As you can imagine, the news of Duchess Kate and Prince William’s Maldives vacation was like a bomb going off in the UK press. It’s gotten so bad that even the Daily Mail (which is usually The Daily Middleton, they’re so pro-Kate) had to run a story questioning whether Will and Kate should have gone on vacation again. The Mail pulled their punches of course, covering it as “internet commenters are bitching about this” rather than coming out and taking an editorial stance. Here’s what we know for sure:
*Will and Kate are staying at the “new, five-star Cheval Blanc Randheli Resort, which opened just last November, on the southern Noonu Atoll. The resort is part of the Louis Vuitton Moet Hennessy luxury conglomerate, and every one of its 45 villas includes gorgeous views of the Indian Ocean and access to private white sandy beaches.”
*Will and Kate rented a “large two-bedroom island villa, which includes a 41-foot infinity pool and sun deck. According to one insider, a four-night stay at the Cheval Blanc costs $10,000, and a five-course dinner at the resort’s luxury Le 1947 restaurant costs about $500 per person — without drinks.”
*William’s “bespoke” program at Cambridge is definitely NOT done. He still has at least a week of courses to do. As for Kate… well, she was just in Mustique with her family (and George) a month ago. And William went on a minibreak with his brother and his ex-girlfriend just before the BAFTAs. It’s not like Will and Kate haven’t had “time off” recently.
*Prince George definitely did not come along. George is with Michael and Carole Middleton right now. Plus, George is being tended to by all of his new nannies. This is what people seem most upset about – it’s not just that Will and Kate went on vacation (AGAIN), it’s that they left George with Kate’s parents.
*The Mirror had a lengthy article talking about the nanny situation and the quotes from sources close to Will and Kate are total head-scratchers. Apparently, Kate has hired one new nanny (no word on whether this is the English nanny or the “foreign” nanny) and Kate left the new nanny to “bond” with Prince George. The Mirror reports: “The nanny, under the watchful eye of Kate’s mum Carole, is bonding with the eight-month-old as the pair holiday in the Maldives. The new woman – who is also being shown the ropes by Wills’ nanny Jessie Webb – will then join the royals on their three-week tour of Australia and New Zealand.”
*A source told The Mirror: “Kate and William thought it was a great plan to let their new employee get to know George’s routine and habits while they weren’t there. She will be the woman who will be caring for George while Kate and William are doing their royal duties so she needs to get to know him. They thought it best to be out of the way and leave Carole there to oversee the process. It also meant they could have a bit of time together after what has been a very tiring year for the both of them.” A “very tiring year”? OH MY GOD. They’ve done three events each in three months’ time and none of it was hard labor, you know? It was all glitzy parties and hair-twirling.
Some royalist sources are also trying to spin this vacation as a “second honeymoon” type of excursion for Will and Kate, and some of you guys suggested that this George-free vacation was William making up to Kate after vacationing with his ex-girlfriend. I don’t really buy the “second honeymoon” explanation because… well, how many second honeymoons do they need? It’s like they have a second honeymoon every other month. And if they “needed” another honeymoon, doesn’t that explanation beg the question: why? Why are they living separate lives these days? Why do they need to reconnect… but only during expensive vacations thousands of miles away from their baby?
As for the mountain of hate Kate in particular is getting for “leaving George behind” – I get it, somewhat. Since George was born, we’ve heard time and time again that Kate is a normal, down-to-earth stay-at-home mom and that’s why she barely does any work. The fact that George was dropped off at her mom’s house for a week just seems to contradict that image. So, on that level, I understand the “hate.” But for me, I’m more disgusted with William. At least Kate really spends time with George – William could barely spend a few months in London with the baby before he enrolled in this “bespoke program” which just seemed like an excuse to get away from his wife and young son. When does William spend any time with his kid? I’d really like to know.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
I had a radio phone-in on earlier and it was VITRIOLIC about this. Seriously. Usually, you’d get a few defenders even when the RF are obviously in the wrong but not this morning. I think the timing so soon after all the floods is feeding a more antsi public perception than usual.
Sixer — do you think it’s vitriolic enough to actually catch the BRF’s attention? Think any changes will be made? My guess is not — it takes a lot to get them to respond and this prob isn’t it. Yet.
Interesting. They really are tone deaf, those two.
The BRF as a whole is really tone deaf. Take a stroll through recent history and you’ll see it’s pretty much all of them.
I don’t know, Ms Slips. To be brutally frank, outside of gossip websites, the RF doesn’t intrude much into everyday conversation. The rate at which they fill the tabloids doesn’t match the interest of Joe Public. As I’ve said before, I used to live in London, where nobody I knew had anything but a passing interest in the RF. These days, I live in a rural area and bastion of support for the RF. But even then, they’re just not a water cooler topic.
I have been more than a little surprised at the way they are discussed on here!
Having said that, there was a real strength of feeling on the radio this morning. People were CROSS.
So inertia keeps these people in place?
Um… well, Brits aren’t big on change. And the national discourse isn’t particularly republican. I think there is a respect for the institution that transcends the individuals, even if it isn’t much discussed.
I am unusual in being an “out” republican. But even I would seem lukewarm to many stateside, I suspect. I see the way offices and officers of state are fetishised and I dislike it intensely.
I would not support a republic a la US, because I think if we must fetishise someone, it should NOT be a politician. I really dislike the conflation of, say, Obama with POTUS and I’m British enough to cringe when the press behaves as though a politician is some kind of superstar actor or musician. If I had to choose between you and us, I’d choose us. At least our idiots are powerless idiots.
I would support a republic a la Ireland where the president takes on state roles (charity, diplomacy) but is NOT overtly party political and where parliament is autonomous.
In my experience, the Royal Family is only conversation topic when truly gripped with a scandal or a death. In my memory, my British grandmother only once brought up the royal family and it was when Kate “lost” her top. She was completely horrified and felt the entire debacle was an embarrassment to the Royals, to the UK, and to her personally!
As she put it, “One should never forget their English sense, simply because they vacationed in France. ” Much to my amusement, Grandmother strongly feels toplessness is exclusively a French perversion.
I’ll second all this. Below is a transcript of a phone call I had with my cousin in Yorkshire the day George was born.
ME: Hey! Are you calling about the baby?
COUSIN: What?
ME: The baby! You know, Kate and William’s baby!
COUSIN: The baby?
ME: Yes! Kate had the baby!
COUSIN: Oh . . . . no. I was phoning to ask Mr. bluhare about bonsai.
This is almost verbatim. I couldn’t believe it wasn’t on her radar!
Bluhare, that conversation was probably the funniest thing I’ve heard in a few days. : )))
@Bluehare thank you this was so entertaining 🙂
Yes, Sixer, but we get to change our idiots every 4-8 years, so…where was I going with that?
Our idiots just get replaced with more… Idiots.
I agree GoodNames. *sigh*
Well, you get to change your legislators, as do we.
But the state-as-entity does have gravitas. And should be above the grind of day-to-day party politics. Changing the face – and fetishising the face – of that isn’t necessary to a functioning political system. And I’m not entirely against continuity.
Like I say, I’d support an Irish constitutional presidency with a longish term. But I still find the conflation of person and office in the US model quite dangerous – and also the source of unproductive discourse.
But do remember: I’m an outlier in UK opinion on this one.
I am sighing too, LadySlippers…
Yes, Sixer, and the conflation of person and office has become so extreme with our current president, and both sides so deeply entrenched and invested in it, that our government is at a virtual standstill. So you make an excellent point.
I actually disagree with the conflation point. We’ve LONG conflated the two — take a meander through history and you’ll see it from almost the get go.
It started when we gave our Pres the same power that our former Sovereigns had. In fact, GW was asked to be our king and he turned it down. So often our elected officials, especially PoTUS, is our attempt to replace a void that the BRF filled.
Well, I’d be inclined to say that I’d agree both for the historical and current situations.
My personal view would be that the head of government (a working politician) should not be the same person as the head of state (a representation of the country). It’s not healthy.
My best preference would be a constitutional republic with those roles separated. My worst would be the US conflated model. And in the middle, creeps in what we have in the UK – separation but with an antiquated heredity system to represent the state. This is what I mean when I say our “idiots” are powerless. I think most of our politicians are twits too – but they aren’t the “idiots” I mean here. IYSWIM.
Eh even with all our flaws I still rather have the US system over the UK’s. The Royals do a good job of looking harmless and apolitical but they’re not. British Royals actually have vetoing powers. Charles and his mother can veto any law that effects their own personal interests. And they are exempt from the FOI act, meaning their records, financial and otherwise can never be truly scrutinized by the press. The press only find out about their veto powers last year. What other powers do they have that the British public doesn’t know about?
And Sixer, I’m not sure where you get this idea that our US President is worshipped. For every person who is a vocal fan of the POTUS there’s another person who is vocally opposed to them.(I’m talking in general here, not just about Obama) There have been many Presidents who’ve been subjected to protests and vocal criticism by the public and the media.
And I think this estimation of the cost of the trip is way too low.
@LadySlippers
Yes, you’re right, we have long conflated the two. But I have never seen a presidency where people on one side were so unable to admit a flaw, and people on the other so unable to see any good at all. We can’t discuss politics anymore with any civility. People don’t just attack your opinions, they attack your character. We seem so stuck in this, I really don’t know how it’s going to end.
Having said that, I don’t agree with Sixer that the problem is inherent in our form of government. I think it’s more the times we live in, and how frustrated people were with the way things were when Obama took over, and a lot of other factors. I hope it will right itself and swing back to a workable place. I think it will.
@GoodNames @Sixer:
People had the same view of Bush Jr and so few can see the flip flop with Obama (praise and hate depending on whose in power). True of Reagan, Bush Sr, and Clinton.
The vitriolic political divide will be our undoing. As will be the latching of the US government to Big Money and Corporations.
@Sixer @Xantha:
Other countries that have a PM and Pres in separate offices have just as many issues as those that have it combined. I see it no better or no worse than any other form of government.
My personal belief is that no form of government is ‘best’. Human beings are human and can screw up any form of government no matter how wonderful the original idea was/is.
@GoodNames @Xantha:
I just realised that from a non-American viewpoint the Obama’s prob do seem to be ‘worshipped’ by the foreign press. That’s probably as a result of how badly the world hated Bush Jr.
I cannot tell you how much the world despised Bush Jr and the vitriol directed at Americans living abroad (myself included) . It’s not something most Americans know or see and thus, can’t really relate to. A lot of that is packaged in the news (by both sides) in a way that creates more divisions in the world rather than acknowledging our faults.
Yes, I agree with the statement that democracy is the worst form of government, except for every other form of government.
Yeah I think we can all agree that every form of government has its share of problems and downsides. And Bush Jr. isn’t all that popular in the US either so many Americans could emphasize with anti Bush sentiment in Europe.
I would simply add – by fetishising, I don’t mean to suggest only worship/positivity. But I do mean that the (to me) fetishising of POTUS the office should not be focused on a short term, elected politician. Respect for the office and the sense of national identity it imbues should not have the face of a career politician. It’s damaging in all kinds of ways.
(Although I’m in complete agreement that most forms of government suck. Representative democracy is not all it’s cracked up to be. That said, while I’m with the strong US narrative that government is not to be trusted, I’m not so much with the one that says less government is ALWAYS better. Once again, I’m sitting on the fence with painful splinters in my bum).
As an Aussie, I understand where Sixer is coming from with the “fetishizing/worshipping” of the president. It’s at an extreme level right now with Obama, but it’s not just an Obama vs Bush thing … the US president has pretty much always been a celebrity. That’s not an insult, it’s simply an observation. Any elected official (president or PM) pretty much has to be famous in order to get elected in the first place. If you’re American, I don’t think you’d even realise that isn’t the only approach. I mean, your media treats foreign Heads of State as huge celebrities, even if they’re not exactly treated as such in their own country … so how would you know?
In contrast, Australia’s Governor General (Quentin Bryce), on behalf of the Queen, has similar powers to the US President: right of veto, Supreme Commander of our armed forces. Depending on how you look at it, she’s possibly more powerful because she can also dismiss parliament. And yet, 99 out of 100 Australians wouldn’t recognise her if they ran into her on the street. Because the GG is appointed, not elected, there is no need for them to court the media. They are civil servants, career bureaucrats rather than politicians.
It’s just a different system.
I’d bet this vacation was way more than £10,000. C’mon — they cleared out the resort for the two of them. My guess is that it’s probably at least 2-5x more than that, NOT counting security costs incurred by the RPOs.
And The Mirror quotes sound weird –especially if true.
Exactly what I was about to write. There’s also first class airfare (or private jet) and meals to take into account.
Yup. And the RPOs have to go — sometime days/weeks ahead to account the place too. RPOs are 100% funded by the British tax payer — no private money paying them there.
So yeah, you’ve got the resort fee for the ENTIRE resort, round trip airfare for the entire party, food, gratuity (if not factored in), any staff that might have accompanied them (secretaries or PAs), and several RPOs (probably 4-6) salaries working around the clock. That’s a lot of money being paid out for the ‘fourth honeymoon’ (they’ve already been on three previously so the DM can’t count).
Check out Ken Wharfe’s book to see all that goes into a Royal vacation — it’s not cheap or a last minute ordeal.
Exactly. William and Kate Middleton are NOT allowed to take freebies, so if they did that’s a legal investigation that will need to happen.
If they paid and if they rented out the entire resort as reported, that means $10,000 a week for each of the 45 villas or $450,000, not including the $500/meal for each person they brought with them. Isn’t that roughly what they spent shutting down the Seychelles location and taking all those friends with them on their first (of many) honeymoon(s) ?
@My2Pence:
I don’t remember the guesstimate for the Seychelles but £500,000 sounds a lot closer than £10,000 does. Then and now.
(I get you are using $ but they’d be using £)
@LS, you’re right. The resort is $10,000/four nights, if they’re they’re a week that’s roughly $17,500 for a week per villa, or £10,500 per villa, then multiplied by 45 villas.
The honeymoon was £450,000 (pounds not dollars) just for the accommodations, not including travel for the RPOs (for both the requisite look-and-secure trip and the actual trip) and the friends who accompanied them on the “romantic getaway”.
http://travel.aol.co.uk/2011/05/17/prince-william-and-kate-middletons-honeymoon-island-costs-45k-a-night/
I can’t even begin to put into words just how OBSCENE I find the cost of these two nitwits’ luxury holiday, but then I’m just the descendant of lowly peasants and have to count every krone in my budget.
it is not jealousy, it is genuine outrage – my english Masters-degree cost £3000 in tuition 10 years ago – and it is an investment that keeps growing. Using that much money so that to people can spend a week in the sun is, imo, obscene and tone-deaf, especially because they aren’t just rich private citizens, they are public servants who ought to serve the nation and they depend on the goodwill of the people, even if they don’t think they do!
The ways in which royalist sources try to spin this thing is simply ludicrous! The year has barely begun, they barely work and they had a tiring year!! Try dealing with illness, debt, unemployment and sick relatives – that’s tiring. I’m outraged and I’m not even British – if I was, I’d dust of my pitchfork.
The RPOs bill is pretty steep and no matter how you spin that — that’s a cost directly borne by the tax payer.
And that alone for the recon/ security scouting before the trip and the salary plus OT gets to be very expensive.
*Ken Wharfe makes it clear that reconning before a trip is a non-negotiable and it’s above and beyond the normal salary paid to them if they were protecting the family. He tried to keep costs down to a minimum but it sometimes isn’t an option.
“Obscene” is the perfect word, @ArtHistorian. IMO, their royal gloss covers up a revolting debauchery as well, aided by the craven media.
@My2Pence,
They took friends on their honeymoon???? I have never heard of this! Wow!
hmmm – yes they did.
It’s rare for these 2 to holiday alone as a couple [excluding bodyguards and LIW/PAs]. the last time this happened, PGtips popped out. Maybe we are going to have another baby at christmas?????!!!! 😉
Maybe the stay was comped? It’s a brand-new resort, only open a few months, and what great publicity they’re getting!
Usually a new resort doesn’t have those kinds of funds to allow one party to book the entire resort (usually rooms per night are in the thousands of £/$/€ so take that by what was it 45 rooms? And over several days, possibly a week? That’s a huge loss of income).
Someone else could have footed the bill — that I might believe more than the resort chomping it. The Duchess of York gets most if her things because other people pay for them but it’s not well regarded for the BRF itself to take freebies like this. Again, I’d guess the BRF is paying for this. But the tax payers are definitely footing the expensive RPO bill.
Maybe Pippa gifted to them, just like the necklace?
@Cricket: Too funny!
They will be in big trouble if they accepted a comp on this.
Oh, definitely, I agree. Much more expensive than reported.
I’m not sure why, but the vacation part doesn’t seem to bother me much. It is to be expected with these two. What’s annoying to me are all of the excuses and justifications to leaving Georgie, William’s douchery, and the fact that Kate is still officially on maternity leave. I am surprised that no one has used this as a justification either.
“Kate and William thought it was a great plan to let their new employee get to know George’s routine and habits while they weren’t there.”
But isn’t it better for the child to get used to strangers while still being around? I find this really weird. I mean you normally try to ease the process as much as you can by overlapping the presence of parents and help , but they are just completely out of the picture – and he’s not even one year old. There are lots of people who are forced to give their children in care from an early age on, but these two are definitely not. How classy of them.
@Liv: The logic from The Mirror sucks. I’d give that article a healthy dose of skepticism since it might be made up.
(I’m hoping it IS made up. And it isn’t beyond the pale of the press to create a story if it will sell papers. Truth and facts are not always needed or required.)
Personally, if I had to live with my in-laws (two generations of ’em!) I’d want to go on vacation as often as possible too. And I love my in-laws!
Also, they’re probably trying to get her knocked up again and this might seem the best way to accomplish that. Now THERE’S an excuse!
Basically, IDGAF what they do. I think all the clucking over it is pretty funny really.
“Wills’s nanny Jessie Webb” *snicker* Makes it sound like he still has a nanny.
Some people might say he married a nanny – Kate.
People definitely say the same thing about Charles and his current wife….
He married a “ninny”.
“Will and his nanny…er, wife…took a vacation to the Maldives.”
LMFAO @Stef Leppard and @Meredith.
LOL
I don’t buy the Mirror, but I bet the RF is feeding the Daily Fail as fast as they can in an attempt to spin this….I’m with Kaiser in that I’m way more disgusted with William. He’s not a busy mom taking a spa day…he went on a vacation with his ex-gf, a vacation with his wife, enrolled in school, and spends a lot of time away from his infant son. Just gross on his part. At least Kate seems to actually spend you know “gasp” time with the baby. William is 31 years old…he’s not some rich dude with no responsibilities (in which I would say good for you, school is always great). His life is in part funded by the tax-payers, and he is supposed to be out there working on behalf of the royal family. I also bet their vacation cost way more than 10k.
just don’t understand all the rf hating that goes on here. will never understand why Americans seem to need to judge others by their crazy obsession with constantly working.
It is not only Americans who judge.
Lol. As though working is a nasty word! Heaven forbid someone actually work for a living vs living off the taxes of others hard work.
Not an American, and living in a country with a monarchy myself and I can honestly say that I am absolutely disgusted when I hear once more that our “beloved” king has gone off on holiday on his personal yacht.
Their lifestyle is funded by taxpayers’ money, they owe US but they feel too entitled to do their goddamn job which is showing up, supporting charities and help promote the country and its reputation with other nations. Do the fucking job you get paid millions for.
Go Aagje!
Hmmmmm so I’m confused. Everyone should be okay then with them not working as an antidote for the Americans and our crazy fascination/obsession with work? How does that even correlate?
That’s ridiculous. I don’t have a problem with them not working. I don’t have a problem with them going on countless holidays. I have a problem with them doing all of that with my tax money.
Exactly. There’s always one person commenting who just doesn’t get that it’s not about jealousy of their lifestyle – it’s about how little they do in return for how very generously they’re supported by people who, generally speaking, have far, far less than they do.
You could always abolish the monarchy. If they cost so much money and don’t do anything but sell papers for the Daily Fail, well, why go on with it?
Because the BRF is constitutional head of state in many more countries than the UK? Because the Anglican church in this country is established? Because an alternative would have to be agreed? Because many Britons are perfectly happy with the institution but not with poor performance by individuals who are part of it?
But mostly: because British people are at their happiest when they are moaning? We like moaning. We need targets.
I’m from Europe and I don’t have a problem with them being lazy, just with the image they try to force on us. They should live only on their own money and stop making us believe that they are normal and down to earth.
+1
They can’t afford their lifestyle on their own money.
If WK were forced to cover their own bills, security included, they’d live a lot less grandly.
Unfortunately, even when they can’t afford something, they still get it from gullible wannabe royal buddies eg William once famously rang up a Mustique villa owner and begged a free stay at their villa because he didn’t have the money to cover the cost. In the end, he was given the villa for a token contribution to a charity.
The disconnect between the image their PR spin and what they actually do is HUGE! And that actually hurts their public image even more – PR spin can only do such much and I think William is too arrogant and self-absorbed to acknowledge this.
I do sometimes wonder if their PR team is that inept or that they just don’t have anything to work with? I tend towards the latter explanation. I must be incredibly frustrating to work for these two nincompoops.
@ArtHistorian:
The ‘PR team’ that palace’s employ isn’t actually PR based. Most people that work for the BRF have a military background NOT a private sector background. It is changing but that’s not a tidbit most people know. In fact, when Charles went on his PR initiative, it was the first time (that I have read) that any member of the BRF have used a bonafide PR firm. Even with Sophie’s PR background — she isn’t used or even consulted to help shape the BRF’s image.
Note: The military background used to work because the Royal Family usually sprung from a military conquest. There are a lot of parallels in the two organisations and they often compliment one another. However, the successful RFs in the modern world (Denmark for example) have left portions of that model behind.
LadySlippers,
That is very interesting to know! It also explains that constant missteps that are made.
In Denmark, the RF hired a professional communications-chief in 2008. She is extremely competent, a former press secretary at the Danish Embassy in Washington during the public shitstorm that was the Muhammad-crisis. So she’s had her baptism by fire. This has turned out to be a very smart move by the DRF. The have become much more open in terms of letting the press and hence to public have look into their lives and the work that goes on behind the scenes.
Charles and Camilla made an official visit to Denmark not long ago (last year or the year before that), which was something I really took notice of, because the senior royals of the BRF rarely deign to visit their European counterparts. I can’t keep speculating that Charles might might be looking to the successes of the Scandinavian monarchies with an eye to when it’s time for him to take the throne. It is, after all, well-known that he wants to streamline and modernize the BRF. However, it is just a thought on my part.
@ArtHistorian:
Very few people within the BRF do much in the way of PR and now you see why. Diana and Charles did it extensively in the War of the Wales’ (Diana extensively and Charles reacted) but they directed a lot themselves and totally left out their offices. And William and Kate do to some extent now but nothing like Diana & Charles did though.
In regards to the other British Royals, it’s not very common to do the underhanded PR thing and I’m including Harry as part of that group. He just doesn’t really play that game and a lot of people assume he does because of his parents and brother.
My guess is Charles (as you suggested) might be trying to get a handle on everything, induding PR, since the whole of the BRF is so much more fractured than any other Imperial/Royal Family.
I don’t care what people do with time and money they’ve earned but if they’re supported by the hardworking taxpayer they’d better give value for money which these two clowns surely don’t. As an American I also find the concept of someone being born to rule or superior to anyone super gross. Do you really find that so hard to understand?
I am in agreement with LadySlippers. I am confused; why would you say ‘American’ disdain for the BRF comes from an American obsession with working? Is it not far more likely that an ‘American’ disdain for the BRF comes from an ancestral conflict of undue taxation in order to support lavish lifestyles of a select group of people who actually adhere to an antiquated belief that they are better than the average human because of the family into which they were born?
ETA: Apparently, I am also in agreement with Lisa as her comment posted whilst I was still typing!
Wow Original N — you just said what I was trying to say so beautifully!
It’s not about the N.A. obsession with working, it’s that they can’t even be bothered to get actively involved with the charities they’re both supposed to be representing. Their lives are nothing but doing the barest amount of public service interspersed with countless vacations and down time. Wills can’t even get through a 10 week course without needing a vacation. They’re both incredibly lazy and unmotivated to do anything other than the most cursory and pleasant public outings then it’s back to hunting or shopping or redecorating or hair twirling. And I’m Canadian, not American, so the Queen is still our reigning constitutional monarch which annoys the h*ll out of me.
Jaded — what is the Canadian sentiment toward the monarchy? Any republican stirrings?
@ Lisa – mostly indifference to the monarchy but many Canadians think it’s a useless anachronism, not worth anything to Canada. It’s not nearly as visible as in Australia for example, but it’s there, and William and Kate haven’t helped – despite their visit here several years ago, their disregard for public duty and love of vacationing is very apparent.
I’m Canadian too and I would whole heartedly agree with the indifference comment. Many people also love the monarchy too.
Will and Kate coming here directly after their wedding did a lot to boost their favour and our papers, newscasts do not report on their constant vacationing so the majority of the population would have no idea how lazy they really are.
I, for one, love the queen, but have no use for anyone that comes after (except Princess Anne). I feel sad that she is still working to hold it all together, while her heirs just want to enjoy the perks.
I’m an Aussie living in Canada and I completely agree with Jaded.
In Canada, most people are indifferent and the country as a whole is definitely steps removed from Australia’s much more heavily influenced Commonwealth connection.
I personally think these two are some of the most useless people on the planet.
My mother , on the other hand, who is still in Australia and only reads/watches main stream media, thinks these two are wonderful, so…..
I’m Canadian and I openly hope that Canada will be a republic someday. I’m no longer indifferent or on the fence. I support a Canadian republic all the way.
@Cora – hello, fellow Canadian! I’m also on the no-to-the-monarchy “Republic of Canada” side – although, sadly, I don’t think I’ll see it happen in my lifetime. I’m happy to hear that there are others who feel the same way, though. 🙂
Hi lili, I would be willing to bet that most people who comment on these threads are absolutely not rf haters at heart. They tend to be people who like the British monarchy and want it to be successful. They get upset when it seems pretty obvious we’ve got a couple of people, in a very high profile position — and this is key as their position is high profile no matter how people like to spin with with “part time royal” stuff — and they aren’t pulling their weight. When William’s 92 year old grandfather does twice as many engagements as the two of them PUT TOGETHER so far this year, it looks bad.
I agree 100%.
This. I am European, come from an aristocratic background myself, and really… I do like monarchy, I do support tradition in it but this is just gross. I like Harry, for example. These two are so annoying and arrogant that I can hardly find one single thing to like about them. I also happen to be a PR and I must tell you that a PR can do only that much and it vastly depends on the good will of the client to do as advised. I can’t count all the troublesome clients over the years who just did whatever they wanted to do and ignored us. It’s a huge waste of energy and very stressful as we are also expected to clean the mess they have done regardless their ignorance. As about leaving an 8-month old baby behind to “connect with a nanny”, this is way too stupid and arrogant to even comment on it but it shows lack of most basic knowledge of pediatrics recommendation and children psychology. A baby at this age is bond to its mother. It senses her smell, it’s an instinctive reaction. I went back to work when my first was one year old and I spend two months with a full-time nanny still being around to comfort him and hug him each time he got upset. I don’t know what Kate reads, if anything, on parenting but I had subscribed to pediatrics associations’ newsletters and in none of them was such “connecting” promoted or advised. She is behaving as an arrogant spoiled irresponsible lazy gal. That’s my opinion.
very well said
@bluhare
I don’t want the BRF to be successful. It is an anachronism that continues to live off the backs of their subjects, many of whom are struggling. IMO, it is beyond repair, especially now that it’s obvious that it’s largely been churning out wastrels and entitled cretins, and more recently, liars. IMO, there is no reparation of their image when you’ve seen the sleazy, cynical underbelly of the beast.
They largely don’t deserve our respect or our hope for better times. The lazy duo (and thanks to the internet) have unwittingly exposed the manipulative innerworkings of business as usual.
I, personally, want to be using the word “schadenfreude” very, very soon. I don’t wish them ill, but I also don’t think they have the substance to turn things around and make me want to keep them around. Once you see them for what they are , there is no going back and not all the bendy twisty PR in the world that serves their interests and treats us as gullible morons is going to change my mind. I’m offended at what passes for ‘hard work’ and noblesse oblige these days. There was honour to it in the past.
@Ronia: To be fair we don’t know that the Mirror article is even truthful.
@hmmm: While I understand your sentiment, people will still be struggling whether or not their Royal Family stays in place. In fact, it’ll probably complicate things.
@Ladyslippers
I meant living off the backs of taxpayers. It may not make a quantitative difference but it does make a qualitative difference. Let me see, do I want to support the lifestyles of wastrels or hope that that money is earmarked for good things? Hmmm…
@lili
They are rich welfare bums. What’s not to understand? They do almost nothing to earn their keep on the public penny, and their snouts are forever in the public trough.
And since when has ‘work’ become a dirty word?
Maybe $10k per night and that is on the low side.
I think its OK to have a bit of time away from the baby especially if he is with trusted family. It helped me when I was suffering from post partum depression that lasted over 1 year after I had my kid. I think the issue is that she really doesn’t do anything but take vacations, and does she really desperately need a break without George if she has also had a nanny?
GrumpyCat
Sorry to hear you suffered PPD, but glad to hear you’re out of it.
There are 2 main isues here imo.
1. They are vacationing again. the 10,000 pound quote is only about the night to night stay. Not the food, drinks, travel, security, staff salary that travels with them… and any extras they purchase along the way. And this isn’t all coming out of private pockets.
2. Kate has done so little and has such a huge team of nannies. Yet a common excuse being used for her lack of work is that she can’t bare to be away from her baby. How ever did she gather the strength for this vacation.
They don’t even pay for their RPO expenses, do they? I know their salaries are paid by the police dept. they work for; are their expenses handled the same way?
@bluhare:
The RPOs are directly paid for by the tax payer. Directly.
The only time the BRF picks up the tab is when it’s for a non-family member or when it’s no longer authorised by the government. For example, Andrew now picks up the tab for his daughters to be protected. Or Charles supposedly paid for Camilla’s RPOs due to all the death threats she recieved prior to becoming the Dss of Cornwall.
LS
Wasn’t that the big deal when the RPOs were at Pippa’s book promotion and no royalty was around? The Middletons were essentially gifted Will and Kate’s security for that event. Shortly after William’s long time head of protection resigns.
@Florc: Pretty much.
@bluhare: The RPOs work for Scotland and that’s how they expense things. Read Ken Wharfe’s book for more info.
@FLORC and LS. Just providing the reference:
Who do the Middletons think they are- Royalty? Pippa’s book venue vetted by palace protection officers
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223806/Who-Middletons-think-Royalty-Pippas-book-venue-vetted-palace-protection-officers.html
What is the problem? The baby is with the grandparents and new nanny. I don’t care if they have a vacation together. I like seeing that they are still in love after ten years together.
The problem comes in because the BRF represent the British people and the Commonwealth as well. They are a symbol and in essence, work for the people. We in the US and elsewhere, expect our politicians to work for us (even though few do) which is a fair expectation to have of the BRF. If they were completely private people — no one would care much.
They can’t be in love at home, with their baby???????
That’s what I was wondering. Ditto for the ‘trying for a second baby’ comments. This can’t be done at home? In your lovely, newly-decorated palace? Or your lovely, newly decorated country home?
The problem is not with leaving the baby at home while they swan off on their umpteenth vacation to be in love, it’s that they are not representing the BRF in the way they’re supposed to do – i.e. be actively involved with a number of charitable organizations in order to direct funds to schools, hospitals, training centres, rehab facilities, etc. etc. So far, on the public dime, they’ve done nothing much except show up for a few high profile formal events. While William and Harry were off on their shooting vacation, and Kate was in Mustique, England was undergoing some of the worst flooding in centuries, whole towns were submerged, people’s homes and businesses were ruined. They should have been front row centre assisting with disaster relief but didn’t show up until the press basically shamed them into it, then they were surly and rude to them. Nice job Will and Kate, way to show your appreciation for the lavish lifestyle you’re living from the country’s coffers.
Agreed.
No one would begrudge them a vacation IF they rolled up their sleeves to work. IF they were honestly doing about 300 events a year (and both have only 6 between them) you’d get a few grumbles but nothing like this. Nothing like this.
For example, Elizabeth II and Philip take extensive breaks: Balmoral in late summer/ early fall and Sandringham late Dec into Jan and most people understand and are glad they are vacationing. Why? Because there is no doubt in anyone’s mind they work. And they also aren’t causing people to pay extra money for their vacations either.
Right. And that was only Will & Harry who showed up in their wellies for an hour or two of sandbag-slinging. What about Kate? She’s got the nannies, she’s healthy & strong, why didn’t she also get the wellies on to help out? That flooding was massive & widespread. Pitiful that they didn’t even try. Charles made an appearance, along with all the wellie-wearing politicos…. Although I think with the latter, it was simply the photo op.
I guess they’re in love after ten years together — but for some reason I can’t picture them having a good time by themselves. Like I picture them boring each other when it’s just the two of them. I have no reason for this, just my irrational thoughts.
Personally I think that a week away from a seven month old without a valid reason is cruel and selfish. The baby has no concept of time, for him mommy is gone. Assuming that she is the main carer of George, her absence for a week must be really hard for him, and he has no way of “knowing” she will be back.
I think it’s odd to have a kid, only to continue on with your life as if you’re childless.
I agree. But I have noticed that the longer a person has lived a self-indulgent life the harder it is to give something up for someone else, be it a child or a partner.
Splinter
I only disagree is a very specific situation. Sometimes if a couple needs to have alone time because their lives are too stressful and busy. They need to get away for however brief a time to reconnect. Otherwise a marriage could fall apart or a child would suffer without their parents providing a stress free and loving household.
With that said these 2 are not stressed and struggling to find time or money to vacation. Their lives are vacation to vacation with some photo ops in between while their child is cared for primarely by hired help.
So in the case of William and Kate it’s pretty odd they’re vacationing without their child.
FLORC, I think that would fall under “valid reason”. But I bet they could reconnect or, as they say, have their second honeymoon closer to their home and baby.
It is. I just wrote above about it. it’s also damaging for the baby. It’s proven again and again and again that babies are instinctively attached to their mother on a very basic level and they DO need her around for at least their first year. This doesn’t mean not going back to work or not having a nanny, I did both. But I stayed around for two months while my first got used to the nanny, so I could comfort him when he needed me. It provided him with a gradual transition. And, of course, coming back from work I’d be there every day. It’s about making an effort to read and respect pediatrics recommendations and psychologists’ opinion. Especially when it comes to babies. Kate has no excuse. This is cruel, irresponsible and arrogant. Period.
@Ronia: I’m going to have to disagree with you. At eight months, George’s bond with his mother (and we’re assuming she is his primary caretaker) would be concrete. As long as he isn’t with complete strangers he should be fine.
@LadySlippers You may disagree with pediatricians and children psychologists as I am quoting here. A baby is attached instinctively to its mother all the way to its second year when the already child starts to experience the need to socialize. Up till then the bond is considered as basic as it was in the womb with the first year being crucial in terms of the baby being close to the mother. This I read in Canadian, British (I) and American pediatrics associations newsletters I had subscribed for. I also got the same advise from my own pediatricians and I had two different for my kids. But even if there were no such recommendations, I think it’s only obvious that a small baby is attached to its mother as their behaviour shows it clearly. And as it was already said, babies have no idea of “time”. Mommy is gone, that’s all the baby knows. It’s cruel and sad to treat a baby like that and I stand by my words and opinion. I guess the difference in our opinions stems from the fact that you comment on what a baby will “survive” while I’m discussing the best possible care given to a baby. These are two very different categories and may God protect my children from what they can “survive”. All the best.
the first picture is so hilarious. her face almost scares me. like… that’s a very unflattering photo. i want to stare at it more.
The flat hair is pretty fascinating, too.
I am so stunned that a change in hair part changes her face that much.
It’s a bit of a surprise since the press *just* trashed him pretty bad for that hunting trip.
you’d think after that thrashing he’d lie low for abit and NOT go on holiday AGAIN….which was part of the reason for the thrashing.
I don’t get all the hate about leaving the baby to go on a vacation. My parents did the same when I was about his age. The baby will survive. The real issue is why they are constantly on vacation. Like their Asia stint in the upcoming weeks will be hard work.
No one doubts the baby will survive. Children are very resilient.
The issue (beyond money) is the fact that William has told the public one thing and then completely gone off to do another. So people are upset, not only at the expense, but also because the public has been hoodwinked into thinking William & Kate are something they simply are not. I’d list all the things the public was told but it’d be a long list. A few things the public was told: William & Kate are a normal couple, Kate would be rearing to go as a Royal, Kate is a normal, very ‘hands on’ mother, as a married couple they’d eschew a large staff and do most things themselves, etc. etc. etc.. I’m sure others can add to my list.
Yes, LadySlippers, I think this is a large part of it. The lies just keep building up, their words and their actions just don’t match up. Just a few of the things, I’m sure others will join in:
– “No staff” in the cottage in Wales and Kate will be a full-time stay-at-home wife so she cannot do engagements. Turns out there were 4 staff including a cook and housekeeper doing the work and KM spent lots of time in London at the shops and hairdressers during this time. “Cottage” is a large house on a private beach, complete with separate house for the staff.
– The infamous “we have to work and prepare for our tour” instead of promoting the para-olympics, then caught on vacation in France.
– KM was too sick to work while pregnant, but not too sick to visit Starbucks and go shopping every other day, then fly off to Mustique and Switzerland.
– Kate Middleton is caught out shopping and visiting the hairdresser several times a week in London now, but wait, there are no nannies? She can spend all of that time away from the baby, but cannot “work” more than 3 hours in the last 3 months?
– They cannot work because they have to be with the baby. Yet they are both on their second vacation in 4 weeks, this time leaving the baby behind for a week to vacation.
– They seemingly could not take the baby with them on this vacation and put him and the nanny in one of the 45 villas, but they’ll haul him on a 25 hour flight to pap him out in NZ and Australia.
What will the next set of excuses be, when they are caught on the ski slopes for a week in March or April, just before they leave on tour? They needed a week long vacation to recover from visiting the Irish Guards for 1 hour on March 17th?
Agree, Ladyslippers, but children shouldn’t have to “survive”, and be resilient. They should always be their parents’ first priority, and be treated as such. Would ANY other parent leave their infant with a nanny they know nothing about? The grandparents raised their children, this isn’t their responsibility. William strikes me as spoiled, self-centered, entitled and high maintenance. Despite what his mother tried to instill in him, I don’t think he appreciates what he has for even a second. He doesn’t see the correlation between taxpayer funding for the RF, and his duty to work to earn that funding. He seems to view the whole thing as a nuisance, not a public trust.
@My2Pence:
I honestly think the outrage stems from the HUGE disconnect we are seeing from what we were told as opposed to what we are being shown. IF they had told us they were gonna be rich loafers — we’d expect nothing less than what we’ve gotten and would have very little room to complain.
@ephiphany @Splinter (up thread comment):
I will not judge a person harshly for leaving their child for a brief period of time. There are plenty of good and humane reasons to do it. Just as I don’t judge military members or anyone else that does it either.
Children are resilient and George, as long as he’s safe and loved, will be fine from a developmental standpoint. That’s all that really matters.
@My2Pence — this. All this.
If I may add My2Pence…
During Kate’s morning sickness that kept her from charity visits… It didn’t keep her from attending any party or gala/award events.
They’re allowed to vacation, but how they refuse to even give 2 events and photo ops between vacations is ignorant. It’s like they’re daring the public to revolt.
What’s funny is how other royals work very hard, but are not covered at all.
I understand the idea of a quick weekend getaway for just Mum & Dad. I just disagree with HOW they did it. You can leave baby with grandma (and a nanny) for a couple nights because as a married couple you haven’t had some alone time, but leaving the country and spending ridiculous piles of (other people’s) money was completely unnecessary IMO.
I’m headed out of state in 2mos w/my husband for a conference and my kiddos are staying w/grandma for 2 1/2days, and I am torn between extreme excitement at having my first grownup vacation in 7 years and extreme mommy guilt. But I understand that I am on the extreme (my youngest is 16 months and I have never spent a night away from her), so I am trying to give Kate & Wills a pass. But the money is just exhorbitant when a quick weekend of wine tasting or something could’ve done the trick.
+1 Especially when they have dozen of properties at their disposal in the UK.
And they could easily call up another European Royal Family and stay with them too.
Plus rumour has it there ARE a few warm beaches in Europe. Or is that just a horrible rumour? 😉
Over the weekend I think there was even a semi-warm beach or two in Britain.
Are they actually friends with the European Royals? Aside from Edward and Sophie attending the Euro Royal weddings, it doesn’t seem like the BRF hang with the Euro Royal Families all that much.
And the last time they jetted off to Europe for a warm holiday…it didn’t end well pap wise.
Xantha,
No! The BRF, apart from Sophie and Edward, rarely deigns to visit their European counterparts. There was even a photo from the Olympics where Will, Kate and Harry practically ignored Cp Victoria’s husband Daniel while Sophie gave him a warm welcome.
Generally, they keep themselves oddly isolated (this might have something to do with history – in the early 20th century the BRF was very scared of seeming foreign – in fact, they changed their surname from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor during WWI).
This! Didn’t they just get a house in Scotland ? If they wanted alone time that would have been perfect. But, alas, no tanning in Scotland……
I thought they rented out the entire resort? Because $10K sounds super cheap to me even if it was just the 2 bedroom suite they rented.
I think the sum is also too low.
My guess is they tried to use the sum for one room over a few nights to appease the populace. Forgetting that most of us can do simple math(s) and know that sum is way under the real amount spent.
See? Educating the peasants is always a bad thing! 😉
@ Kaiser: ‘ So, on that level, I understand the “hate.” ‘
Please don’t start playing into the idea, even in quotation marks, that logical criticism of taxpayer-funded individuals is hate. There are more than enough hysterical Kate Middleton fanatics screeching that every time you turn around.
Good catch My2Pence!
I don’t hate William & Kate (I don’t know them) and dislike the word ‘hate’ to describe honest criticism of anyone. They get criticised like a lot of people do but that isn’t hate. And most people here on CB aren’t vitriolic which is also refreshing.
Yes, can we please stop using the word “hate”, when what we’re talking about is criticism?
I just read on the BBC’s site that today is Prince Edward’s 50th birthday. He and Sophie will do two public events for his charity. I wonder what they think of the lazy Cambridges.
There is a nice new photo of them out too!!!
And that is what Wills and Kate should be doing, but that would mean they would have to think of others first and not themselves.
I would love to know what Sophie and Princess Anne think of Kate. And I wonder if Sophie and Kate ever spend non-group time together.
Liberty,
Anne says they’re a couple of sodding layabouts. Eddie says they are two poor souls who have lost their artistic vision. I tend to go with sodding layabouts.
Sincerely,
Countess of Wessex (via bh)
@bluhare,
Countess of Wessex,
Many thanks for the insight into their comments; I’ve been overseeing our Wedgwood spring cleaning and have been missing tea. I trust you are quite well! I must say I go with sodding layabouts as well. I can only hope we discover they suffer from shared amnesia. Hope to see you and bluhare at the RHS Chelsea Flower Show! Having issues with the dogwood-camilla cross strain, though.
Graciously,
The Duchess of Nothing
i was surprised to see Edward´s son. You often see his daughter, but not the son. James is a pretty boy!
IIRC Prince Charles was also pretty much absent when William was growing up, so perhaps this is how William is used to with regards to fathers’ role, despite his mother’s way of raising him and Harry.
He wasn’t as absent as the papers made him out to be. He was thrilled to bits and pieces about becoming a father and spent more time with them than the papers (and Diana) let on. With that being said, he wasn’t as involved as most regular people can relate to either.
no that´s not true, Charles was there for hs sons! The press just had an unfair agenda: Diana the devoted mother and Charles the absent father. In real they were both loving parents and Charles wasn´t an absent father. The media (and later Diana too) tried to let Charles look like the bad parent
I hate that the idea of ‘Charles the bad absent father’ is the legacy Diana through her media shenanigans left him.
She wasn’t anymore present than he was, only her parenting was publicly documented whereas his was not.
There are public moments where Charles is present, but the bits that made it into the news/front pages have cropped him out.
Or Diana couldn’t wait to call her media friends to bitch about him or his parenting style which translated into Charles the bad father. People have to remember that, and to remember that Diana was a very black and white person. If you didn’t do it her way, then she put you in the enemy camp and bitched about you accordingly.
Ladyslippers is closer to hitting the nail on the head. The truth is in the middle. Charles was not a rigid father with ice water in his veins nor was he a warm, cuddly father whose parenting style was viciously sabotaged in the media by a vengeful wife.
Charles was a good father always but the emotional closeness he enjoys with his children didn’t develop until the boys were prepubescent. It simply was not Charles’ way.
Snarky, you’re getting perilously close to confusing fact and opinion there. Unless you were a nanny you don’t know how Charles was with his children either.
@bluhare: There ARE people that were there or did research to support what I stated.
Ladyslippers, I was actually responding to Dame Snarkweek who made a statement that sounded an awful lot like she was on the other end of the nanny cam. As some recently have made very sharp statements about posting facts vs. opinion, I wanted to clarify that is not true. Unless, of course, Snarky is in fact Jessie Webb.
@bluhare: I was aware you were responding to Snark; however she was supporting my statements which is why I commented.
🙂
Blu
I am truly surprised at what you said to me i thought what I said represented a moderate, centrist view of Charles’ parenting style. I basically expanded on the very thing LadySlippers said. LAK actually went out on a speculative and defensive limb, not me, even saying that it was all Diana “bitching” to the media. But you only singled me out. In this case yes, I should have stated that my opinion was formed after reading royal bios by At least eight authors, five or six historical anthologies and literally hundreds of online articles (some gossip rags, some factual). I mistakenly assumed my willingness to talk about facts as well as opinion in the past had given me protection from comments like whether or not I was “there” with a “nanny cam” but I guess that grace is not extended to everyone. People here certainly do not always agree with one another but I guess I thought I was happily on the fringe of a group of commentors who accumulated knowledge, insight and wit I greatly admire. Now I think I confused respect with consensus.
Dame, much of the public’s opinion of various members of the family comes from Diana bitching to the media. that isn’t opinion. that is fact. She wasn’t above fibbing to make herself look better in comparison, and where Charles is concerned, she definitely went out of her way to make him look bad on all fronts.
And her campaign worked because here you were, yesterday [?], robustly defending the golf accident story, the skewed version of which can be traced straight back to Diana as it was written by a diana favoured journalist.
Her habit of talking to the media was so bad that famously when HM tried to have an intervention of sorts during the war of the roses, Charles refused to participate on the grounds that it would end up in the papers the next day, and guess what? it did – written up by a Diana favoured journalist.
@LAK:
Not all the Royal biographers solely use ‘Diana’s words’ as a reliable source. And I trust Snark that she’s read both biased sources AND unbiased as both are out there for either party. So I don’t see how her taking the middle ground as bad. Plus we all make mistakes and/or forget.
Ladyslippers: I’m not commenting on Dame’s insistence on the middle ground or knowledge, rather her name checking my comment as being biased opinion not necessarily fact.
Biased or unbiased, the majority opinion of royal family members was shaped by Diana’s habit of blabbing to the media, such that even those who’ve read countless biographies of every stripe still believe some of that narrative eg Dame’s own insistence on the tabloid version of william’s golf accident which was written by a Diana favoured journalist to paint Charles as cold and unfeeling. Despite several people giving her the proper version of events, she remains adamant that the tabloid version is the one she chooses to believe. And that right there is what I meant about Charles’s Diana inheritance.
BTW, Dame isn’t unique in this respect, I often find that i’m equally biased despite knowing the research or access to the real information.
Dame S, it wasn’t what you said — I agree with it. It was just the way you said it like you were there. And you’ve dinged me before for getting a bit too speculative for you, so I didn’t even think twice when I wrote what I wrote. Wasn’t intended to be offensive at all. If you want to take my remark and make all those extrapolations about it, I can’t do much about it, but it was not my intent at all to make you feel excluded.
Not sure when defending Charles’s reputation became such a vigorous commentary section on CB. I’ve been out of country and haven’t posted or read much as of late. Snark, I agree with you.
For every comment Diana made to the media that influenced public perception of Charles, he responded via the “courtiers” leaks. There is always a he said, she said, and then the truth. The fact is, since Diana’s death Charles hired excellent PR and launched an aggressive (but subtle) campaign to discredit his ex-wife for the benefit of himself and Camilla. Charles wasn’t there for Diana or his children. His hobbies and interests remained the priority in his life over his family. He is a selfish man, same as William. Of course, any faults of William will be attributed to Diana’s emotional instability (which I believe Charles has highly exaggerated to defend the atrocious way he treated her – as a broodmare).
Nobody really knows all the facts, but we do know that when William was ill it was his mother who sat beside him an nursed him to health. I will refrain from commenting on Charles whereabouts, but they involve his own selfish habits and lifestyle.
Blu
No big deal making here, just don’t want to be called out for being speculative when my observations are as much supported by observation as anyone else’s. if I have failed to show respect for your or anyone else’s opinion/fact conclusions in the past then I apologize. I rather enjoy conjecture but sometimes there is no way to reconcile one “truth” from another. And most importantly, the “truth” is not a solidification of consensus/shared opinions.
*sighs, closes door quietly behind me*
LAK
With all due respect, I think most of my issue with your assertions lies in the fact that you keep insisting my opinions arise from Diana driven tabloid fodder. I believe that gives you permission to dismiss my comments as erroneous, unfounded and biased. As LadySlippers pointed out, I have repeatedly stated that I gather my info from many sources, as do you. The War of the Wales was fought many years ago and time and distance give us the benefit of analyzing all of the information now that the dust has settled. So I could never say outright to you that you are absolutely, flat out wrong, especially without knowing exactly where/how you gleaned your knowledge. The day I am so assured of my “rightness” is the day I stop learning and growing.
Thinker
Thank you for your comments. You actually gave me something new to chew on. It never occured to me that Charles could still be extending his post-divorce PR campaign vicariously through his children. I will strongly consider that one.
LadySlippers
Thank you for your comments and giving this dialogue structure/focus.
Blu
Oh Blu, what else can I say? You are so delightful and make me laugh so much here that I am embarassed for even “dinging” you in the past, much less complaining when you dinged me back, lol.
Not the case. It was made to look that way – sorry to say, primarily by Diana – so she would win the PR war with the RF. He loved (loves) his boys and spent a good deal of time with them. Charles has his share of faults, but being an absentee father isn’t one of them.
LOL, relax ladies! 😉
Yeah, I figure out most likely Diana was responsible in creating the image of “Charles the absent father”. I agree with LadySlippers, he’s probably not as involved as the average young fathers these days. This said, many young fathers these days also are not mature enough to raise children (my brother in law is one of them, but that’s another story LOL)
Um, you’ve dinged me when you thought I got a bit on the speculative side without backing it up, Snarkweek.
That being said, I’ve got no desire to make a big deal out of this. I had a point and I stated it. Time to move on.
Well, I didn’t mean to respond to Dame S twice. I don’t know how the heck I managed to respond out of order the first time. Sorry!!
If the public never really talks about this and it only gets talked about on gossip tabloids, then nothing will change and these two will do as they always do. I just find it mind boggling how this is not causing a tidal wave of an epiphany in the UK in realization that when one compares the work to vacationing and money spent, these two are not towing the line. And the duchy argument doesn’t hold up. That land belongs to the country and not to the Windsors. At least the Queen kept her undies out of public view, lived somewhat frugally and worked. The bar has been set, I guess the only bar Will and Kate know about is the bar that serves alcohol.
I don’t think it’s bad for a holiday away just the two of them, they probably need to reconnect as they’re never together. But the Maldives? Its over a 10 hour flight home. If God forbid something happens to their not even 1 year old son: it’s not like they can rush to his aid. I can’t even imagine!
And leaving him with a new nanny? Even with Carole ‘ s supervision, you’d think the parents would want to show the nanny their routine for all to adjust together… Unless carol has been the main caretaker all this time?
I think the modern royal couple who want to be hands on with the raising of their child could reconnect at home (which is really a mini-mansion), but wait, I forgot, the walls are purple and need to be re-done. Oh to be Kate.
royal parasites are parasitic. how very shocking.
I think this trip was planned to counteract/appease Kate after the Jecca jaunt but its backfired terribly. I’m sure Kate’s okay with whatever Baldy does in private but I’m sure she doesn’t like being humiliated in public which is what happened.
If there’s any truth to this then I see TONS of vacations in their future!
I can’t quite figure out how the Maldives trip fits in with the other clues we’ve had about the state of the Cambridge’s union.
Its possible this was to appease Kate. However, it doesn’t seem like William cares much about appeasing her. William spends most of his time away from Kate and George. He’s living in Cambridge, he skips Middleton sojourns choosing instead to go on vacations with his ex-girlfriend. I think it’s very bizarre timing for a romantic vacation. There must be an underlying reason, I just don’t know what it is.
I’m speculating here, but Kate could be suffering a mental illness. Notably in her meager appearances, Kate looks rail thin and manic. She does not look like a happy woman. Comparatively, William seems like his usual petulant self. Perhaps, there is something going on with Kate that we are not privy to.
Juliette – on the last Will & Waity post, someone mentioned this trip was possibly a covert IVF mission. I have no idea, but it gave me pause in light of people postulating we will hear an announcement of baby no 2 before long in order to generate positive press for them.
I just don’t buy the whisking away to the Maldives as some sort of solution or treatment for what may or may not ail the Duchess. Flying away to some remote island is more of a running away from your problems than actually dealing with them.
I agree about some kind of mental or mood disorder. That girls is just not right. And there was never an explanation for that “scar”.
Lisa
That scar is such a mystery! As the PR statement said.. Major Surgery on her head as a child! Geez! Or it just an elaborate cover to hide a bad weave job. They’ve done so in the past. Put out fantastic statements to cover issues shouldn’t have been commented on at all. It would have gone away just as easily if it were ignored.
As far as Kate’s mental state… I’m not a doctor and haven’t seen her in person so this is just an opinion… (some people get in a knot about it).
Kate is a smoker and has looked like she’s actively avoiding food for some time now. UNICEF peanut butter anyone, Canada cookout, etc…?
I think there’s really nothing wrong with her mental state. She’s image obsessed and likely stressed her husband is always away, but she’s lived this way for over a decade.
I buy that this is a vacation to keep the peace. Nothing more.
@Original N. Not doubting that they might use IVF, Sophie did too. But probably not the reason for this trip. The island doesn’t have real medical facilities, much less facilities for the transport and attempted implantation of a frozen embryo. They were on a commercial flight; even for them I think it would be difficult to disguise the necessary embryo frozen storage apparatus from all onlookers. Plus she’d need to not fly for X number of days after the attempt.
If they were doing IVF, it would be done in the UK in a highly-secretive medical facility (under-the-radar possibly in Wales or Scotland). Also unlikely that they’d do that so close to the NZ/Aus trip. Just the added stress on the body of two 25-hour flights (RT) in three weeks plus flight radiation would be contrary to medical advice. I don’t think they’d go to all the trouble to attempt a secret implantation and then risk it that way. Then again look who we’re talking about…
In the photo of will and George does it look like George has a scar on his forehead around his hairline? Or just the angle of the photo? He is such a cute baby. I would think William would want to spend loads of time with him. Maybe his mother didn’t rub off on him as much as we have been led to believe?
A relationship needs work, especially new parents need a rest from the baby and should have time to be a couple again. So i have no problem with them leaving baby with granny and nanny!
But damn both are lazy as hell! No “normal” jobs and not even full time royal duties.
Now William misses the next week in his son´s life and daddy has no job as excuse! Whatever, let´s take a luxury vacation before the next tour, right? What flood at home? What charity work?
Vacation and no charity work. That´s all these two are 🙁
FIFTY SHADES OF WINDSOR: BOOK THREE
“Oh, oh, oh, oh!” breathed the lovely young 22-year-old “foreign” literature student and royal baby nanny as she labored in the dim hotel room decorated with somewhat upscale new island-style furnishings. “Oh, oh!” she added in a gasp, her bosom heaving. “I cannot take anymore this – oh, sir, please, I begs you, enough!”
“Har, but I want more! I order you, wench! This pleasures me!” barked William Baldtop. “Watching you…like this…so young…learning about life….jolly good show! So on there, go on, keep packing up my money, wench, but let me spray your nanny camisole with more club soda first! Harrr! There you go! Just like old Kate’s fashion stomp, ho!”
“But is so much the money!” said poor Romina unhappily, panting as she lifed another very heavy leather case stuffed with pound notes and gold coins and jewels onto a hotel cart. “So this one she is finished. Please, sir, why you not use the plastic cards –“
“I love the way the common think!” roared William Baldtop, swatting her on the backside of her small black satin nanny skirt. “Cash only, my girl, expenses not tracked, har, so it’s just a $10,000 getaway to the punters who read the Mirror, jolly clever! If we stop at another sort of island like France or Switzerland, who’s to know! And the angry peasants back home and all that, sticks, rocks, so always travel with a few millions just in case, what ho, Marie-Antoinette? Canada? My mom? Keep on – there’s still some money left in that mini fridge! I say, where’s old Waity? Is she still in the spa? Hope that hair didn’t get stuck in the pool drain again, eh, don’t want to explain that to the Guardian, eh, har!! By the way, start wearing the scrunchie I gave you, it turns me on, har, jolly good, jolly fine show, there, yaws!”
Wearily, Romina scrunchied her hair out of her face and looked at the ten heavy cases she had loaded. “The wife persons is out wishing to see the shop of gifts again, Sir ,oh but, also, while you was in bar with Maldives guys, her mama calls again to say they finally find the little childs of you in the boot of the brother James car under some cakes and balloons, so, okay, not worries. Also Mrs Jessie she calls to say if you do not get her out of that house, she has nice big bottle of rat poison and will kill herself but first she will make the mobile call to the Daily Mail. Mrs Jessie says she has pictures and she says she never work for you again, she rathers be dead than on this show Only Way Is Carole, and she calls you a bad word and also, shiftless layabout and she should have left you on rock in deer park many years ago so world can have dear blessed Sir Harry not gormless Hooray like you. What I tell her?”
“What? What? Flipping bollacks!” stormed William Baldtop, leaping up, his face reddening and his mouth a hard line. Romina quailed at the coldness of his tiny eyes. “Get me the Palace, I need a copter to get her out of there spit spot!! But first — spanking time! You’ve been so bad this time, Cressida Two! Not telling me this news! Hurry before old ducks gets back! Come along ,bad girl, the King has to punish you again, har! Tower of London time, har, ho! Fine place, Maldives, fine damn place!”
OMG!
*tears rolling down face from laughing*
Huzzah!!
Just awesome!
@LadySlippers. LAK, FLORC — why, thanks, my dears!! 🙂 Happy Monday!
Oh my god, Liberty, best one ever! “those plastic cards .” LOL!!!! 😀
“sort of island”
HA!
“…mama calls again to say they finally find the little childs of you in the boot of the brother James car under some cakes and balloons, so, okay, not worries. ”
‘and she should have left you on rock in deer park many years ago so world can have dear blessed Sir Harry not gormless Hooray like you. What I tell her?””
I usually don’t read creative stuff on comments but I’m really glad I did!
Just…..BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA! Priceless!
Here my take on Kate and William as parents.
Kate is a good mother only until William demands her attention. For her George will always come 2nd to Wills like everything else in her life has been from the day they started dating. It’s William first and above all and then anything else. Her identity and existence depends on William and she lives to please him and now after him George. So when she realized he is hanging out with his ex, she dumps the kid with mummy and nanny *(I think Carole advised her to do that) and goes off to a vacation attending to Will’s every need and giving him her full attention just like before. She will always be a doting wife and then a mother.
William on the other really loves George(just like Kate) but is not very interested in rearing his son. He will play with him only after he is fed, clean and isn’t crying. IMO his relationship and involvement in his son life will increase rapidly with his age but for now he does very little for him other then play with him for an hour or so. He’ll be a great father once George grows up in a year or so.
I think I agree with you, Angelic. Including the Carole the Mastermind idea.
Angelik
This sounds very interesting and bears watching. I also wonder at PPD.
I think they have a sanctioned upper class indifference to Georgie. This is not a child born of love.
I really don’t understand all this criticism. Will is like any other guy with a job, except that his is to promote the monarchy. Seriously, would anyone go to England if there wasn’t a monarchy, and all those wonderful castles? They make their bread on this out-dated form of government and class-system. In fact, whatever they spend on this vacation, Will and Kate will bring that much more money into the country, because people will continue to be fascinated by the royals.
And has anyone ever had a newborn? Seriously, I remember needing a break, and taking one (horrors), leaving the baby with her aunt. So they need alone time. I say let them have it. And every picture I’ve seen of William with the baby makes him look like he’s besotted with him. No one knows what he’s like at home, so stop making assumptions because he travels from time to time.
Well, that’s one side of the debate. Here’s another which includes research:
Monarchy MythBuster : It’s good for tourism
http://republic.org.uk/what-we-want/monarchy-myth-buster/its-good-tourism
France receives far more tourism income than the UK, and they got rid of their royals a long time ago.
“And every picture I’ve seen of William with the baby makes him look like he’s besotted with him.” From what I can tell, there have been two photo shoots in 7 months. I personally haven’t noticed William being besotted with his son in either of those, but everyone has their own opinion.
“stop making assumptions because he travels from time to time. ” Again, we’re all allowed our freedom of speech here, and to draw our own conclusions without being told to stop by someone who doesn’t agree with our opinions.
lol just saw you posted the same.
You…actually think they are actually raising George themselves? At this point I think the nannies are the ones doing all the work.
France has far more tourism than the UK and the monarchy has been abolished. If anything, people would get to visit more castles and more private rooms, currently unavailable due to being the BRF residences.
You have obviously never been there if you were being serious (not sarcastic) when you posed that question. It is an amazing country filled with wonderful people and for those interested in history, it can be aweing just to walk the streets of London. Add to all of that the beautiful landscapes rich in color when the rapeseed is in full bloom in the countryside, the serenity of the lake district in the summertime and the stately homes preserved through a commitment to conservation … Oh wait, silly me…somehow, the royal family doesn’t even make my list of what I love about the UK. Hmmm.
I agree — sounds like Sandy has never been if she thinks the royals are the only attraction.
“aweing” ? ?
Actually, I have been to London multiple times. It’s O.K., but let’s face it, it’s not Paris, France! It’s “quaint,” it has some beautiful buildings, a lot of history (mostly based on their Monarchy, duh!) but it’s not all that! So it’s not surprise that Paris receives more tourism dollars than London. And it’s soooo far inferior to New York it’s not even funny!
Sandy — when one is tired of London, one is tired of life. It is the farthest thing from “quaint”.
@Sandy, I’ve been to London, New York, and Paris, and they are all amazing in different ways. London because of the history, which is so much more then just the royal family, and the gardens are some of the most beautiful things I have ever seen. I was raised in New York, and even though I loved the city, it’s not even close to London or Paris. And Paris for the museums, but personally I found the city a little disappointing.
@taxi …. Apologies if the slang annoyed you; I work with a lot of kids. Sometimes, despite my tendency for being a stickler for proper English, a slang word slips into my vocabulary every now and then (e.g. ginormous or aweing [mix of awe-inspiring and awesome…which is how I felt, knowing that my family had walked some of those streets in the 1600s and yet, I was fully cognizant of the fact that they were so unhappy that they left and embarked upon a new life entailing a dangerous trip across the ocean….]).
@Lisa … My thoughts exactly! Loved your response!
@Lana – yes! I feel the same except Paris actually surpassed my expectations and I quite fell in love with the city and its people whilst I was there. Every single person I met was so kind.
Oh my god. Britain is so much more than the monarchy and palaces.
This so much. I mean when one visit Britain you don’t do it because of its monarchy like at all. It is even insulting to say that.
You said it, Bluhare!
People travel to the UK for the historic version of the royals, not the present day living breathing version. The palaces, the jewels, the history, would all still be there if every member of the House of Windsor evaporated tomorrow.
I don’t think tourism would suffer a bit.
Versailles is one of the world’s top tourist attractions and nary a royal in residence for 300 years.
And London is not Paris. Paris is not Rome. Rome is not Rio. Rio is not New York. New York is not Hong Kong. Yet they are all among the world’s great cities, all with their own charms, all worth repeat visits.
London is a booming metropolis, one of the great cosmopolitan cities of the world. The very opposite of quaint, and the vast majority of the architecture is not “based not the royals.” I’m sure you noticed that during your visits.
Seriously? Of course people would still go to UK if the monarchy came to an end. It’s like the castles and palaces and so on would be torn down, you could still visit all that stuff, and in some cases there would be an opportunity to turn places into much bigger tourist attractions. With the royals kicked out, Buckingham Palace for example could be a much bigger deal, right now it’s deathly dull.
The tourism that’s based on the monarchy has nothing to with the current royal family, it’s about the history. But really, very few people visit the UK primarily to see royal related sites and attractions. Most people visit the big estates and castles etc. because they’re stunning to look at, because they have extraordinary gardens, because they often host other events on the grounds…not because they once played host to a royal. People visit the UK to see the cities, go to the museums and shows, gawk at the architecture and the churches, see the countryside…the usual things. I’ve never heard of anyone hopping on a plane to England just so they can be in the same country as the current royals.
Is this their real son? Who leaves a child under one year old and go on multiple vacation. It is not as they are forced becoz of work or duties. They’re going on countless vacations and outings and leaving the poor son with nannies. I have 2 kids so this situation is incomprehensible. Yes a mom needs a break from time to time but not Kate. A real mom tending to her baby 24 /7 . Lazy royals wasting the money of hard working citizens. Why do we need royals anyway. They are humans like us. What gives them the right to rule others. Are we living in ancient time still. Ridiculous.
There’s really not much to add to the discussion. Absolutely ridiculous behavior by a couple of spoiled, lazy 30 year olds. I can’t wait for their return. I can’t wait for the scrambling to begin. Last time they had a PR disaster, she got pregnant. Since I doubt she could handle a pregnancy and a baby, what will they do this time around?
I’m guessing something will happen while she is ‘working hard’ during the upcoming tour. Maybe she’ll faint, maybe exhaustion, maybe illness, maybe food poisoning from nibbling on that foreign lettuce leaf. What’s a tour without drama? Especially when they know they need to get public support and sympathy back onside after the stunt they just pulled. I see them ramping it up.
If her face gets puffy like it did on the Malaysia tour, it’s either IVF treatments or booze. 🙂
Or Georgie will have a crisis.
And definitely, they are going to shill Georgie shamelessly.
$10K might cover the cost of the flight.
Looks like £6,380.27 ($10,600) per passenger round-trip, 1st class, London to Male (Maldives). Good guess!
So let’s say 4 or so members of the security team who did the pre-study a few weeks ago, probably 8 people this time around (Bill, Kate, potentially 6 member security team). That’s around $130,000 in airfare for this jaunt.
Hm — maybe we are not looking at it in terms of “Royal money” and “Royal time” — I just thought of this!!
So, maybe in $10,000 USD only comes out to a buck ninety eight in Royal Money. Maybe “Royal time” is clocked this way: a 30-minute royal appearance is the equivalent of one of us working two 45 hour weeks. Maybe three Chelsea real-world hair appointments per week is only calculated as a monthly blow-out in Royal appointment units? Maybe in Royal units of value, one baby is only equal to an unheated shepherd’s pie, so don’t get over-excited? Maybe the earthbound’s one vacay a year is actually only worth three Royal units’ worth of sitting in a car going through Kensington High Street on a Tuesday to buy more of the same wedge heels you already own.
We must be sensitive to the ways of the magical people.
I’m surprised the plane could fly with all that gold in the hold, Liberty.
@bluhare — Why, two planes, darling, who does one know who uses only one? So inconvenient!
Gold in a plane? Darling, you can’t be serious! Everyone knows that gold must be carried by unicorn, fed by the tears of peasants.
@My2Pence:
According to Wharfe, only one RPO goes the scout before hand but several do go with. I think for adults it’s still 2-3 a piece. When the boys were younger with Diana they probably made do with 4 but I think in France they had more than 4 and that’d be my guess here too.
@LS. I’m going to have to read that book! Let’s revise that figure. One RPO to do the initial look-see. They took 6 officers with them out to the club last week to cover a few hours, so I’m sticking with 6 RPOs on this trip to cover 24/7. That’s still almost $100,000 in airfares.
Plenty of people would go to England if there was no monarchy. Ever hear of a tiny little city called London. And while the existence of the monarchy might drive some tourist, the chances of actually The Queen or Prince Charles, etc is slim to none. People would still go to places like Windsor Castle, etc even if the UK suddenly became a republic.
I predict an accidental papping of PGtips with his parents on a stroll through Hyde park when they get back. The world will forgive.
Then they will disappear on the annual Middleton ski trip at the end of March before starting the AUS/NZ vacation tour.
Wonder if they’ll take PGTips with them on the skiing trip? Maybe get the RPOs to force all the paps away (like they’ve done in the past) but somehow magically a few “candids” of PGTips being held on a sled by William or Kate will emerge.
Dream headline, the Mirror, summer 2014: “We Swapped Princebaby George With a Stunt Baby for Two Weeks, and Kate and Wills Didn’t Notice!”
(with dream photo: A frowning Princebaby George in the lap of a wind-tousled steely-eyed Harry, with this caption: “Safely back home, the future king bonds with his uncle as a furious Harry has officially demanded custody of nephew Princebaby George, leak friends of the ginger heartthrob. Says a Palace spokeswoman, “Catherine and William were really exhausted from work, so didn’t notice, as can happen to any parent! But they do spend yonks of time with him!” Reveals former Royal Nanny, “I have no regrets about taking part, these two little tossers had it coming to them! And if you’re reading this, William, oi! your boy’s name is George not Jack!”)
Your imagination must be a fun place to be, Liberty. LOL
my word, the papping possibilities to win back favour are endless.
I’m not touching the “should they take a vacation on taxpayers’ dimes,” because I’m not British and I have no opinion on that. But I resent the implication that because Kate is a SAHM she shouldn’t want to or get to take a vacation without her kid. I know, I know, she’s KATE MIDDLETON and we hate her because she’s lazy and doesn’t work, blah blah blah. Then say “Kate Middleton doesn’t need a vacation from George because she doesn’t do anything and she’s lazy,” not “Kate is a normal, down-to-earth stay-at-home mom and that’s why she barely does any work. The fact that George was dropped off at her mom’s house for a week just seems to contradict that image.”
It’s not a contradiction at all.
Again it isn’t ‘hate’. Getting really tired of that and the “you’re just jealous” line from folks in general.
Your argument would seem much more valid to many people if she 1) worked her royal duties as many hours as she spends time away from PGTips getting her hair done and shopping and 2) she didn’t clearly have so much help around the house and spend so much time away from him already. Multiple nannies, housekeeper, personal assistant, etc. don’t exactly add up to an exhausted stay-at-home mom who needs a quick break.
No, it doesn’t. Which is why I said, you can talk about Kate’s lack of work ethic, without implying that stay at home moms shouldn’t drop their kids off for a week and go on vacation. We’re talking about Kate Middleton, but saying that leaving her kid with her mom is a contradiction to being a SAHM, implies a much more general sentiment…which is that it’s wrong from SAHMs to get away.
That argument might carry more weight if Kate had been a rip roarer before George was born.
I should also say that ^^^ does not mean I don’t agree with you about SAHMs being able to go on vacation without children if they choose. That’s a personal decision that doesn’t have a part in discussions about the way they do their jobs IMO.
So Kate can’t attend 3,4 hours long engagement (even though it’s been known she have a housekeeper, a cook and a nanny all along) because she can’t leave George alone but she can leave George alone to go on a week long vacation 12 hrs away from flight?
How on Earth is this not a contradiction?
I’m not taking issue with calling Kate out on her lack of work ethic. I take issue with the implication that stay at home mothers can’t take a vacation away from their children.
Ahhhhhh I get it now and yes I agree with you stay at home mothers can leave their kids and go on a vacation. My mum did it too but I was only talking about Kate.
i think most commentors are being Kate specific even if they don’t clarify as such.
Exactly LAK. It should be assumed that we all mean Kate and not stay at home mothers as a general category, because Kate is not a typical stay at home mum. Kate has an ever-growing staff tasked with completing all the typical stay at home mom work of running a household. (Cleaning, cooking, childcare – ALL of this IS work!)
The large staff that carries out Kate’s mum duties are with George and Carole right now. To me, its apparent that nobody is saying stay at home moms do not work, they do! They work hard! Everyday they do alone a job that takes 6 royal flackies to complete!
@BendyWindy:
I hope I’ve made it clear that my gripe is the lack of work from both Kate and William, plus the expense to the British public, NOT that parents should never leave their children. I think people aren’t buying that Kate, as a SaHM, needs a vacation because no one is sure how much she really IS a mother. But that isn’t my concern as we’d only be guessing.
You know, I read all these comments pretty carefully and I’m not seeing a wholesale condemnation of SAHM’s here. It’s pretty targeted toward the Cambridge duo, who are not typical SAH parents by the remotest stretch of the imagination.
People are outraged at two lazy people, living on the taxpayer dime, *sneaking* away for their second winter breaks in three/four weeks.
I live in London and most people don’t really give a shit about the royals, I have never had a problem with them, I never really cared.
But I have actually for the first time in my life noticed people going out of their way to comment that they are getting particularly irritating. It feels like the rumbles before people really start to care, right now we just mock them or say a sarcy anecdote and move on. But I do have a feeling they will not make it to the throne, I don’t actually think the throne will remain as it is now. Things are changing. We are used to having a hard working woman lead us for so long, a king that does nothing will really piss a lot of people.
Say what you will about queenie, but she gets it done. Wills is not going to be king if he is this lazy at peak working years.
Huh, that’s interesting Fairal. And combined with what Sixer mentioned in her first comment, I wonder if the sentiment will continue to grow. And how the Royals will counteract it. Will pimping out George be enough? Stay tuned!
Pimping out George won’t work. That will be seen through in a nano second.
@bluhare. Unfortunately, I’ll bet a whole lot of this is forgotten with either 1) my suggestion that they will pap out PGTips on the mandatory/upcoming ski holiday that will take place before the NZ/Aus trip or 2) the recreation of iconic Diana photo shoots (now starring PGTips) on the tour.
I imagine the floodgates will open when the current queen passes — it’s hard to rag on them with QEII at the helm Can’t see the same deference for Charles and Whiny.
I think Charles and Camilla will do ok.. He’s had long enough to prepare and is starting to take over many of the queen’s duties now. Public opinion for him has improved since Diana’s era.
I hope Charles lays down the law with wills and Kate so they do realise that they need to step up their game!
At least they aren’t the people in charge. We have a President that takes a 2 week vacation every month on taxpayers money. Though I shouldn’t complain, he does less damage when he is away from the office.
Oh, please. Give it a rest. Every president takes vacations. Yes, the country foots the bill. Did you have a problem when it was a Republican? Doubt it. Do you get upset with Congress for getting very little done in the short amount of time they do work? If not, then why don’t you?
William & Kate should give as good as they get. For the amount of money they spend based on what they give back to the country, their return of investment is very, very low.
Assuming you are talking about Mr. Obama – not a valid comparison. What he does and what those 2 layabouts do or don’t do is like night and day. He has a super demanding, credible job and what he does in his day is critical and vital. W &K are lazy, do-nothings and don’t deserve the attention and fuss they receive. GMAFB.
Who takes a 2 week vacation every month? Am I missing something?
Nobody. It’s nonsense.
Ugh, these people are making me STABBY.
I just got some bad news yesterday–my neighbors, the ones that I told you guys about—well Mrs. Caspary fell down about a week ago–one of her hips has no cartilege or anything–it’s just bone on bone, and she fell on the other hip. So now she can’t walk, and she’s in a nursing home right now.
Mr. C is so sad and lonely. I visited him yesterday–he told me that all he wants is for his wife to come home, so he can take care of her–he’s such a sweetheart. He goes and sees her (and it’s a 30 minute drive each way) about twice a day……I’m making him some cookies to cheer him up, but I really hope that she gets better. When I told my mom what happened, she said that Mrs. C might not last much longer (she worked in a nursing home for yrs) because once the really old ones stop walking (Mrs. C is 91), then that’s when they usually die–quite soon afterwards.
Aw, you are so kind to your neighbors. My thoughts are with you and with them.
that’s such a sad story. i hope mrc C can pull through and come home to mr C.
I know! He was so sad that he started talking to me about his experience during WW2–something that he’s only spoke about rarely, and not in a ton of detail. And usually if he does, it’s because I ask him about it—he’s REALLY sad, and missing his woman. He told me the story about his best friend (who was in a mountain division in Italy, going up the freaking mountains, after the Germans–who were probably machine gunning them down) who died the FIRST week that Mr. C got into Italy–he hadn’t been there for more than a few days when he got the news. He told me that he hadn’t even known that his friend was in Italy.
What Suze said. Virgilia, you can come make me cookies any time. I don’t want to break my hip though. And I’m not 92.
I’ll mail them in, bluhare 🙂
Virgilia, you really should write down the stories your neighbor shares with you, particularly about his wartime experience. That generation lived thru so much and they really do have a lot to give us. My grandma is 87 and still in great physical shape but she has early stage dementia and does not remember details of her daily activities. I’m dreading the day I go to visit her and she doesn’t remember who I am. It will break my heart. Luckily, she was quite the writer up until a few years ago and self-published a couple books about her life. I think it’s so awesome that you are there for your neighbor. You are obviously a very compassionate young woman.
@EmmaGee
Mrs. Caspary recognizes me as someone familiar, but she has no clue who I am. She always thinks that I’m someone related to her, who had to drive a long time to visit (I live two doors down), etc. She always forgets my name, and asks me the same questions every few minutes….
PGTips actually shipped his parents off to the Maldives whilst he undergoes a bespoke, but rigorous training program ahead of the NZ/Australia tour. The new nanny has him “hitting the ground running” with Peekaboo training, memorizing flashcards of zoo animals and hiphop dancing (though he will have to hold off strutting his stuff in public until after the “Look how cute, George is taking his first steps!” photocall, at which he will pretend to need Kate’s help). It is much quieter without Prince William’s screaming and Kate’s complaining about the purple paint, so he can concentrate on his speech lessons. It is expected that he will be able to say “Carole” loud and clear by his first birthday.
Huzzah!!
OMG Deedee, that’s hilarious !!
Thank you (blush). First attempt at Royal snarkiness. Glad you liked it.
Excellent snark!
Peekaboo training!! That’s bloody brilliant, Deedee!
They are so ordinary looking. I want my princesses to look like Grace Kelley dammit! If I was a Brit and had to support these folks I would be beside myself. They should just have a beauty pageant every coupla years and put in some beauties to be gaga about.
Ditto. No spark, no charm, no sense of duty. And using the baby as a media tool is really pathetic. The nanny-in-the-park photo was staged and I can’t believe anyone with a smidgen of self-respect would defend them for taking this ill-timed, expensive vacation with no thought to public perception and just weeks away from the AUSNZ tour.
They shouldn’t be spending money on vacations. They just simply don’t deserve it. Together they behave like pigs! They won’t ever take the throne like this.
I can’t believe they left baby Georgie at home. Do they have to flaunt their sex lives? Why do they need a second honeymoon? Poor baby Georgie’s life could have changed traumatically! And not for the better!