Kate is still insisting she doesn’t have a nanny, and other news

Kate is still insisting she doesn’t have a nanny, and other news

I’ve been dealing with personal stuff the last week and a half, and have ignored the royal BS PR machine during that time.  But now I’m back to it and as disappointed as ever.  Basically I’m catching up on some of the stories from the last week and a half, or so.

They are still talking about the “no nanny” thing.  Seriously, the more they try and sell the fact that William and Kate don’t have a nanny and that Kate is doing all the work herself, the less I believe it.  They have nannies and staff; they just aren’t paying for them themselves—either Charles or Carole is.  I’m sure Carole hired staff to stay at their house while Kate and George are staying there.   And we already know that Charles still pays for their staff at KP.  Us Weekly has a story about how “normal” their lives are in Bucklebury, with quotes from “a family source” who is totally Carole.  The sycophancy is just awful.  There is also an article from the Daily Mail about how William might want to bring back his old nanny to be the nanny to George.  Whatever.  The interesting bit from that article is this quote: “Kate… is caring for George full-time but has been advised she will become exhausted by combining motherhood with her future royal duties.”  Puh-lease.  1) I doubt Kate is caring for George full time, if they don’t currently have a nanny then Carole is probably doing most of the work; 2) It’s called being a working mother!  Deal with it, Kate.  Every other working mother on the planet has to deal with a full schedule of working and taking care of her children without having a full-time, live-in nanny doing most of the work.  Especially since Kate won’t be going back to some 40 hour a week job, she’ll be doing 1-2 hour long appearances a week, if that.  It’s not that freaking hard.  Get over yourself.  Then there’s this article.  It’s all about the pretense that Will and Kate are using of not having a nanny and calls them out for it.  I love it.

So William was supposed to have gone back to work last week, since his paternity leave was over.  But then, why he supposedly had time off from work, after going back just a few days prior, he went and partied with his mates instead of going to see his wife and child.  Interesting…..

Apparently the first pictures of George will not be professional, but instead will be family shots taken by the Middletons.  Whatever.  I understand why they would want to do it this way instead of do a professional shot, since the baby is so small, but the cynical part of me is like “of course they want the Middleton’s to take the photos, that way they get the copyright money”.  Of course, the thing that stood out most to me was that a “source” (Carole) said Kate is choosing the photos to use herself since she’s such a great photographer.  Uh, I don’t think so.  Kate does not have “a great eye for pictures”, did you see the awful ones she took during her Asia trip last fall?  (Scroll over a bit, you’ll see them).

Here’s a story about Kate’s “push present” from William.  I hate the term “push present”, I dislike the idea in general; that is, until I read something about it being a nice way to commemorate a big moment in a couple’s relationship (which, by the look of it, is what Charles’ gift to Diana was, since it was just a small charm with William’s initial).  That was a nice way to put it, but most people buy jewelry as some sort of “thank you”, which is appalling.  Not the jewelry part, if that’s what she wants then whatever, but the “thank you” part.  Like it’s some sort of job for the wife to produce a child for the husband, like it’s not a decision they made together, like the wife had no choice in the matter.  I don’t know, it just doesn’t sit well with me; it makes it seem too much like the birth of a child is a business transaction, not the loving creation of new life.  Anyway, according to the source, William is designing a huge brooch with a pink diamond in it for Kate.  Whatever, not my taste, but I’m sure she’ll love it and we’ll see it often, if that is what he gets her.

I wrote a post about titles recently, because there was an uproar about Kate’s title when William said she was a Princess of the United Kingdom on George’s birth certificate.  Well, there has been some clarification from Buck House.  Here are two articles about it, I don’t really feel like going over the whole controversy since I kind of already did and I was totally right about the titles thing.  My guess is that Buck House, and the Queen, did not want people (and by people I mean the press) calling her Princess Kate after she got married, so insisted that she was a Duchess and to use that title.  Especially since the press had been angling for the Princess title since the engagement and were disappointed with the Duchess title.  If they had been given any wiggle room on the Princess title they would have been calling her Princess Kate since the wedding day, so BP shut that down hard.  And I don’t blame them one bit.  They did not want a married-in to upstage the blood royals, like Diana did.

When I did a search for ‘Kate Middleton’ on the Daily Mail’s website, this article came up: Women bosses lack personality because they ‘feel pressure to be superhuman,’ says female Hobbs chief.  My first reaction was, WTF?  I was thinking they somehow managed to put Kate in there as somehow doing a good job of… whatever.  I was wrong, thankfully.  The only reason it came up was because they used images of Kate and Pippa wearing Hobbs dresses.  Now, normally I would be annoyed that they used Kate’s name to get an article clicked on, but I’m not in this instance.  Mainly because I found the article interesting, but also because, while neither Kate nor Pippa needed to be in the article, it didn’t try and say some sycophantic BS about them, which was refreshing.  But anyway, read the article because it is interesting and makes some really interesting points about women in the workplace and women supporting women.

Back To Top