Royalty Thread #5 - Kate Now Officially A MILF

Discussion in 'Off The Beaten Track' started by floskate, Jul 23, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. mag

    mag Well-Known Member

    7,676
    2,896
    113
    I'm sure she did on their South Pacific tour. While I don't love everything she wears, I think she has done a great job dressing for her role. I have yet to see one outfit where I thought "WTF were you thinking." That is more than I can say for most people in the public eye!
     
  2. Garden Kitty

    Garden Kitty Tranquillo

    25,272
    5,594
    113
    That's more than I can say about some of my own outfits. :shuffle:
     
  3. *Jen*

    *Jen* Well-Known Member

    11,616
    1,371
    113
    It is.

    She isn't. She wore them all last winter, and the winter before that. Seeing her in trousers would be a surprise but I challenge you to find an official photo of her in winter not wearing black tights. It's winter in London. It's freaking cold! :lol:

    Nearly all the girls in the city wear them. It's not possible to wear sheer tights in winter :cold: I adored wearing thick black tights with boots all winter. Makes me miss London just thinking about it :drama:
     
  4. Reuven

    Reuven Official FSU Alte Kacher

    12,349
    3,731
    113
    Well, anytime I see things about London, I miss it. :(
     
  5. IceAlisa

    IceAlisa Épaulement!!!

    31,201
    4,455
    113
    An article about the Duchess of Cambridge. http://omg.yahoo.com/news/kate-middleton-inside-her-life-mom-baby-prince-170000824-us-weekly.html

    :eek: My hat's off to her. She could have an army of nannies around the clock and actually sleep through the night but chooses not to. Very impressive.
     
  6. ballettmaus

    ballettmaus Well-Known Member

    1,844
    277
    83
    Is it really that impressive? I don't have children but a few friends recently had children and even though I'm sure they were tired and probably thought about how nice it would be to just be able to hand the task off to someone else, I don't think they would have wanted to do that really.
    I would assume that Kate wants to do that herself shows/proves that she wasn't pressured into marriage or children and that she's just a mom like every other mom. :)
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2013
  7. Gazpacho

    Gazpacho Well-Known Member

    5,339
    687
    113
    Not to mention, Kate gets tons of help with everything else (cleaning, cooking, shopping, etc.) What's more shocking is that Kate's desire to spend time with her son is groundbreaking by royal standards. Victoria only seeing her kids when she "supervised" their baths?! Diana's schedule set so that she would have to miss her son's first birthday?! No wonder they've had so many dysfunctional messes.
     
  8. Alixana

    Alixana Definitely NOT a sonogram

    1,273
    176
    63
    To be fair to Victoria, she was a product of her time. Basically only the poor raised their children themselves. Even the middle class had nannies or nursery maids. Not the norm in our time perhaps but she wasn't an abnormal parent in those days.
     
  9. ballettmaus

    ballettmaus Well-Known Member

    1,844
    277
    83
    Yes and no. Empress Elisabeth of Austria was distraught when her first (then second and third) child were taken away from her to be raised by her mother-in-law, gave up the fight after that child died, but raised her fourth child on her own ten years later. Granted, I don't think that means she was raised without a nanny but she did have a mother.
     
  10. IceAlisa

    IceAlisa Épaulement!!!

    31,201
    4,455
    113
    Nonetheless, a lot of people who can afford it, have live-in nannies. Some people have a separate nanny for each child.
     
  11. Gazpacho

    Gazpacho Well-Known Member

    5,339
    687
    113
    Kate and William have a nanny for Prince George too--the same nanny that William had! :)
     
  12. Alixana

    Alixana Definitely NOT a sonogram

    1,273
    176
    63
    Yes. And that she fought to raise her own children is laudable, given the time she lived in. (There are some days when I would willingly send my twins to my mother-in-law to raise! Then they do something cute and I decide to keep them again. ;) )
     
    LynnW and (deleted member) like this.
  13. kwanfan1818

    kwanfan1818 I <3 Kozuka

    20,965
    3,847
    113
    Empress Elisabeth was the spouse of the ruling monarch. (I can't remember if she was the one who had the gym installed in the central palace, because she had been very active physically as a child and wasn't allowed to go into the city to exercise.) Queen Victoria was the monarch, and she had official duties, even if she was ruling the country politically.
     
  14. IceAlisa

    IceAlisa Épaulement!!!

    31,201
    4,455
    113
    Aww, how sweet. The nanny is 71 so I would think her duties are limited. I don't see her waking up several times a night for George.
     
    Maofan7 and (deleted member) like this.
  15. AragornElessar

    AragornElessar Well-Known Member

    5,302
    392
    83
    From what has been told, she's not full time and is more there to help out, than an actual Nanny that we think of as a Nanny.

    It was announced earlier today the Race to the South Pole has been shortened due to wicked weather. Also the start day has been moved to Sunday. They were supposed to head off tomorrow.
     
  16. IceAlisa

    IceAlisa Épaulement!!!

    31,201
    4,455
    113
    Thanks, that sounds right, considering her age and William and Catherine being such hands-on parents.
     
  17. ballettmaus

    ballettmaus Well-Known Member

    1,844
    277
    83
    No, that wasn't her. She did have gym equipement in her private rooms though because she was obsessed with her physical appearance and maintained a tiny, tiny waist until her death. She was also anorexic (even if she wasn't called that at the time) and suffered from depression.

    I wonder though why you pointed out that one was the ruling monarch and the other the spouse? I'm sure if Victoria had wanted to she could have spent more time with her children than supervising their baths. I also read somewhere that she disliked being pregnant, so, I would think that suggests she didn't make much of an effort to be with the children.
     
  18. PDilemma

    PDilemma Well-Known Member

    4,878
    829
    113
    She didn't like children at all. Not even her own. She made the choice to not spend time with them.
     
  19. orientalplane

    orientalplane Mad for mangelwurzels

    10,880
    4,614
    113
    Well, I have a number of friends who disliked being pregnant, but it didn't seem to lessen the love they had for their children once they were born.
     
  20. kwanfan1818

    kwanfan1818 I <3 Kozuka

    20,965
    3,847
    113
    A ruling monarch generally has more responsibility than a monarch's spouse, whether that be political or social. She was the center of attraction and that takes energy and focus.

    This doesn't mean every ruling monarch spends less time with his or her children -- for Queen Victoria, this would have been all nine of them -- than a consort, but there's a valid reason for opting out.
     
  21. Gazpacho

    Gazpacho Well-Known Member

    5,339
    687
    113
    Isn't it? That's the ultimate compliment to a nanny :)

    I've been reading a bit about royal nannies. Charles is still very close to his own nanny. When she retired, he gifted her a nice house, and he invites her over for Christmas every year. Although Charles' nanny was a wonderful maternal figure, he and Diana still realized that a nanny is no replacement for the parents, so they were the first couple to commit to being hands-on as much as would be allowed, something that met with resistance. Prior to them, it was generally expected that the kids would know their nannies better than their parents. Queen Elizabeth was almost entirely raised by a nanny who was mercilessly bullied by the Queen Mother.

    When it came to her own children, the Queen also passed them off to nannies. She missed Charles' first three birthdays. In fairness, it's much harder for the head of state to devote so much time to her children compared to any other royal, but it still seems odd that Elizabeth didn't put her foot down and say, I'm not missing my son's birthday again!

    Diana and Charles deserve a lot of credit for challenging the traditional royal outsourcing of parenting tasks. In retrospect it seems common sense, but back then it took plenty of guts, especially for a 21 year old newly married into the family, to challenge tradition like that. They paved the way for future generations. Without them, I doubt Kate and William would feel entirely comfortable making the decisions they're making.
     
  22. PDilemma

    PDilemma Well-Known Member

    4,878
    829
    113
    Charles was born November 14, 1948. Elizabeth was not Queen until February 6, 1952. So being head of state was not the reason for her missing his first three birthdays.
     
  23. IceAlisa

    IceAlisa Épaulement!!!

    31,201
    4,455
    113
  24. dardar1126

    dardar1126 Well-Known Member

    3,348
    248
    63
    But didn't she take on quite a few of her father's duties (i.e. personal appearances and travel) as he became quite ill?
     
  25. PDilemma

    PDilemma Well-Known Member

    4,878
    829
    113
    She missed out on quite a lot of Charles' infancy and toddler years because she left him in England while she stayed in Malta with Phillip on his naval posting. It was not duty. It was her own choice. She was a much different mother with Andrew and Edward--more hands on and not leaving them home for long stretches. I think that she was, perhaps, not ready for children when she had Charles and Anne. They were born of duty. The younger two were very much wanted and came at a time when she was ready.
     
  26. ballettmaus

    ballettmaus Well-Known Member

    1,844
    277
    83
    Certainly. But I would think if you love or even like your children (which, according to PDilemma Victoria didn't) you find the time to be present in your children's life.

    Are you saying it's okay to have children and then pass them off to a nanny? :confused:


    orientalplane
    , that's interesting. I would have assumed, since pregnancy can be quite a strain, you'd want to be pregnant in some way, at least, and the bad memories fade away whereas the good stay.
     
  27. *Jen*

    *Jen* Well-Known Member

    11,616
    1,371
    113
    No, she's saying it's like the difference between being a CEO or a CEOs wife. A HUGE difference in work v family responsibility. That isn't to say that a CEO can't also be a parent, just that they would also need a nanny or a spouse who lives at home to look after the children. If you are the Monarch, you have SIGNIFICANTLY more responsibility than your husband/wife, who just happened to marry someone important.

    If the consort needs a full time nanny because they're out all the time, these days that would raise more eyebrows because they don't have anywhere near the level of responsibility that the monarch has.


    orientalplane
    , that's interesting. I would have assumed, since pregnancy can be quite a strain, you'd want to be pregnant in some way, at least, and the bad memories fade away whereas the good stay.[/QUOTE]

    :lol: No. Just no. Women who like being pregnant tend to be in the minority. Generally the desire to have a kid overrides the desire not to be pregnant, but that doesn't mean they enjoy it ;)
     
  28. taf2002

    taf2002 flower lady

    14,654
    3,373
    113
    It confuses me when people categorically state what sounds like facts about what is going on in someone else's head. I don't know how you can possibly know that Victoria didn't like children, even her own or that Charles & Anne were born out of duty. No matter what has been written about Victoria by others, did she ever come out & say she didn't like children? If not, no one can actually know this. And my impression has always been that Elizabeth wanted to marry Phillip. She certainly is glowing in her wedding pictures. After all, he is very minor royalty so he wasn't that big a catch. So why would having children with him be a duty & why did she live out of the country with him or have extra children with him?
     
  29. Skittl1321

    Skittl1321 Well-Known Member

    12,085
    1,452
    113
    Pretty much, yeah.

    Here's one article that sums up a number of things she wrote or said.
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/36...revealed-to-loath-her-ugly-frog-like-children

    This one also has a number of quotes from her.
    http://mentalfloss.com/article/51762/10-quotes-queen-victoria-miseries-royal-motherhood


    I don't see an issue with having a nanny to take care of children while you are doing your job, it's not different than utilizing a daycare, but I don't think parents should be lauded for waking up at night with their child. That isn't exactly going above and beyond. If Kate were not using any childcare help at all- that would be pretty amazing, since she does have official duties.
     
    Gazpacho and (deleted member) like this.
  30. Jenny

    Jenny From the Bloc

    17,560
    2,132
    113
    And yet millions and millions of women have done a great job of being mom while also having full time jobs, volunteer and community work, caring for extended families, dealing with personal issue, fitting in a social life etc. I'm a big Kate fan, but I don't see any wow in what she's doing - she's just another new mom doing her best with the resources she has to balance it all out.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.