I’ve been debating whether to comment on this latest article about Kate looking for a new nanny, because I thought we had already known that. This is kind of a throwaway post, but the Kate news has been light after the flurry of stuff a few weeks ago, so why not? Also, there are interesting bits in the article.
So, basics, I guess Kate and William are still looking for a new nanny for George now that Jessie Webb is leaving. It’s been a month and a half since that news broke, but whatever. They had planned to go it alone and not have a nanny at all ( 😉 ), but then they hired Jessie Webb on a part-time basis to help when they had royal duties (except that Jessie Webb was chilling with Kate while driving back to KP in Sept.). Now Jessie Webb is leaving and their royal duties are ramping up (except not really), so they now want a full-time nanny.
I laughed at the line, “but the demands of royal duties seem to be taking their toll.” What royal duties? Kate’s done three appearances this year. She did only about 20 appearances last year after George was born–from July to Dec. so that’s 20 appearances in 6 months, so that’s an average of about 3-4 per month. It’s not like her “royal duties” are really that heavy or getting in the way of anything–except her shopping and vacations. But whatever, if they want a nanny, have one. Just don’t lie about it. I suppose I should take into account that this position is because of the tour in April. They will need a full-time nanny for George while they are in Oz. At least they aren’t taking Carole with them, and getting her trip paid for by the public by calling her the nanny.
Something interesting from the article is that one nanny agency was named, Nannies of St James. A partner at the company, Rosemary Newton, even talked to the paper. She didn’t talk about the Cambs, but she did chat to the paper about nanny-ing.
What’s even more interesting is what Kensington Palace had to say: “We do not discuss personal arrangements, but we are not using Nannies of St James at present, nor do we plan to.” That’s interesting. Usually they don’t comment at all, so why are they randomly making a definitive comment about this particular agency? I would think that the nanny agency called the paper to give themselves some PR, except the article doesn’t gloss over their financial struggle in 2008 and overall doesn’t talk them up. So is KP doth protesting too much, and they are using that agency but they are still shilling the “no nanny” line, or they really aren’t using that agency and the agency is using them for PR and KP wants to shut it down? But then if they shut down that rumor, which is inconsequential in the long run, why not shut down other more substantial rumors? Seems a bit weird that they would comment after they said–in the same sentence–that they don’t comment. Things that make you go “Hm…”