why do people care if Kate Middleton wants to be a SAHM?

[Anonymous]

What is this “work” supposed to be? The monarchy is all a facade anyway. Who cares about public appearances and speeches? They are simply living off of other people’s money. There’s no reason to do pretend work. Queen Elizabeth is a fool for taking all of it so seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. There's nothing wrong with someone (any parent, not just the mom) wanting to be the one to raise their children.

Good for her that she's doing what she wants and feels is best for her kids!

That's fine as long as she's not being subsidized by British taxpayers.

Not really

It is a great thing for the British monarchy to have a royal mom putting her young children first.

How fortunate they are that Kate has her priorities straight.

Given how the popularity of the monarchy is steadily declining and there is now open conversation about ditching the monarchy in the UK in a way that is unprecedented, I wouldn't say Kate and William have done such great things for the monarchy.

That is because of Charles and Camilla.

The boys and their wives, but especially their wives and kids, are the best thing about the monarchy.

I'm actually watching Charles and Camilla with this new bride closely. It's been no secret that William & Kate froze mostly Camilla out and by extension Charles. They don't really like doing joint events with them, Charles is rarely seen with one or the other, and the Middletons are always the first to be invited to see the new babies - not the future King of England.

I'm thinking Charles & Camilla see a chance to get in good with Harry & Meghan instead and already waging that campaign. We'll see a lot more pictures of them laughing and working together - pretty much a given at this point.

The official working event 3 days post-wedding was the first.

That's because Meghan possesses a work ethic.

She does seem to have a great work ethic. I hope you're right that both she and Harry will be friendlier with Charles and Camilla.

Charles betrayed his mother. I couldn't fault him if he was polite but didn't want a close relationship.

He's also the future King. I think William made a grave mistake by freezing him out for 10 years and Kate for allowing him too + egging it on (she really doesn't show any amount of respect/concern for Camilla). Charles is already beaming with pride at first being given a prominent role in Harry + Meghan's wedding and then doing a joint role with them and Camilla later that week.

I don't know how Charles will act as King and Camilla as Queen but being lazy is one thing. Being lazy and disrespectful is entirely another.

So what that he's the future king? So is William. Do you think that means they can go around breaking vows, lying to people, generally being disrespectful to the people they're supposed to love the most?

I guess you think the president should be allowed to do whatever he wants as well? And Oprah, because well she's Oprah? And the royals in other countries who are corrupt and siphon all the money that keeps most of their country living in poverty?

Fame, or birthright to a title, doesn't give people the right to behave like a jerk. And when you treat people badly, you can't expect them to be in a hurry to treat you better than they need to in return.

A) Charles didn't treat William or Kate badly.

B) They both need to grow up and show respect for their future King and due deference. At the very least as parents they have an obligation to instill a good work ethic and pride in their family institution to their children (no not talking about the Middleton marry as good-as-you-can-institution).

C) If you want Kate treated with respect as non-regnant Queen, you will first need to respect the coming regnant King.

Due deference? Goodness me.

And Charles didn't demonstrate "pride in their family institution" when he had an affair and betrayed his family.

I don't think Kate should be treated any better than anyone else, Charles included. Not sure where you got that idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand this AT ALL. (And I'm a proud & happy working mom.) If we can all applaud the modernization of the monarchy in accepting and celebrating a divorced biracial American as the wife of prince #2, why can't we do the same for the wife of prince #1 if she wants to be around her kids when they're young? Good for all of them, let them live their lives as they wish and be happy.

Because she campaign for the role of future Queen of England, not wife of a millionaire. She should have married Pippa's husband for that.

And secondly - being a mom at home is nothing revolutionary - so please don't compare it to the marriage of the first non-white person into the British Royal Family.

In fact, women fought long-and-hard for the right to be seen as equals around the world and some are still fighting. Ireland just voted to make abortion legal LAST NIGHT for god's sake. While this lazy sop is taking us all back to every time period pre-1920s by being exactly what we think she is - a layabout.

Yea, I gotta agree with pp. You're a weirdo. Kate's clearly a devoted mother. It's not like she's off partying or taking vacations all the time. She's putting her energies into raising her kids. Many of us Americans find that admirable. It's a shame you don't, but her children will be all the better for it.

DP. Personally, I think in 15-20 years her kids are going to be getting headlines for their bad behavior. The entitlement is strong in Will and Kate and therefore it seems likely to manifest in the kids.

I don't know how you know she's a devoted mother. Her not doing her royal duties doesn't make her a devoted mother.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is this “work” supposed to be? The monarchy is all a facade anyway. Who cares about public appearances and speeches? They are simply living off of other people’s money. There’s no reason to do pretend work. Queen Elizabeth is a fool for taking all of it so seriously.

No, she's smart, because she knows that making appearances is literally the only reason the monarchy still exists, and without that, there's no real reason to subsidize their lifestyle. The Queen knows this. Will & Kate don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is this “work” supposed to be? The monarchy is all a facade anyway. Who cares about public appearances and speeches? They are simply living off of other people’s money. There’s no reason to do pretend work. Queen Elizabeth is a fool for taking all of it so seriously.

Words that would only be better spoken by Marie Antoinette.

You do realize that during King George VI's (her father) and Queen Elizabeth's reign 60% of European monarchies disappeared? In fact, her husband is from one of those dynasties.

Austria, Greece, Italy, Poland, Germany, Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Portugal all had monarchies. Spain's King was actually forced to abdicate just two years ago because the public was tired of his lavish spending and his family's unconcern for public good.

People get tired of paying for someone else to do nothing all day.

Queen Elizabeth II recognizes that, too bad you (and William + Kate) don't.

[Anonymous]

What 22:46 doesn't realize is that the public fervor wasn't so strong for Kate Middleton because they expected her to act like all the other wealthy ton throughout London. Instead, the first commoner Queen was supposed to show a work ethic to inspire us all.

Too bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some of you are taking the criticism of Kate oddly personally. This isn't about her being a SAHM. It's about the fact that the popularity of the monarchy in the UK is steadily declining, and if you separate out generations in the UK, it has sharply declined.

Justified or not, there is an increasing current of criticism of Kate in the UK that is growing at the same time as general dissatisfaction with the monarchy. Once the baby boomers pass on in the UK, who knows what the general perception will be, because it is the older generation that is keeping the status quo now anyhow. The perception of Kate as entitled, as taking advantage of the British public is tied to the fact there is growing dissatisfaction with the monarchy anyhow. I am sure Elizabeth, who has always had a good sense of what the population sees, knows this too, hence the rumors of her confrontation with William. I think this is also why the Queen was so open to Meghan.

This has nothing to do with those of you being so weirdly defensive in this thread unless you too have married into British royalty.

WE are taking it personally? "an increasing current of criticism of kate", "the perception of kate", etc. You are the strange one. You are strangly critical. What do you care? Seriously. You act like you are on the hook for the decline of the monarchy and that Kate is behind it all. Weirdo.

I'm not the one freaking out because some subset of royal-watchers think Kate is lazy. But way to demonstrate that you're taking this oddly personally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is this “work” supposed to be? The monarchy is all a facade anyway. Who cares about public appearances and speeches? They are simply living off of other people’s money. There’s no reason to do pretend work. Queen Elizabeth is a fool for taking all of it so seriously.

Words that would only be better spoken by Marie Antoinette.

You do realize that during King George VI's (her father) and Queen Elizabeth's reign 60% of European monarchies disappeared? In fact, her husband is from one of those dynasties.

Austria, Greece, Italy, Poland, Germany, Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Portugal all had monarchies. Spain's King was actually forced to abdicate just two years ago because the public was tired of his lavish spending and his family's unconcern for public good.

People get tired of paying for someone else to do nothing all day.

Queen Elizabeth II recognizes that, too bad you (and William + Kate) don't.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is this “work” supposed to be? The monarchy is all a facade anyway. Who cares about public appearances and speeches? They are simply living off of other people’s money. There’s no reason to do pretend work. Queen Elizabeth is a fool for taking all of it so seriously.

No, she's smart, because she knows that making appearances is literally the only reason the monarchy still exists, and without that, there's no real reason to subsidize their lifestyle. The Queen knows this. Will & Kate don't.

Will would be happy just being a husband and father.

[Anonymous]

Kate did 46 official royal events in the past 12 months. Given she was pregnant for 10 of those twelves months and had an infant for one and given how awful her pregnancies are....I would call that working. Who knows what all unofficial events she has done as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is this “work” supposed to be? The monarchy is all a facade anyway. Who cares about public appearances and speeches? They are simply living off of other people’s money. There’s no reason to do pretend work. Queen Elizabeth is a fool for taking all of it so seriously.

Words that would only be better spoken by Marie Antoinette.

You do realize that during King George VI's (her father) and Queen Elizabeth's reign 60% of European monarchies disappeared? In fact, her husband is from one of those dynasties.

Austria, Greece, Italy, Poland, Germany, Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Portugal all had monarchies. Spain's King was actually forced to abdicate just two years ago because the public was tired of his lavish spending and his family's unconcern for public good.

People get tired of paying for someone else to do nothing all day.

Queen Elizabeth II recognizes that, too bad you (and William + Kate) don't.

+100

These people need to earn they’re keep. For some reason the young British royals are so entitled and totally out of touch. They think of the Crown as a burden and are unwilling to work hard.

I am willing to bet Prince George will probably never see the throne, so as long as his parents keep acting like their rich retireees and not working public servants beholden to their public. Let Kate hang out in her multi million dollar nursery. The job will come for her anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kate did 46 official royal events in the past 12 months. Given she was pregnant for 10 of those twelves months and had an infant for one and given how awful her pregnancies are....I would call that working. Who knows what all unofficial events she has done as well.

She wasn’t pregnant for 10 months, 40 weeks is not 10 months. Plus you aren’t pregnant for the first 2 weeks.
38 weeks is more like 8 months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well if "celebitchy" says so...

NP here. Celebitchy is actually a fantastic and smart gossip website that gives great insight into the actions of celebrities and politicians. No need to sneer at it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well if "celebitchy" says so...

NP here. Celebitchy is actually a fantastic and smart gossip website that gives great insight into the actions of celebrities and politicians. No need to sneer at it.

PP is just trying to shoot the messenger. It wouldn't matter if the Economist said the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kate did 46 official royal events in the past 12 months. Given she was pregnant for 10 of those twelves months and had an infant for one and given how awful her pregnancies are....I would call that working. Who knows what all unofficial events she has done as well.

She wasn’t pregnant for 10 months, 40 weeks is not 10 months. Plus you aren’t pregnant for the first 2 weeks.
38 weeks is more like 8 months.

40 weeks divided by roughly 4 weeks in a month equals roughly 10 months.

Math is not your strong suit, huh?