Page 36 of 50 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... LastLast
Results 701 to 720 of 986
  1. #701

    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    5,249
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    5608
    Quote Originally Posted by IceAlisa View Post
    Nonetheless, a lot of people who can afford it, have live-in nannies. Some people have a separate nanny for each child.
    Kate and William have a nanny for Prince George too--the same nanny that William had!

  2. #702
    recovering Oly-holic
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    In the frozen, snowy north
    Posts
    1,237
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    2042
    Quote Originally Posted by ballettmaus View Post
    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.
    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. )

  3. #703
    I <3 Kozuka
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Vancouver/Seattle
    Posts
    18,208
    vCash
    730
    Rep Power
    19005
    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.
    "'Is this new BMW-designed sled the ultimate sledding machine for Langdon and Holcomb?' Leigh Diffey asked before the pair cruised to victory. I don’t know, but I know that sled is the ultimate Olympic Games product placement.." -- Jen Chaney

  4. #704
    Port de bras!!!
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Ravenclaw
    Posts
    29,499
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    19808
    Quote Originally Posted by Gazpacho View Post
    Kate and William have a nanny for Prince George too--the same nanny that William had!
    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.
    "Nature is a damp, inconvenient sort of place where birds and animals wander about uncooked."

    from Speedy Death

  5. #705
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Sending my thoughts and prayers to the people of Elliott Lake :(
    Age
    41
    Posts
    5,283
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by IceAlisa View Post
    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.
    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.

  6. #706
    Port de bras!!!
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Ravenclaw
    Posts
    29,499
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    19808
    Quote Originally Posted by AragornElessar View Post
    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.
    Thanks, that sounds right, considering her age and William and Catherine being such hands-on parents.
    "Nature is a damp, inconvenient sort of place where birds and animals wander about uncooked."

    from Speedy Death

  7. #707
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    1,441
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kwanfan1818 View Post
    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.
    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.

  8. #708
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    4,721
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ballettmaus View Post
    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.
    She didn't like children at all. Not even her own. She made the choice to not spend time with them.

  9. #709
    Mad for mangelwurzels
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Failing to grow a forest in the desert
    Posts
    10,323
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    59062
    Quote Originally Posted by ballettmaus View Post
    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.
    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.

  10. #710
    I <3 Kozuka
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Vancouver/Seattle
    Posts
    18,208
    vCash
    730
    Rep Power
    19005
    Quote Originally Posted by ballettmaus View Post

    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.
    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.
    "'Is this new BMW-designed sled the ultimate sledding machine for Langdon and Holcomb?' Leigh Diffey asked before the pair cruised to victory. I don’t know, but I know that sled is the ultimate Olympic Games product placement.." -- Jen Chaney

  11. #711

    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    5,249
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    5608
    Quote Originally Posted by IceAlisa View Post
    Aww, how sweet.
    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.

  12. #712
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    4,721
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Gazpacho View Post
    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.
    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.

  13. #713
    Port de bras!!!
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Ravenclaw
    Posts
    29,499
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    19808
    "Nature is a damp, inconvenient sort of place where birds and animals wander about uncooked."

    from Speedy Death

  14. #714
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Central Texas
    Posts
    3,043
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by PDilemma View Post
    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.
    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?

  15. #715
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    4,721
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by dardar1126 View Post
    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?
    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.

  16. #716
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    1,441
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kwanfan1818 View Post
    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.
    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.

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


    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.

  17. #717

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    11,378
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    1941
    Quote Originally Posted by ballettmaus View Post
    Are you saying it's okay to have children and then pass them off to a nanny?
    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]

    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
    One day your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure it's worth watching.

  18. #718

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Thankfukky watching skating
    Posts
    13,116
    vCash
    317
    Rep Power
    17211
    Quote Originally Posted by PDilemma View Post
    She didn't like children at all. Not even her own. She made the choice to not spend time with them.
    Quote Originally Posted by PDilemma View Post
    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.
    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?

  19. #719
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    10,393
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by taf2002 View Post
    did she ever come out & say she didn't like children?
    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/365...-like-children

    This one also has a number of quotes from her.
    http://mentalfloss.com/article/51762...yal-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.

  20. #720
    From the Bloc
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    California, I wish
    Posts
    17,078
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    3303
    Quote Originally Posted by Skittl1321 View Post
    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.
    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.

Page 36 of 50 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •