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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You cited a blog post?
(Eye roll).

+1
And one called, "Celebitchy," to boot. Honestly, I just can't take people like OP seriously.

I love Kate Middleton and think she's doing a fantastic job - both as a mother and as a patron. But most importantly, as a mother.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disagree 100 percent. Her job was to produce heirs, which she has done in excellent time.

This right here. Kate and Meghan's jobs aren't comparable. Kate's first job is to produce the next monarch. (second is to look pretty and be inoffensive)

Having babies was Diana's first job too. Diana didn't get into all her social work until the children were older. And I'm trying to remember (I was a young teen then), but I'm not entirely certain the crown was happy about all her involvement. She seemed to be sort of going her own way, being so public with her causes.

Anyway, there's no must for Meghan and Harry to have kids. It's fine if they do, but it's not Meghan's #1 job. She needs to be pretty, somewhat inoffensive (she has more latitude than Kate), and otherwise can do what she wants.

Exactly. Diana got much deeper into her charity work as her boys got older. She was first and foremost a hands-on mom, just as Kate is. I was watching a biographical show about Kate on PBS and it was even pointed out that William married Kate not only because he loves her (duh), but also because her family was the example he wanted to set with his own family, especially having had a mother like Diana. He wanted normalcy and stability for his children, and this is exactly what he has. Good for him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When the Queen was a new queen and young mother, we did not know as much as we do now about child development, and the formative years and bonding and attachment parenting, etc.

Maybe there's a lack of closeness with George or Charlotte that she attributes to not being there as much in the early months? Who knows. I don't think we're personally affected by how much she does or doesn't work.

She was also the reigning monarch. There's an enormous difference between being the reigning monarch, and being the person married to the second person in line to be the reigning monarch. Kate has much more freedom to make these choices than Elizabeth did when he third child was born.

My guess is that Kate enjoyed her time with George and Charlotte when they were young, and sees an opportunity with the world focused on Meghan to get a little more of that time.

I worked full time when my kid was young because I didn't have a choice. I didn't see any lack of closeness with my kid, but I loved being with him, and if I'd had the opportunity to work less and have more time with him, while still drawing the same salary, I'd have grabbed it. I don't see why it's surprising that Kate is doing the same thing.

+100
Good for her - and for any parent who chooses to spend as much time as possible with their children. This is a good thing, not something to be ridiculed or criticized. Poor OP. SO bitter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, shocked by all the Kate hate. How is it wrong for her to want to raise her kids? Who really suffers when she skips yet another ball or reception? In 20 years no one will remember or care except her kids.

I remember and care. I remember all the change Princess Diana affected globally not just locally for her causes in landmine-prevention, education, and HIV/AIDS prevention. And those are just the well-known ones.

Diana had over 100 Patronages.

Kate has 18. 6 of which are museums...which let's face it, don't need much in the way of actual work and another 1/3rd are done jointly with William. Oh, and she doesn't actually have appearances or interactions with the majority of them every single year.

Diana didn't start most of that work until her sons were significantly older than Kate's children are now.

+1.
Plus, this is all oddly specific. Do YOU not have a job? Why aren't you focusing on that, or your kids rather than KateStats?

If you don't produce stats people think you're being superfluous. With numbers her abject lazinesss is crystal clear.

Something is crystal clear, but it's not what you think.

So true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When the Queen was a new queen and young mother, we did not know as much as we do now about child development, and the formative years and bonding and attachment parenting, etc.

Maybe there's a lack of closeness with George or Charlotte that she attributes to not being there as much in the early months? Who knows. I don't think we're personally affected by how much she does or doesn't work.

She was also the reigning monarch. There's an enormous difference between being the reigning monarch, and being the person married to the second person in line to be the reigning monarch. Kate has much more freedom to make these choices than Elizabeth did when he third child was born.

My guess is that Kate enjoyed her time with George and Charlotte when they were young, and sees an opportunity with the world focused on Meghan to get a little more of that time.

I worked full time when my kid was young because I didn't have a choice. I didn't see any lack of closeness with my kid, but I loved being with him, and if I'd had the opportunity to work less and have more time with him, while still drawing the same salary, I'd have grabbed it. I don't see why it's surprising that Kate is doing the same thing.

This has been explained multiple times. I doubt anyone begrudges her a couple months of parental leave. It's that she does the bare minimum (if that) when she's not on maternity leave.

And you care because....??? Oh, right. Because you can't do the same thing and it just kills you when other can (and do).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Really nice to see a public person prioritizing their children. She’s a wonderful role model.

+1,000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people care because her job is to be a working Royal.

Instead she got married 7 years ago and has spent 6 of those 7 either pregnant or on six-month maternity leaves which amounts to the same thing.

We were optimistic when she got married and gave her a year to get 'settled' into her position and to figure out how to be a good Royal, but now its just about 10 years running and she barely has any worthwhile Patronages to speak of, does no appearances, rarely leaves London etc etc.

I've given up on Kate but I also no longer think its my concern. The BRF will deal with it when/if they see any negative public opinion affecting them.

Her main job was to birth royal babies.

She has been wildly successful at this task.

William (and Harry) want their children to have as normal lives as possible. If Kate gives those 3 children this gift, she will be one of the best princesses to ever marry into the royal family.

Good for Princess Kate for making her most important job her highest priority

Mic drop.

[Anonymous]

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.

Links to these supposed "rumors"? You are completely fabricating a scenario that is entirely in your head. You seem a tad overly invested in the royal family. Why is that?

[Anonymous]

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.

Do you have any serious, credible links to this "open conservation about ditching the monarchy"? Kate and William are hugely popular. Why? Because he is the son of a beloved woman (who, btw, also put her children first), and he has married a lovely woman who is doing the same. They are a breath of fresh air, of normalcy, in what was becoming a very stale monarchy. For those reasons alone, Queen Elizabeth is probably very enthusiastic about their match, and also of Harry and MM. Normal, nice, down-to-earth people are exactly what this monarchy needs if it's to remain relevant.

Not sure if you've heard, but putting one's children first is very well thought of these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She accomplished nothing in life on her own from the time she entered college. It's as if her sole purpose of being was to marry Will. They called her Waity Katy for a reason. She waited for 7 or 8 years for Will, and during that time, she took off work. She didn't "do" charity work. All she did was party and shop during those years. She is typical of a lot of upper class Millennials.

She took a gamble, and she won.

If you're the young woman reproducing the heirs to the throne, why do anything else? She probably feels that she's getting the rewards in life from just being a starfish and breeding. That is a job in and of itself.

I find these threads entertaining so I read them. The above is hilarious. I live and work in DC. I work with a lot of wonderful, exceptionally smart, and successful women BUT I am also friends, with and live around, a lot of women who either worked only briefly and then married well and know others who waited for their man a long time as well. It’s NORMAL! I k ow nothing about Kate but she seems quite lovely to me in that she appears warm to others when in public, seems to genuinely love her husband and now children.

She met a guy in college, fell in love, and is now a wife and Mom. Why does it have to be more than that. And, ok, if what other posters say she went after him - so what. Clearly would not have been successful if he did not feel the same. If I remember from dating, everyone finds someone they are interested in and tries to get their attention, strike up a meeting, hope they date. That’s how it works.

I wish only happiness for all of them. Beautiful young family.

You are missing the point entirely.

Ye, we know, Anti-Princess Kate troll.

In your mind, YOU should have been the one Will married, so you are insanely jealous and obsessed with hating on the princess.

Your only respite is to post hate threads about her on dcum.

Not to nitpick but Kate is not a princess. She is a Duchess.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/metro.co.uk/2018/04/25/diana-princess-kate-middleton-not-royal-familys-titles-explained-7496299/amp/

[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.

Links to these supposed "rumors"? You are completely fabricating a scenario that is entirely in your head. You seem a tad overly invested in the royal family. Why is that?

DP. Republicanism has a very long history in the UK: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_Kingdom

That said, I actually think that William could take a lot of the attention off Kate by working more especially considering he is the actual heir.

[Anonymous]

In 1985 when William was 4 and Harry was one, Charles and Diana did over 500 combined events.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/2506110/prince-charles-did-double-his-sons-work-30yrs-ago-as-wills-and-kate-are-slammed-for-shirking-royal-duties/amp/

Way, way more than William and Kate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In 1985 when William was 4 and Harry was one, Charles and Diana did over 500 combined events.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/2506110/prince-charles-did-double-his-sons-work-30yrs-ago-as-wills-and-kate-are-slammed-for-shirking-royal-duties/amp/

Way, way more than William and Kate.

And having been the child in that scenario, William wants different for his own kids. More power to him, I say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In 1985 when William was 4 and Harry was one, Charles and Diana did over 500 combined events.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/2506110/prince-charles-did-double-his-sons-work-30yrs-ago-as-wills-and-kate-are-slammed-for-shirking-royal-duties/amp/

Way, way more than William and Kate.

And the Queen's children were mostly raised by nannies while she traveled the world carrying out royal duties. Times are changing, parenting
practices are different now. Three of Elizabeth's children are divorced. William may just be prioritizing a happier family life for himself.

[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.

Links to these supposed "rumors"? You are completely fabricating a scenario that is entirely in your head. You seem a tad overly invested in the royal family. Why is that?

Good gravy. Bizarrely defensive indeed. You don't believe there is republican sentiment in the UK? And somebody already posted a link in this thread about the rumored confrontation between the Queen and Will. Just scroll back a few pages.