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.

+100

I wonder if people who defend William if he decided to stop working and look after Charlotte and George.

SAHMs are somehow projecting themselves onto Kate.

Kate is a WORKING member of the BRF. She NEEDS to be working. If shes not showing up to work she needs to be fired.

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.

Well apparently it is revolutionary. If it was obvious and normal then it would just be what people did and expected and there wouldn't be a whole thread about how DARE Kate actually choose to raise her babies and toddlers herself (or at least with substantially more input from her than would be the case if she was working outside the home all day) instead of sticking them into some sort of daycare.

And Kate wasn't born into money, but her parents are multimillionaires now. There's no way she was going to be working every day if she didn't want that. William knew it when he married her. And his choice of wife (and her values) is exactly that - his choice. Not yours.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+100

I wonder if people who defend William if he decided to stop working and look after Charlotte and George.

SAHMs are somehow projecting themselves onto Kate.

Kate is a WORKING member of the BRF. She NEEDS to be working. If shes not showing up to work she needs to be fired.

What's this "work" you keep crowing about? She's not some surgeon who could be off saving people's lives. Your talking about her making public appearances at events. That's hardly something to get so excited about. She has three kids under the age of five. She's plenty busy.

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.

+100

I wonder if people who defend William if he decided to stop working and look after Charlotte and George.

SAHMs are somehow projecting themselves onto Kate.

Kate is a WORKING member of the BRF. She NEEDS to be working. If shes not showing up to work she needs to be fired.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it will change, though, because Meghan is going to make her look bad in comparison.

She already has and I don't think the first Duchess is going to be very happy about it. Meghan was working as a Royal before even marrying into the family. She did her first official working Royal appearance 3 days after getting married and is expected to announce her official patronages this fall.

It took Kate more than a year to do the same never-mind the fact that she got a 10-year running start as William's girlfriend-in-training pre-Wedding.

Kate is so lazy and entitled. She wants all the perks without any of the work.

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.

The bolded just cracked me up. It was actually never any of your concern.

Anonymous wrote:I think Diana was a work horse. I think she really cared about using her fame to make a difference with organizations she cared about. I don't think Kate has that passion. I dont think its a negative or positive on her as a person but there is a clear difference. I think Megan could potentially "up the ante" because she seems maybe more like Diana?? Curious to see how that will play out.

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.

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.

Well what do you think would happen otherwise? You think she would seek out a low-cost home-based daycare and trek her kids over there every day to pay some other mom 20 pounds to look after her kids for the day? While she gets her nails and hair and makeup done and then shows her face at some "royal engagement"?

Show some sense. Royal children cost a lot of money regardless of who is looking after them.

And FWIW I think they should abolish the entire monarchy. I see what Kate is doing as a good example though. Better would be if she didn't have any nannies, but I don't know many UMC women who wouldn't have at least one nanny if they're at home with 3 small children.

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.

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.

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.

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.