too.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Here’s what the average person in the U.S. does when going on vacation anywhere with their children, whether they have 1 child or more, at least in the South. They have the grandparents go along, &/or an aunt, great-aunt. Sometimes the in-law grandparents go too. So that in the case of the birthday party for Carole, the in-law grandmother would care for the children because a child won’t have fun at a restaurant, etc. during an adult party. They take the child/children to do something fun & the children normally even sleep in the grandparent’s room, birthday party or not. The kids sleep in the grandparent’s room, or even if just the grandma goes, so as to give the parent’s time alone...The parents are in the same facility, in the next room, but children, especially grandchildren are raised close to their grandparents normally, & the kids love to be with the grandparents. I’m not speaking about super-wealthy children who have nannies. However, our children are very well off, but there is no nanny, the grandparents fulfill this role. Even our daughter who is very well off & lives far away from us, when she & her husband go on vacation, a grandparent will drive or fly in to help. We keep close to the grandchildren via Skype. I plan simple, but fun activities for them, something to do every day. They have thought of having a part-time nanny, but only for her to play games with the kids with my daughter in the same room with them. She needs a break due to her lupus, but she would still take special care of the children. There are people here who, of course, have nannies, but usually it’s when they are celebrities or if a parent is missing &/or grandparents, aunts & great-aunts are missing...passed away....or there aren’t any aunts...only children.

    So Catherine & Williams are close to her parents in this way. Little George & the spare will be raised very close to the grandparents. However, the royal couple live a completely extraordinary life than anyone does. I couldn’t imagine their lives. They may be waited on hand & foot, but my goodness, they are “on” all the time. They are accountable to the country. In that way, they aren’t their own. The scrutiny would be horrendous. I couldn’t handle their lifestyle, & I don’t envy them of it, at all. Catherine is a very special lady to marry into the family, having not grown up a royal, bless her heart. Even her parents & siblings are on show all the time. They too have a completely different life than we could ever imagine. Nanny Maria seems close to Prince George. Did y’all see the pics of her & the little sweetie walking in the park? It’s been some time ago, when he first started walking. The pics were taken from far away & Nanny Maria swooped Prince George up into her arms with a kiss that showed she thought the world of him. She probably wants to go with them on the trip. She’s a nanny, she took special training for this position & I would bet that she loves her job & love the little prince. Although I’m not a British taxpayer, if I were, I would gladly pay what was needed for the future King, Queen, Prince, Spare & the nanny. It’s not that much from what I hear, but if it were, it would be worth it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Amen Sister! That's what I wrote earlier. I was and my children are super close to my parents. In fact my children spend at least 2 nights a week at their house....every week. Sometimes not because we are busy, but simply because my children love to be with their grandparents. In fact my youngest is with my parents right now, not because I needed him to be there, but because that is where he wanted to be. That is how I was raised and it is amazing. When I see Kate with her parents, it seems completely normal to me. That's how we roll here in the South...you are raised by your parents and grandparents.

      Delete
    2. Really alixromanov? I consider myself an average American. We took many vacations with our children when they were growing up, including to Europe and Hawaii, and we never had any grandparents along. We wanted to spend time with our children, seeing all the sights, learning the new things.... So please don't claim to speak for all people in the US. We spent plenty of time with all the grandparents, but they never went on vacation with us, and we never thought we should include them just so they could be babysitters for us. Perhaps that's because my hubby & I both work full-time professional jobs, so a vacation with the kids was wonderful quality time for us and them.

      Delete
    3. Jennifer from Wisconsin4 February 2015 at 05:33

      Maybe it is my La. roots but that's how my family rolls too. Then again my mil used to help my sil and they are from here. She complained all the time about it to me. My mother and I always thought she was ridiculous. How lovely to go to Disney or the Grand Canyon and make family memories those kids will never forget. :)

      Delete
  25. anon from Leominster4 February 2015 at 03:17

    I don't mind them having a nanny along. We know they employ a nanny. We know Kate has a light work schedule so much of that time the nanny is caring for George while Kate is engaged in private business. (We have never seen her pushing George in a pushchair as many mums have to do while shopping.) So when they are on holiday, it is natural to have the nanny along/
    What does concern me though is the idea that "Kate is entitled to a year's maternity leave" like other working mums. A few points on this. First of all, Kate works very light hours compared to working mums. She is essentially a stay-at-home mum who a couple of times a month, steps out for something else.
    Second. very few mums - at least that I know - take a year off unless they are quitting period - which very few can afford to do. Most mums take six months if they are lucky - many have to return far sooner.
    Finally most mums during their time off are busy organising and figure out how to pay for the best childcare they can manage, not to mention sorting out housework and many similar matters. Relatively few of Kate' subjects can eve afford a nanny. They are lucky if they can get nana.
    So while I assume Kate will take a resonable period of time off before resuming her light schedule, I think the idea this wealthy, extraordinarily pampered woman who is getting full-time security for doing very little -- except for the hopeful but far from certain belief that she may someday give more of herself - is "entitled" to anything is ridiculous. Kate will do exactly as she pleases - it is all she ever does and to liken her to the average working mother is just wrong.
    One reason the queen is so loved is because you never see her out there flaunting her wealth and her differences from her subjects. While we all know those differences are there -- she is careful for the most part not to advertise them too strongly. This week, clearly chilled, she was photographed going to church. Contrast that with William and Kate playing in the sun during while the majority of people who are expected to pay them deference, are experiencing horrendous weather. (At least Charles and Camilla are working this month.) Long term, when the excitment of youth is gone, William and Kate are going to need to separate themselves from other rich people and show they are something more -- caring in a full-time away about the nation when they are king and queen. For a couple that have spent virtually all their twenties doing exactly as they please, and seem determed to do the same through most of their thirties -- this will be a hard adjustment -- if they ever truly make it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Leo - I agree with you - we aren't seeing Kate "vacation". We are seeing Kate's lifestyle. One note, Princess Elizabeth lived much the same lifestyle before she inherited the throne. The difference is the age in which they did it -- Kate is doing it in the information age and the public has much more knowledge about how the royal family spends their time - they can monitor their time engaging the public - and determine when they are not.

      It has consequences - I agree it's got to be tough for the British to see the Queen's grandchildren living so carefree with very little in common with the average citizen - and doing very little to engage with them. It's important to remember that most of the UK hasn't seen these photos - they were in an American paper. Only people interested in seeking out information about Will and Kate and George will know about them. I'm guessing Will and Kate won't be making a fuss about them - as it will draw attention to the fact that they've been out of the country for almost two weeks. Because that's what it would turn into - "Will and Kate leave the country for two weeks and are mad people took their picture and reported it." That's not going to get sympathy from anyone. Just who would they complain to?

      Delete
  26. I see nothing odd about nanny Maria joining the family on vacation. Remember, this is her job. She nannies George and helps Kate wherever they are. It's what she's paid to do. She knew the expectations when she signed on. I'm sure she's happy to be there doing what she's trained to do and enjoys doing. Also, let's remember that Kate is 6 months pregnant with an active toddler. Of course she needs help. What would happen if George started running off, maybe he sees a butterfly. Kate certainly can't easily dash after him. Here comes nanny Maria to the rescue. And, as others have said, I imagine Kate and Maria have grown quite close. I would imagine Kate enjoys her company. In all ways it's a win win. And even the most dedicated mother needs a break now and then. I don't question Will and Kate's involvement in parenting George. His happy and secure disposition speaks volumes. I wish them well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said, Laura. And yes, George's disposition does speak volumes.

      Delete
    2. Why wouldnt George be a happy secure child? Even if he was with the nanny 90 percent of the time, would we expect him to unhappy? Hes two...most two year olds are happy...unless they are from a war torn country or an abusive environment. I dont think we should do a psycho analysis of george just yet lol.

      Delete
  27. Charlotte thank you for the fun posts on the polls and Mustique.

    The Cambridges are both intelligent and down to earth people. They're also devoted & hands-on parents especially Kate. If they feel they need a nanny along for the holiday then that's their choice and their business.

    Anon at 00:08 I'm not sure what you're trying to say with your comment. That's your experience with one particular family. It has nothing to do with the Cambridges nor any other family.

    Work has been busy so I'm just catching up with the last two posts. Good to hear about the engagement with the 1851 Trust. i don't agree with some of the comments on the previous post that suggest sailing is only an elite sport for the rich. It's like a lot of other sports in that it has a broad spectrum of activities.

    If you look at soccer/football then at one end of the spectrum there are all the local clubs with their 'little leagues' and parents standing around playing fields every weekend while at the other there are the Premier & European League clubs with their WAGs, huge salaries for players, lavish lifestyles etc. Same with sailing at one end there are all the local clubs with their weekend races, kids' races etc while at the other end there are the Cruising Yacht Clubs, America's Cup etc. Thumbs up to Ben Ainslie for trying to give back something to children in an area of the UK badly hit by the closure of industry.

    There's also a strong sea scout movement associated with sailing so it'll be interesting to see if at some stage the Duchess brings together her interests in the scouts and the 1851 Trust.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I can well understand why the nanny is with them Kate is over six months pregnant and would find looking after a lively 2year old full time difficult. this is the main holiday for her parents and no doubt they want to make the most of it without having to spend too much time with George. When Kate joined them last year she was not pregnant and only stayed for 5 days flying home immediately after her mothers birthday and George was only 7 months.
    Having the nanny there has also given Kate company as Kate is unable to take part in many of the activities that the rest of her family are doing. I would imagine that although she will be enjoying the warm weather she will be feeling frustrated at not being able to make the most of the facilities especially as she loves sports. I think she is having a harder time coping with this pregnancy in a number of different ways.
    Thinking back to when she was pregnant with George I think she has done more public engagements since her sickness than she did with George.
    I see another 2 engagements for Kate have just been announced for 18th Feb.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I don't see anything weird about Maria going either. I understand why some people wouldn't want a nanny to go on holiday with them, but I think that's just everybody's personal choice, even when we're talking about the royals (who I don't think are normal upper middle class!). However, I hope that it's not true that Geroge wouldn't enjoy his stay in Mustique without the nanny because he's so attached to her! I'm sure George likes nanny Maria very much, but I want to believe Kate spends more time with him than Maria and that he is not dependent on his nanny.

    I also don't quite understand some comments here saying that bringing the nanny along makes it seem that she is a full-time nanny or they wouldn't need her... It was a choice between having a nanny 24/7 or not having her at all, so nothing to do with being full-time or not. We don't know how much Maria and George spend time separately from the others on this holiday. And about the comments stating that if Kate wants her there to have some time with William or do adult things, she could just as well do more engagements at home and leave George with Maria - I really don'd see the connection. I hope, as everyone here does, that we would see Kate more on official engagements. But if she didn't have a nanny with her, she couldn't leave George for one second, not even to go swim or eat late or whatever. Obviously, the majority of parents with toddlers have this problem while on holiday (and at home), but since she has the option of taking a nanny with her, even if it's "just in case", why wouldn't she? I bet Maria enjoys Mustique as well. I think she has time to be with her own family and friends while back in England, and was glad to go.

    And finally - so sorry about repeating some of the stuff already said and writing a nagging post, but the conversation was so interesting again! - it feels weird that people are complaining about Maria being with Kate while going on a stroll with George. Why should she not? I'm sure there would have been more complaints if we had seen George alone with Maria. Perhaps they're going somewhere to swim and Kate wanted her to come, perhaps Kate feels safe with her, or perhaps Kate and Maria wanted to just spend some time together. I'm sure they get along really well, and it's probably nicer for Maria to go for a walk with Kate and George than to sit by the house or tour Mustique on her own. I also think it's really good that George spends time with both of them together so that he doesn't see them as "optional" carers but as a team and as friends.

    Can't wait for next week!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Hello everyone!

    Another engagement announcement:

    The Duchess of Cambridge will visit the Emma Bridgewater factory in Stoke and Action for Children in Smethwick, West Midlands, on Feb 18.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Maggie - Minneapolis4 February 2015 at 23:34

    So I honestly don't have an issue with the nanny going with them on vacation, but why in the world is everyone discussing the decision as though Kate is the only parent with George on this vacation? If Kate needs to shower or is worried about chasing after George, William (or her two parents or two siblings) should be perfectly capable of helping her out (I'm not saying watch George for a long time, but like just while Kate is showering or whatever else). Sure, nannies can be of use on a holiday. But with one child, two parents, even if one is pregnant, should be perfectly capable of caring for a toddler while on vacation. I'm not saying Will and Kate aren't capable. Just that let's stop talking about this as though George has a single mother. And let's stop discussing it like there's an actual need for a nanny on this vacation, versus just the desire of two very wealthy parents. And I think that's totally fine, btw. They have every right to bring along a nanny if they want. But I think it's insulting to pregnant women and their spouses around the world to say that there is a need for a nanny on vacation for a couple that already has plenty of time to spend together and always has full-time care for their son (and uses it to spend time apart from him). Kate and William brought the nanny along to make an already luxurious vacation/life more luxurious. They have every right to do so. Let's just call it like it is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If they did not take her with them, what would she do? They could make her take holiday at that time--even if she did not want two weeks in the winter or leave her twiddling her thumbs in London or Norfolk.
      Quite candidly I cannot see why it is a subject for discussion--it is entirely between the Duke and Duchess and the nanny.If the latter feels badly done by---she has the answer in her own hands.

      Delete
    2. Maggie - Minneapolis5 February 2015 at 19:33

      I don't think anyone has said that the nanny "feels badly done by".....
      Also, I don't think they can make her take holiday when they go on holiday, if they choose not to bring her. She's a full-time nanny, not part-time, so her contract is probably set up so that she gets paid a minimum amount regardless, and then gets vacation time that she gets to choose. If they choose not to use her at a certain point, she isn't punished for that, because that would be a poor set-up for all full-time nannies and make them not really full-time. At least that's how full-time nanny contracts seem to work in the US.

      Delete
    3. I believe I read when they hired Maria that they were paying her $60,000 year plus benefits (on one of the royal sites). That is for working 5 days a week. It did not say if it was M-F or what the days it would be. But I would think if they asked to her attend the holiday with them she would say yes of cousre.
      We don't know the reason why she was with them. Maybe Kate was not feeling well when the left or that she & William wanted a little alone time as a couple. Which I see not problem with.

      Shelby

      Delete
  32. I don't think people were making excuses regarding the nanny's presence, nor do I believe it is necessary to do so. But in light of the criticism of the decision, I do believe folks were offering reasonable, common sense explanations for having her there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you royalfan, you state it very accurately!

      Delete
    2. Maggie - Minneapolis5 February 2015 at 10:30

      Royalfan, I don't disagree with your characterization for many of the posts. But, try control f-ing "need". There are some who have also spun the nanny being there as a need, not a luxury. That's what I disagree with, for the reasons stated above.

      Delete
    3. Shall we say neither a need nor a luxury? ;)

      Delete
    4. Nannies are regarded as a "need" by the upper-income, wealthy, aristo classes and regarded as a "luxury" by middle-class and lower-income folks, how's that?

      Delete
    5. There are people around the world who live without electricity. So, it's not a need for us?
      For us it would be ridiculous living without electricity, and yes, we call it a need.
      Once you solved eating and sheltering, needs get more complex. And we westerners really are the last who can complain for others' 'unnecessary' needs.

      Camilla

      Delete
    6. Well said Camilla!

      Delete
  33. To ensure I enjoy a trip to Mustique I'm leaving my children with Grandparents. Am I a bad mother? Seriously this opinion on the nanny is gone way off the topic of a casino blog. They have a nanny, they brought her along and why shouldn't they. She is trained not just as a nanny but also as a level of protection. Catherine needs both with her right now as she would be seriously compromised if George were to run off ir someone accosted them. I had to stop taking my 2 year old to daycare while pf as I couldn't carry her when she started to wiggle and I couldn't chase her if she ran. Bringing Nanny Teresa makes perfect sense. I wish them a very relaxing trip and hope they have had a chance to really enjoy it. Things change with 2 little ones around.

    ReplyDelete
  34. My mother had 5 kids in 7 years. She had help in the house and a teenage babysitter that came everyday after school and stayed until dinner. When we went on vacation to some cottage somewhere, she spent the entire time slaving away, preparing all the meals, dragging the clothes to a laundromat, without help or a babysitter. Years later, my father gave her a bracelet with a wringer washer charm on it that said, "With fond memories away from home." I never thought it was funny. Vacations were more exhausting for her than being at home. As a single parent, any vacation I took was non stop work in between some tourist attractions. I think if a woman who has kids can afford to actually fashion a family vacation so that she can rest, relax, enjoy her family, etc. etc. she so deserves it. I wouldn't begrudge anyone that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maggie - Minneapolis5 February 2015 at 10:19

      I totally agree, but also, Kate's life seems nothing like your mother's. She already has a full-time nanny and a housekeeper/cook, and spends a great deal of time with her family, who also helps look after George. Kate also has a husband who for the past year hasn't had a full-time job. So I'm not sure that she has quite the same dire need to relax that most mothers do (esp mothers of five!).

      Delete
    2. Jane, I think the difference between you and your mom and Kate is that you and your mother are actually WORKING mothers. Your mother, while she had help in the house, was still the primary housekeeper and did all the tasks associated with having a house and five children. You sound as if you are a working mother so you hold down a job and look after a child.
      Kate doesn't. She has two palaces and a platoon of servants to look after her every need and every need of her son and husband. She doesn't go to a job at 7 in the morning and get home at 5 p.m. which would necessitate daycare. She hasn't done a lot and doesn't have any sort of regular duties or schedule that would necessitate so much help. And we've been led to believe she wants to focus on raising her children, which sort of begs the question about why they're hiring so much childcare help.
      This isn't the first time that royal nannies have accompanied their charges on vacation. William's nanny and Harry's nanny and then, later, Tiggy Legge-Bourke, went regularly with them on vacations, as did the staff who tended Prince Charles and his sister and brother. But the difference is that Diana and Elizabeth both had active, busy royal schedules. Kate does not and so we get these questions about why a young woman with seemingly nothing else to do needs so much childcare help.

      Delete
    3. Elizabeth, The reality is that the Royal family is of the leisure class... which does not mean they don't do anything, it means that they do not have to work for money. She does have a professional and personal life that warrants day care. It's not like she can call up the kid down the street to come sit while she does errands, goes to the doctor, has a meeting, etc. She is focusing on raising her children and I don't think she is hiring "so much childcare", Her parents and work full time and aren't in the same town, so aren't going to be babysitting. I don't believe that William and Kate are merely vapid figure heads in their own lives.They are not at all like Kim Kardashian. I do believe that Diana and Elizabeth were full time working royals... and that William and Kate are not yet. Nor was it good for Diana emotionally or Elizabeth's kids that they were full time working royals with infants and toddlers. Kudos to the family for having learned something.When Charles and Diana went to Australia, they took 2 or 3 nannies. I guess this is wonderful and acceptable because they parked Prince William on a farm and visited once every couple of weeks, proving they were full time working royals? Yet, when William and Kate took one nanny, and made their schedule so that they would be back with Prince George at night, they were accused of being lazy, rather than being hands on parents. One nanny and a baby nurse to help for the first few months after the baby is born, is not so much childcare help. It is the amount of help that people of means have when they have a toddler and a newborn. I really don't get the sense that Prince George is merely a prop that is moved around while his parents do nothing. And just because my mother and I were at the total opposite ends of the spectrum, without resources that would have made us much happier mothers, does not mean that someone else should have to go through that. It speaks volumes to me that in all home locations, Kate and William have created separate quarters for the nanny, outside of their actual home. This means to me that they are home together as a family, taking care of their child, at night and all the time, except for probably 30 hours in the week, when the nanny covers for them while they run their lives and prepare for and carry out obligations outside of their family.

      Delete
    4. Thank you, Jane, for a very sensible comment. It's good to see logic and common sense becoming more dominant on this Board.

      Delete
    5. Great comment, Jane.

      Camilla

      Delete
  35. The subject of nannies is so interesting and there is a very long history of nannies (and governesses) in the royal family. I re-discovered an interesting article in the Daily Mail about the Royal family. I don't know how accurate some of the information is, but it clearly states that the Queen was not present for Charles' first three birthdays. I'm sure William and Kate will never let that happen.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2266423/Royal-Family-nannies-From-Queens-team-nursemaids-Prince-Williams-flexible-parental-aide.html

    Several years ago I recall seeing some vintage black & white video of the Queen returning to England following a state visit. Charles was there, with his nanny, waiting at the train station for his mother to arrive and he did not even recognize her and when stepped off the train! I think he was about 4 years old at the time and I thought it was so sad. I know William and Kate will be much more "hands on" parents, but are not living at Buckingham Palace while raising young children, and by the time they do live at the palace, their children will probably be teenagers or even older.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I can't help but think that the adversarial and combative relationship that William has cultivated with the UK media - which include some very devoted royalists and royal reporters - is a contributing factor to the (allegedly) false reports in the UK media about the trip to Mustique.
    I recall that on the trips that Diana took with the little princes and Prince Charles to places like Necker Island and to Majorca, Spain, usually included one photo call so the media could get some shots and leave the family in relative peace. And I also recall that the strategy worked. They had the photo call, the media were escorted away and the vacation went on as scheduled.
    I know some regular commenters on here have mentioned about some of the other European royal families who have a photo call while on vacation in order to be left in peace.
    It seems like such a situation might be an idea for the Middletons and William and Kate on these trips to Mustique now. And sorry but Carole and Mike can't make the "we're just private people" argument when Carole worked so hard and waited so long to get her daughter to the throne or at least in line for it. If they're going to be included at the Christmas events at Sandringham, which are public and photographed, they can't then claim they have no connection to the royals and thus should be left in peace. For better and worse, that's not how this very, very public life they wanted for their daughter works, not for her and not now for them.
    One of the major reasons there is such a premium for pap shots of William and Kate now is due to their reclusiveness. If they were out and about or even had regular photo calls, I'd expect the value of those pap shots might drop.
    As for the nanny, I'm surprised anyone thinks they had to justify taking her along. This is how things are "done" in the aristocracy. Kids are raised by nannies and nurses. Kate might be a little more hands-on than her predecessors but nannies are going to play a major role in how her children are raised.
    It's also why the idea that Kate is "going it alone" as far as raising her children is a little ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rebecca - Sweden5 February 2015 at 05:55

      The photocalls worked because they made deals with the tabloids that if they got the photocall they wouldn't publish paparazzi shots. That wouldn't work now because of all the sources that the paparazzi can sell their pictures to outside of tabloids.

      Delete
    2. Excellent point about the photo calls Elizabeth! Funny, I haven't even thought about it even though it's exactly how it works with our Dutch RF. We get some very nice pics (not grainy and they don't make you feel voyeuristic), we know where they are and who they are with, and we let them vacation happily afterwards. Willem-Alexander, Maxima and their three girls were in Peru last year to see Machupichu and stuff, so cool!

      I just don't really like your saying that Carole 'worked hard and waited so long' to get Kate in line to the throne, when it is really the magic between W&K that got here there. Off course her parents supported her to stay his girlfriend, but I doubt that that had anything to do with his status, more with how much she loves him. I know titles are important in Britain and Carole does seem concerned with status but Kate could also easily have married an earl or something.

      Now that I am writing on this topic I was thinking the other day how funny it is that 'relaxed' Kate married a prince and Pippa, who is more like her mother and also reportedly was very obsessed with social status at university and making sure to mingle with the right people, is now dating a self made commoner :)..

      Delete
    3. Elizabeth - You're right! The relationship W&K have built with the press is totally adversarial. If he wasn't Diana's son, I do not think the Brits would like him as much. All the Royal families seem to have figured out a way to deal with the press except W&K. Yes, they are entitled to privacy, but he is the 2nd in line to the throne and, unfortunately for him, they do have a public life and people want to see him, his wife and son. Having a photo call while on vacation would solve many problems for them, such as stalking paps.

      The people of Britain have only seen Prince George in person the day he was born. Other than that, there have been the few released photos. If you think about it, William really has not even worked for almost 2 years now...he has not done anything since prior to Xmas and except for the few investitures here and there is not really seen. Harry, Edward and Sophie are out working much more than W&K and are not given nearly as much attention. The Queen and Prince Charles seem to be giving William a lot of leeway, but not sure if this is going to work again him in long run...the Queen did say the purpose of Royalty is to "see and be seen."

      Delete
    4. Interesting to hear that William is blamed for the adversarial relationship with the press when his mother was hounded to her death by the press... which seems like the adversarial relationship was created by the press. I have no doubt that if William didn't stand up to the press and hold them at bay, their entire life would be ruined, as his mother's was. I looked online for pictures of William in public under the age of 2.. and they just aren't there, so he was not seen anymore than George is.

      Regarding how little you think they work... why is it so hard to remember that William and Kate are not full time working royals? Edward and Sophie are. Not sure what Harry is at the moment. When Diana married Charles, he was a full time working royal and heir to the throne. William is heir, to the heir to the throne. Why do you ignore that he has been studying, involved in projects and now studying again to work full time again at a job? When they need him to become a full time royal, he will. They certainly don't need it now.

      Delete
    5. I agree wholeheartedly, Jane.

      A lot of the criticism directed at William is unfair IMO. Even before Diana's tragic death, he had a more serious personality compared to Harry. But I think the differences suit their roles perfectly.

      Delete
    6. I am just starting to realize how utterly ridiculous the press is when it comes to william and kate...i obviously knew that they embellish quite a bit but, the stuff they write is starting to get down right cheesy and awkward. The ironic part...they write it because of people like myself that will read out of curiosity. I sincerely doubt that william is hurt by most of the criticism written about him. I think he is way beyond even giving it a second thought...but when his toddler son is brought in to the media garbage disposal...i can see his frustration. Why is George even a part of the tabloids? Hes not even two yet. Why is so much written about a child? I understand he is the heir to the english throne...but can he at least grow out of his pampers before he is written about in the tabloids and stalked by the greedy paparazzi ? This disturbs me greatly, so i cant even imagine how disturbed and extremely angry his parents must be. Can somebody please help me understand this? Im so very perplexed, truly. I would like to know more about what william and kate have been doing while in mystique...when will they be coming back to England...what is next for the adult royals and middletons? What happened to nico jackson, are pippa and nico still an item? I havent seen much discussion on these topics.

      Delete
  37. Agree that those with wealth use a nanny and frankly I have three kids and did not work and had Grandparents but I would have loved to have had a nanny to help out daily and on vacations. The help of relatives if expected is always tricky. To be able to pay someone that you have no guilt about using when you pop in the shower or are just tired or feel sick is fantastic. If you can afford it and love your kids then go for it, the communal raising of kids has been done for thousands of years, a nanny is a minimal addition :) Finally if the UK taxpayers do not like what the Royals are doing for their dollar then cut it off, I truly suspect that the younger generation would be happy with this, they are under the influence of their families, but have plenty of money on their own. Ali

    ReplyDelete
  38. i think the nanny are frankly helpful the parents when they are in works and especially we had a grandparents to guide them basically with daily basis specially when our parents are out for work thy been helpful i love the duke and duchess are hands on to the george i think they have to have nanny when a official engagement or two of them out official engagement

    ReplyDelete
  39. I don't see an issue with them bringing Nanny Maria. Kate needs downtime and rest and beauty sleep.
    I just don't agree that down to earth, hands-on, just-like-us, normal parents bring hired help on a family vacation. My cousin is doing just this on our multi-family vacation in March. She's one of my favourite cousins - but, no. She is not a down-to-earth, normal, 100% hands-on mom. Still a great mom though, when with her babies.

    But ultimately, I really don't see a problem with Maria going. They need her and George needs her. Plus, one of the perks of working for a high status family is getting to go on opportunistic travels like this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maggie - Minneapolis5 February 2015 at 19:30

      Yes! This is really all I've been trying to say but Stephanie, you've said it much better and more quickly :)

      Delete
  40. I reall think William hates the media for what they di dto his beloved mother. And what they have done to Kate. I really don't blame him when they are on private time. If they are out doing royal engagements then yes you let them take your photo. But on private time they should be left alone.
    And all this about having photo shoots with Prince George, they don't owe us fans anything like that. Here in the States they do not show the face of a minor unless you are KimK's baby...lol
    My point is that maybe the UK has a law that any minor does not have to have their photos taken by the media, I am not sure. If they don't maybe they shoudl think about adding one to protect the minor children not just of the royals but off all children.

    Shelby

    ReplyDelete
  41. Debby from Paris6 February 2015 at 00:36

    Hey everyone. Just saw this picture: http://instagram.com/p/xY3vPvlrKv/
    and I'm wondering does anyone know this picture??? I haven't seen it before, and it was posted a month ago... Do you think it's actually the cambridge??
    Thanks :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rebecca - Sweden6 February 2015 at 01:29

      Does not look like clothes or stroller we have seen... But I could be wrong.

      Delete
    2. Jessica in Texas6 February 2015 at 02:22

      I recognize the Adidas on the man who resembles William and looks similar but not a 100% clear. The shoes on the woman aren't any I recognize kate wearing

      Delete
    3. It's not them. Maybe the impersonators we've seen from time to time...but not W/K/G.

      Delete
    4. The child in the picture looks way older than George.

      Camilla

      Delete
  42. I believe Nanny Theresa has had more words expended about her here than any nanny in history has elsewhere. Well, maybe Mary Poppins could compete. I haven't really learned much, just that some folks think it's perfectly normal to take Theresa to Mustique, and others don't. Seems fine to me, but I think there are more interesting issues!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mary Poppins... I love it! :)))

      Delete
    2. Hee Hee agree :).
      Ali

      Delete
    3. Hee Hee, I agree! :) "Much to do about nothing"
      ALi

      Delete
    4. That's because most nannies work for people who work full-time and therefore need their help.
      This nanny works for glorified stay-at-home parents who rarely work. Whose lives, especially security, are funded by the nation.

      That's what makes her different from other nannies who work for famous or non-famous people.

      I, for one, think it is okay, and even essential, that she went on this vacation to Mustique. This thread is full of ideas of terrible things that could happen if she is not around to help care for George and I completely agree.

      Delete
    5. It also has a bit to do with the fact that this particular nanny made the headlines when she was hired. A lot of rich and famous people have nannies, but the women have the good fortune of remaining anonymous and they could even pass as "friends" of the family.

      Delete
    6. I think the problem is naively W & K said they were going to be hands on parents and not have help. They saw a need and having the funds hired her. People then naively thought Kate was going to work at least part time when a nanny was hired. That did not happen and Will pushed a transition year to a study year. Perhaps he is not bright and takes longer to get the basics. We will never know or perhaps he has an illness such as depression that is kept hidden and he struggles t do appearances.
      The main takeaway to me is both NW & K and the public were naïve and this is the new norm nannies and minimal appearances. We have to adapt and stop being naïve.

      Delete
    7. Wow, super critical commentary and unfounded. They made no public statements about being hands on parents, the newspapers spun their weird yarns. You may not like it, but Catherine is able to economically be a full time mother, have a nanny and work as much as she feels is right for her family and believing otherwise is naive. She can also have this nanny watch her child when she does foundation work, takes a nap, goes to the beauty salon and doctor's appts., shops for clothing for professional and personal engagements, writes letters, studies details for upcoming engagements, has dinner or lunch with family, friends and her husband, exercises, oversees her homes and staff, etc. etc. furnish and decorate and set up 2 homes, give birth to a child, be well prepared and dressed for public engagements, spend time with her own little family and her family of origin and again, and not have to punch a clock. What she is doing as a wife and mother, is her full time job and she's got the financial backing to make it possible. I would say William is bright as he graduated from one of the top universities in Europe with good grades and saying he isn't is rude and unfounded. Again, you may not like it, but William also has the economic freedom to explore his options, see how he felt when leaving flying, honor family commitments as a part time royal, honor his commitments as a new father, take a course to learn how to run the Duchy he will take over when his father becomes King, launch a wildlife preservation campaign, travel for this campaign, work with their foundation, decide that he wants to return to flying and prepare for the many, many exams and additional training this requires. He can do this over a period of one year, or more... you may not like it, have no right to judge it and are naive only in the sense that your definition of what you think they ought to be doing has no more bearing on them having an opinion of what you ought to be doing. You don't know anymore about them than they know about you. It is mind boggling to think that you believe that they are doing nothing if you don't see them touring a factory and photographs being taken.

      Delete
    8. Great post, Anon 05:28. And your last statement, especially, is on the money.

      "It is mind boggling to think that you believe that they are doing nothing if you don't see them touring a factory and photographs being taken."

      Delete
    9. I don't often comment regularly but the anon 05.28 comment above is one of the best I have read in a long time. I couldn't agree more. We have a comment in ireland that describes people commenting critically on others lives as "hurling from the ditch". Hurling is one of our national games. I think we really know very little about the daily lives of this family and in my opinion it is very unkind to project our desires on how they should live their lives on to them. Everybody has to make their own decisions on the best way to lead their lives and Kate and William are no different from us in this regard.
      Fiona from Ireland

      Delete
    10. Yankee from California7 February 2015 at 23:38

      I couldn't agree more anon 5 28!

      Delete
    11. "It is mind boggling to think that you believe that they are doing nothing if you don't see them touring a factory and photographs being taken."

      Too funny - this sentence in a post about their two week trip to Mustique.

      Delete
    12. Anon 5:28, you have hit the nail on the head! I have listed what William and Catherine are doing so often with so little effect that I sometimes feel as if no one really wants to know. You did it beautifully. Thanks for your comment.

      Delete
    13. Maggie - Minneapolis8 February 2015 at 18:43

      I am so tired of people accusing others of making assumptions whenever someone says Kate maybe should work more. The idea that they do work behind the scenes is just as much an assumption as saying that she doesn't! And there's the point that Kate isn't that useful to charities behind the scene unless they make that work public - her going in for private visits we never hear about helps the people there. But she doesn't have a true, broader impact unless these things are announced, because that's the only way people learn about these causes and maybe join the efforts to resolve them. Kate going in privately is not really any more useful (unless announced) than any of us volunteering, except that the people may obviously be more excited to see Kate. But, in terms of helping the cause, doesn't necessarily do much and it certainly doesn't use the platform she has to the fullest extend. But I understand if people disagree with that. What I don't understand is why people accuse others of making assumptions while doing the same themselves. I mean, my gawd, the pro-Kate people have said things like "obviously George has very hands-on parents; you can tell from his disposition." 1. I'm not sure how anyone knows his disposition given that we haven't seen him in public in almost a year and 2. toddlers can be pretty happy even with a nanny, given that they have little to no idea about what's going on in terms of biological parents vs. who is taking care of them. Everyone makes assumptions on this blog.

      Delete
    14. Anon 5:28 all your long listing fails to address why they need security and make appearances. Of course they do things like work out, shop and spend time grooming. It lists how a wealthy person uses help but not how designated people serve their county. Perhaps their PR team is better than we think since in your defense you did not mention service so telling .

      Delete
    15. The "assumption" that they work behind the scenes is offered as a likely and reasonable scenario in response to the assumption (more like accusations in some cases) that they are lazy and don't want to pull their weight.

      Delete
    16. Regarding the assumption of dispositions based on photographs... compare photos of Charles (as an example) at George's age and tell me you can't pick up on a difference between the two.

      Delete
    17. To answer your question Maggie MN: You can tell from how he interacted with the play group on tour. Some would not leave their parents arms, turned away or cried when some else looked at them. You could tell by how he walked after the butterflies or how he took off exploring when his mother took him to the Polo match. Nanny Maria Had only just started working for them. It is Kate holding his hand when on the walk in the pictures above. Not the nanny!

      You can tell how Kate interacts with the people she visits on her engagements. How she has thought out her wardrobe and dresses impeccably, even if you do not like what she wears.

      Yes we all make assumptions on this blog and all have our opinions that are just as valid as anyone else. Some of see the glass as half full rather that half empty and will understand and accept that things do go on behind the scenes.

      Delete
    18. Great post Maggie. It is so odd how some do not get what you are pointing out. We know nothing of any of them so the entire group make assumptions. It is odd how there are not too many who express both sides in a post usually in one camp or the other.

      Delete
  43. Anyone have opinions on the KJL earrings? I'm not a fan, I think they're too flash and formal and so BIG for Kate. Kenneth Jay Lane made costume jewelry worn by Nancy Reagan, the wife of our late President Ronald Reagan, in the 1980s. I'm shocked that he's even still making jewelry.
    But I'd like to know what others think of the earrings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rebecca - Sweden6 February 2015 at 16:23

      I love them. I always wear big (much cheaper.....) jewelry! :)

      Delete
    2. I agree with you, Elizabeth. They are huge and so different from Kate's other earrings. Very few women could carry off this look. This is one time when I approve of Kate's hair hanging loose. It covers up most of those gawdy earrings. I didn't realize that Kenneth Jay Lane jewelry was still around.

      Delete
    3. I'm not crazy about them, but I think it has more to do with them being "top heavy." Otherwise, I'm glad to see her wear larger earrings; the ones that she seems to favor can be too small and not always in proportion with the rest of her look.

      Here's the link for Kenneth Jay Lane

      http://www.kennethjaylane.com/home/

      I agree that some of the pieces are gaudy, but the "Jackie Kennedy" pearls, for example, are absolutely stunning.

      Delete
  44. Just one more comment ... I'm grateful for the pap shots. I've needed some motivation to get working out and get in shape and the pics of Pippa and her rockin' bod are JUST what I needed to get started on my fitness and diet routine.
    Say what you will about Pippa (I personally really like her and James and think they have been put in a horrible situation), the girl can rock a bikini like nobody's business!!

    ReplyDelete
  45. I dont see why there are people who get suprised that kate took her nanny on vacation. My brother would used to take me along to look after my niece so he would be afforded tim with his wife. He is by no means wealthy by cambridge standards. Will and kate have never actually come out and said they desire to live just like us....and even if they had...wouldn't ithat be quite silly considering they arent just like us. Just a thought...my every move wasnt monitored by the press last time i went to new york city. William is the furture king, his mother and father were prince and princess of wales, his grandmother is queen...i check the not like us box.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Lynn Georgia USA6 February 2015 at 17:08

    I wonder whether they have returned. I haven't heard any news to that effect, but I thought they were staying just two weeks. Does anyone know?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Hello, does anyone have a better idea on the straw hat Kate might be wearing?

    ReplyDelete
  48. just saw on twitter they are hosting the Bafta nominee event at Kensington Palace tonight

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rebecca - Sweden7 February 2015 at 20:04

      Only rumours so far. Everyone is jumping to the conclusion based on that one BAFTA event is held at Kensington Palace tonight. Anyone can rent a space there, doesn't have to be them.

      Delete
  49. There's rumours claiming William and Kate are hosting a BAFTA event at KP tonight. No confirmation yet! http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/bafta-awards-a-guide-weekends-769388

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rebecca - Sweden7 February 2015 at 20:03

      Doesn't sound likely. Anyone can rent a space in KP for a night. If they did something for BAFTA it would be the main event, IMO.

      Delete
  50. anyone know what shoes she is wearing in the pics?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Hello!

    It looks like the reports were false. William and Kate do not appear to be at the party.

    ReplyDelete
  52. This whole conversation about the nanny is ridiculous! They will one day be the next king and queen of the UK and are able to afford this help. There are plenty of people who are successful in life that hire nanny's that go on holiday with them. This does not mean that W&K are not "hands on" parents - it only means that she is there to help Kate if need be or take over for a few hours if they want to go do something alone.

    Kate does not lead a "normal" life - I really don't know why so many women on this board see this as something negative against them. I'm sure they are great parents, regardless of the fact that they have a nanny. Just because you have a nanny does not mean that you are not doing the parenting. There is obviously agreement higher up re W&K's roles in the Royal family - if the Queen wanted them out more, they would be. She is obviously giving them a very long leash until necessary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. YES, perfectly said.

      Camilla

      Delete
    2. I'm going to challenge the notion that the sovereign necessarily has control of his/her children and grandchildren. I point to George V and his relationship with Edward the VIII as the most recent example. Victoria also had difficulty with Edward VII.

      The notion of royalty not being hands on parents but relying on nannies - comes from the Queen herself who conducted her life this way. Charles employed Tiggy to look after the boys while he was doing other things. This is the way of life and parenting that William knows.

      Delete
    3. William had Diana. And now Kate and the Middletons.
      He knows more than that.

      Camilla

      Delete
    4. Moxie, what about Charles as a more recent example? His non-negotiable relationship with Camilla didn't do the monarchy any favors. Even today, they require PR and an eggshell-type approach to him being crowned king with her at his side.

      Delete
    5. Does any parent have control of a grown child? However, I did not think this is what anon 00:32 was referring. I do think the queen calls the shots as to who does what when talking about engagements and so forth. Would very much like to know how the appearances are requested and then assigned. Is it in one office or does each Palace/house field their own requests?

      Delete
  53. I wonder when the airport photos will surface. It is about every year or so we either see them arriving or departing from the airport. I know it's bad, but I was looking forward to how much George has grown up. Since we never get "play date" photos this would've been nice... I wonder If the royals made a deal with the paps or something?

    Liz, USA

    ReplyDelete
  54. Here is an excellent article about how Kate has been working so much, and is setting a wonderful example for other working mothers the world over.

    http://www.closerweekly.com/posts/kate-middleton-worries-loved-ones-by-working-nonstop-during-her-pregnancy-50686

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think all working mothers should have a two week vacation in Mustique after working just three days - and don't work those days one after another either. And I am not joking. If Kate is the example for working mothers - you need to stop working so much.

      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.