161 thoughts on “Prince William & Kate Middleton’s Canada tour cost millions”

1. This is not good of me, I know, but I kind of feel a twisted pleasure in reading these reports about costs. I want people to say enough’s enough, and stop supporting the entire RF. W+K aren’t ‘worth’ this ridiculous sum. What a disgrace. Thanks, KMR.

2. Wowzas!! I didn’t expect it to be that high! How much was the India/Bhutan trip?

3. This is maddening. I live in BC and the fact that they could visit an organization like Sheway whilst knowing that their visit would cost upwards of $3 million dollars is astounding. Why couldn’t the government have used that money to actually invest in the services that we so desperately need for our province’s most disenfranchised? The W&K visit was all well and fun, but no way in a million years would I ever suggest it being worth that kind of money. Ugh.

4. That’s an obscene amount of public money spent on what amounted to an 8-day holitour for a couple who had the audacity to not even read their briefing notes, and who were often spotted looking bored. Bringing two small children along for the expensive ride for, essentially, a 1-2 hour party where they met no other children (it would appear) was a hugely cynical move by their parents and PR.

   My takeaways from the trip:
   1. Kate not being able to adequately converse upon arrival
   2. William admitting to not prepping/ complete ignorance of Diana’s association with the charity he was visiting.
   3. The fuss W+K made when a zoo reported hosting G+C.
   4. K+W’s rudeness in refusing to acknowledge hotel staff in Sheway.
   5. Kate’s dismissive hand-off of a bouquet given to her by a small child upon leaving Canada.

   What does it take for the penny to drop that these tours are largely about royal and political self-interest? The old shibboleth of the royals helping tourism doesn’t fly in such a popular destination, so once again, it is an example of unnecessary colonial forelock-tugging. It does absolutely nothing for a country’s self-image.

   Other costs yet to come to light will include Kate’s wardrobe, yes? I hope that amount also comes to light for both tours in 2016. I can imagine Canadian readers here could point to how better their CAN$3,480,119 could be spent. I wonder if there has been any reaction by citizens or do they simply accept this wastefulness?

   1. +1

      1. Jen obscene is the exact word I was going to use. This is so wrong and the tour was just a kicks and giggles trip for that useless greedy entitled couple. It angers me, people are hungry and homeless, and for sure Canada doesn’t need any help whatsoever to attract tourists. What a horrendous price to pay for their ‘royal rudeness’. For the love of all that is right I pray that the people who read this realize that KMR has more respect for costs and people than these two ever will. Sites like these are eye openers, the research is done, the facts checked and verified and it’s open to anyone who cares to read.

   2. I always think of Kate shoving poor George out of the way so she could pose with Charlotte for the cameras. Poor mite.

      1. Me too Ellie, and I totally agree with you Jen.

      2. I must have missed that one

         1. It’s when they were getting out of the car and leaving. She quite literally shoved him out of the way carrying Charlotte to pose with her.

            1. Pathetic

      3. Is the video on this page what you’re talking about? I don’t see much of a shove, it was more scooting him up so they had room to get out of the car IMO
         http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3817763/Gorgeous-Prince-George-steals-Kate-Wills-children-wave-fond-farewell-Canada-action-packed-eight-day-Royal-visit.html#v-3295029075856048002

         1. Looked like a shove to me and quite a large one.

         2. I think she pushed him forward so the crowds could get a better look at his cute two handed waves. Nothing wrong with that.

   3. This amount of money shows W&K are not good value for money. I hope they forgo any royal tours in 2017. I would not be surprised if I get my wish. Kate will probably get pregnant right after the family wedding in May.

      1. You actually think WK will give up the chance to go on a holi tour on taxpayer dime?

         1. No. I think the pair take all they can get without a thought to the people footing the bill.

      2. If they were smart, they’d put a cap on these tours. One per year, and leave the babies at home.

         1. If they were smart they would work. People overlook alot if WK are perceived to work rather than being uninterested layabouts.

            1. Very true.

   4. +1

      Ye gods, for only 8 days. For dinner and a show. Does that include all their flights?

      I hate them, these smug empty shells of human beings. Blackhearted thieves. I hate the injustice and the grovelling. They’re not even eye candy.

      And I helped pay for it, while I walk by homeless beggars every single day. When I lived in Vancouver, the area they visited breaks my heart, so many damaged addicts. I hate Justin Trudeau, himself a feckless trust fund baby. I loved his dad but what a come down.

      As I’ve said before, this further exposes the real RF and just piles on reasons for publicly shaming and getting rid of these greedy beggars. I can dream.

      Sorry for the rant, but this is the very dark side of worshipping the unworthy. Golden idols, indeed. In essence, they are just like all the 1 per centers who view the rest of us as slaves to their wants. I’ll save my sympathy for the truly needy.

      I’ll be writing TPTB about this.

      1. + 1 and at least a million more +’s

   5. Hello just wants to clarify that Sheway is not a hotel. It is an organization in downtown Vancouver that provides healthcare to patients. Also I’m a little surprised at some of the comments against the children posted further down. I thought the rules said no direct insults to the royals and their children. Criticism is fine but outright hatred I don’t think is appropriate.

      1. Hi JSK

         My fault re. Sheway – it was a hotel in the Yukon wasn’t it? The hotel had renovated a suite for W+K’S visit who brushed past staff on their way out.

         1. Hello Jen. You are correct it was a hotel in the Yukon I believe where they didn’t pose for a picture with the staff.

            I too am a BC resident. I was shocked at the cost of the RCMP portion of their visit and the overall travel costs. How does it cost $45,000 to travel from Britain and around the province. Also $41,000 to stay at government house for 8 days? I dont understand how that can cost so much.

            1. Didn’t the Canadian Air Force fly to Britain to pick them up and fly back to Canada? That would be expensive in fuel, maintenance, plus personnel to service the Cambridge’s and their 11-16 strong entourage. As for Government House, I can’t begin to fathom the cost there: extra staff and security? Not sure where the entourage stayed – at Govt House too?

            2. Yes, why didn’t they use a commercial flight? They did to Australia.

            3. This strikes me as funny, Jen. If they really wanted to make a diff in Canada (or anywhere else) they could have grabbed a flight on their dime or billed the government. But because they were ‘invited’, they waited for the ‘limo’ to pick them up. After all, ‘It’s Not Their Problem™’. They are *that* special.

      2. +1

   6. Don’t forget to add their overall bored expressions on almost every event. the number is truly disgusting when you factor in it was touted to boost BC tourism, as most of us here stated before, BC doesn’t need boosting in the tourism dpt.
      I also read where part of the Yukon cost for the telegraph to tweet thing the did cost around $4,000
      $55,000 was spent on a “dry run” with KP they couldn’t have done that cheaper?
      And we can’t forget the $100,000 that Trudeau said was being giving to the First Nation people. Seems to me they could have forgone the expensive trip and helped the First Nations people even more.

      1. Absolutely. I am horrified. When we see the everyday horrors that First Nations Peoples experience and how this government has choose to spend so much money on someone’s vacation. It should rather have been put in the hands of those that actually need it.

         I am sorry if I offend anyone, but I dislike Trudeau strongly. So very strongly.

5. As a BC resident I’m pretty appalled by this, and I have no trouble at all thinking of things this money would be better spent on (fentanyl crisis, anyone) than two over-privileged people yawning and frowning their wa through a handful of cultural experiences.

   If the Royal Family would like to use BC as a venue to rehabilitate the image of their tedious younger generation, they should damn well pay for it themselves. William didn’t even have the respect to read his freaking briefing notes beforehand, for Pete’s sake. Major fail.

   1. “If the Royal Family would like to use BC as a venue to rehabilitate the image of their tedious younger generation, they should damn well pay for it themselves.”

      This!

      1. agreed. Tedious is the perfect word

6. Wow. That’s obscene. And why does the Canadian government pay for their flights from the UK to Canada and back? That seems rather silly. Shouldn’t it be the one thing the royals pay for?

   The Cambridges are a complete waste of money, not to mention space.

7. Just not worth it. The fact they are ill prepared, careless and insincere on these trips makes the sheer amount of expense obscene. It’s Monopoly money to them. Whenever you saw the Queen tour she looked genuinely interested in where she was and what she was doing. Prince Charles looks intellectually curious and asks questions. William looks boorish and Kate vacuous.

8. https://twitter.com/kdawg206/status/816847125963276288

   Like I said in my tweet when the report first came out. It still annoys me that this is what part of my taxes went to. That money could’ve been better spent on many other things.

9. Judging from the response, it appears that the Canadian tour failed at generating goodwill for the monarchy. It’s either disinterest or negative interest.

   Is there any information on the costs to the UK public for this tour?

   The final costs for Harry’s tour likely will not include the substantial cost of staying offshore which is footed by the UK taxpayers. I have an interest in those numbers.

   1. I don’t think Justin Trudeau anticipated that the greedy Windsors would actually take him up on his offer to visit with the kids so soon after his public invitation and neither did JT anticipate that WK are deeply unpopular and their kids are nothing special (my son alone is way cuter and has a sunny and funny personality with manners, not like the surly Prince George, who doesn’t know how to greet adults, who goes around punching at decorations at parties, like we all saw in the Canada videos. This unfriendly and surly personality in a young child is the fault of his parenting). I’ll be writing to my MP to let them know that along with the electoral reform that the Trudeau government had first campaigned on, this government should also look to dump the BRF as the head of state once Mafia Queen passes.

      1. “Mafia Queen”. LOL

      2. The post by Red Tulip is not only offensive but violates the rules of commenting on this blog. What kind of person insults children? George had just gotten off a very long overnight flight and was greeted by flashbulbs and a mob of reporters yelling his name to get him to look in their direction. Justin Trudeau greeted him not with a handshake which he knows what to do with (Obama at KP) but with a high five. No matter who the parents are, kids are off limits, Red Tulip. As a parent yourself I would think that you would know better.

      3. Criticize the adults all you want, but please leave the children out of it. It is against the comment policy to attack or insult royal children, no matter what is thought of of the parents. There is no need to attack or insult children who have no say in whom they were born to or what their lives are like.

         1. I don’t read this as an attack or insult. She’s allowed to say her child is cuter.

            Those of who remember William as a child, being petulant, surly, and a bully? He has maintained those characteristics as a man. Looking back, it is important to know that he has been this way all along; it didn’t start suddenly upon his mother’s death.

            What behavior these children exhibit in public is a reflection of how they are being raised and by whom. As long as no one is outright saying, “These children are ugly” I don’t see how this comment is an attack or insult.

            This goes back to the discussion from weeks ago. If no negative comments are to be allowed about the children, in all fairness no positive comments should be allowed about them either.

            1. I was at a restaurant a few weeks ago and the waitress for a table near mine was falling over herself to praise the looks of a little girl who was at the table. That made me so uncomfortable. I don’t think we should judge children for their looks, both positive and negative. I don’t think we should be encouraging children to base their self-worth off of what other people think they look like. But that’s just my opinion. And considering how many people have said how ugly Charlotte is because she looks like Carole or Pippa, I think I’m right to ask people not to comment on the royal children’s looks. Because, in my opinion, people are bringing their dislike of the parents or grandparents into the discussion, and I don’t think children should be judged negatively because people dislike their parents or grandparents.

               When George is an adult or even a teenager, if he is exhibiting rude behavior, then sure go back and judge him for his actions as a child. But as of right now he’s a child whom we know very little about. In my opinion, if the things people have brought up about George’s personality changing or being uncomfortable in public do indicate something wrong going on in the home that we don’t know about, then I feel badly for George. I’m not going to insult a child for the way his parents treat him. Again, criticize the parents all you want, but leave the kids out of it. Also, if a child is shy or angry or have something else going on, then they need compassion and help, not insults.

               But that’s just my opinion. That’s me thinking back on my experiences as a child and thinking what I needed was professional help, not insults from my family members who had no idea what was really going on in my home.

               ETA: Some people are little snots as kids and grow out of it. Some people don’t. Some people are shy and that’s fine. Some people are outgoing and that’s fine. Some people are shy as kids and are outgoing as adults. For some people it’s the opposite. George isn’t even four; I think we should reserve judgement on what he will be like as an adult until he’s an adult.

               Food for thought: While most people here get a kick out of Princess Leonore, some people would say she’s misbehaved and would think Madeleine and Chris are bad parents for not controlling her better and for letting her have control and for mollycoddling her.

            2. “Glassy-eyed bimbo” doesn’t read as an insult to you?

            3. KMR my point is, if you are asking people not to comment on the children’s looks, it has to go both ways. There are people who come on here fawning over the children’s looks and afaik, they aren’t asked not to do so.

               I think a child’s behavior can see what kind of adult they’ll become. It has shown to be true with William, it may be shown with other royal children. I don’t see reason to think their behavior (and the parents behavior in reaction to it) isn’t valid for discussion, but I’m not going to push it on your site.

         2. Thank you KMR for enforcing your policies, even though others may disagree. I admire the civil atmosphere of a critical blog. Well done. Differing opinions make for a very interesting atmosphere.

   2. As a Canadian taxpayer, I feel outraged that I had to pay for 4 good for nothing layabouts to come and vacation here on my dime, while worthy social services squeak by on little funding. All i saw from this tour was a balding, buck toothed guy who can’t do the homework needed for his job; a woman tossing her horsey mane, looking like she is high on pills and crawling her claws towards the nether regions of William; a surly, impolite little Boy who hasn’t been taught to engage with others. Charlotte was the only one who showed any joy and personality, but don’t worry she will become a glassy eyed, vapid bimbo like her mom. Heck, these worthless people

      1. I think your outrage is understandable, but the remarks about the children are cruel and undeserved. For goodness sake, they’re babies…

         1. +1 George might be shy or scared – goodness knows what his privacy obsessed parents have told him about the press/public. At any rate, kids are off limits. He’s a little kid.

            1. George is a little boy. Please, do we need to have such negativity toward him? And, a prediction as to what little Charlotte may become later in her life? Please!

         2. So thwe only time we can comment on kids that are fed by taxpayer money is when we can gush over them? If comments about kids should be off limits then I say all comments, both positive and not, should be off limits. WK should feed their own kids with their own money if they want the kids to be completely private and be off limits. You are all much kinder people than I am, because I am outraged that I have to spend money and show deference to this family, when I am maybe 2-3 paycheques away from financial trouble, just like many hardworking families. And the kids may be nice enough now but it won’t be long before they too become like their parents

            1. They’re children. They didn’t ask for your tax money or this trip or any of it and they don’t deserve to be targeted with malicious talk from adults.

            2. You don’t have to gush over them. I think George appears shy and reticent which a huge portion of that can be blamed on wk hiding him away and not preparing him to some extent, of what might come. He could also be shy by nature. Also, he’s 3, 3 yr olds don’t always know how to greet strangers.

            3. Wow you sound very bitter over two little children, criticise will and Kate all you want but not their innocent kids, it does not make you look good at all. I am actually disgusted at your comments about George.

            4. Overall, I can’t disagree with you, Red Tulip. Their looks are neither here nor there, IMO, neither cute nor less cute. The cuteness scale is a total, manipulative, cynical distraction and you just shone a light on that manipulation. I think what you’re saying is that they are average children, while ironically their parents proffer them to public as elevated and transcendent, somehow ultra special. A great distraction from the reality.

               The greater outrage for all of us should be that the Cambs are *using* those dear children as props, as things. People go on and on about their looks one way or another, but for me, the bottom line is that these poor children are nothing but ciphers for their *parents*. In effect, these empty wastrels use them to look good.

               I’m outraged at how the Cambs cynically trot out their children to *use* them at every turn. That they don’t prepare them for the public life, so evident with poor Georgie. It’s appalling. Reprehensible.

            5. Maven, Red Tulip didn’t merely say that George and Charlotte are average – she said that they are “nothing special,” that George is surly and unfriendly, and that Charlotte is destined to become a glassy eyes bimbo. To speak in such a way about inncocent children is just…I have no words.

            6. Lobbit,

               You’re outraged about speculation rather than reality? You’d rather criticise an opinion that has some merit (re: parenting) than the tragic and damaging use of the children?

               The kids *are* nothing special (nor are Kate’s happy snaps). George appears socially lost. The chances that Kate will create delightful Charlotte into her own mini-me are highly probable. We can already see that George’s natural and charming feistiness has been dampened down. Given their parents’ obsession with control, Red Tulip’s opinions are not out of line. Nor malicious, a truly absurd thought.

            7. Yes, Maven – I am outraged by the reality of children being denigrated by adults that should know better. It’s indecent.

               As for your other comments regarding Will and Kate, I’m just not going to engage in a conversation about the way they parent their children. I’m a mom to a toddler and judging the way other people parent their children is anathema to me. Both children appear to be healthy and normal, that’s all that matters to me, and that’s where my assement of them ends.

               ETA: calling someone a “glassy-eyed bimbo” is never not malicious. 😮

            8. No, but why are we insulting children who have no say in the matter? They didn’t choose to be born royal or be funded by the taxpayers. Criticize William and Kate all you want, but the children are just children and don’t deserve to be insulted.

               If George and Charlotte are like their parents when they are 18+, then by all means go ahead and criticize them because they’ve then chosen to stay funded by the taxpayers, but as children they have literally no say and don’t deserve the negativity.

               No child deserves to be insulted just because people dislike their parents.

      2. I too have concerns ‘re Georges behaviour on this trip. I think hiding him away most of the time isn’t helping. If you contrast his demeanour with that of Estelle of Sweden, who in my eyes is being patented perfectly for a royal child, then he comes across as nervous, and mollycoddled. The visit to the air show worried me too. They spend too much time crouching down to his level and pandering to him imo. I remember the debate when HM demonstrated with William on the balcony.
         To give a child this level of control is not healthy and makes me wonder if this is how William or kate was parented and is why they are like they are now.

         1. Parented not patented and remonstrated not demonstrated.

            1. I’ve noticed that every time the kids are in public, WK pay too much attention to them to the point of rudeness.

               Not the kids’fault whatsoever. William can’t honour the country at a national celebration because he is squatting down to chat to his child such that HM has to tell him to stand up and do his duty.

               Kate barely spoke to any of the greeting party at Canadian arrival because she was chatting to Charlotte.

               You saw it too during christmas pap stroll. Ditto the RAF engagement.

               Just about the only time they don’t chat to the kids is when they pose for pictures. At that point they ignore the kids’ needs to point if negligence – see Kate not cradling 2mth old Charlotte’s head or ignoring her obvious teething distress on the balcony.

               I’ve come to think of this as an avoidance tactic so WK can avoid talking to other people or avoid shaking hands etc

               Meanwhile the kids ignore basic things like greeting adults when they meet them at these things.

               One of the things people notice about Estelle is how she greets the adults on meeting them. That is not a special skill and every child can be taught/ encouraged to do it do matter how shy they may be. And it’s not as if the kids aren’t receptive to instructioms because G always responds with a wave when William tells him to wave.

               Given their own poor manners, like Kate being reminded to thank staff by William or HM reminding William to stand up at a solemn moment in a national celebration, it’s unsurprising that the children aren’t prepared to meet the public.

               And that level of helicoptering the kids is not good for anyone. Kids or adults.

            2. I don’t think George or Charlotte should be insulted for William and Kate’s actions. No child should be insulted because people dislike their parents.

            3. +1 Herazeus

         2. Getting down to a child’s level isn’t giving over control or mollycoddling – according to most child development experts, it’s the most effective way to communicate with a child – whether you’re disciplining a child or sharing a momentor whatever else, you get on their level and make eye contact.

            I don’t think there is any cause for concern. From what I’ve seen, George is a perfectly “normal” 3 year old boy. Some kids are shy. Some kids are naturally introverted and slow to warm up to strangers. There’s nothing wrong with that – it is not at all an indication of poor parenting or dysfunction.

            1. I haven’t said it is wrong of them to talk to their kids nor am i criticising them getting to the children’s level to talk to them.

               My criticism is that they talk to their kids to the exclusion of everything and everyone else whilst also not encouraging the kids to interact or greet the adults around them ie not socialising them to the situation. They do this to the point of outright rudeness.

               Look at Estelle. She didn’t wake up one day and could meet grown ups calmly and understand that she needs to acknowledge the adults all on her own.

               And by the way, her parents talk to her too. Just not to the exclusion of everything and everyone else at those engagements. The way they handle her demonstrates my point clearly.

               And clearly Estelle has been encouraged to greet adults because she now does it unprompted.

               As for the helicopter hovering, go back and look at the canada video. The kids weren’t allowed to enjoy anything without one or the other coming along and hovering/ pulling/correcting them.

               Kate has gone from ignoring G to the point of endangering him when he wandered into the path of galloping horses to policing him and instructing him at every turn.

               A halfway point between those 2 points is heathy. For all parents.

            2. @herazeus – I was actually responding to Debra Green.

               I appreciate your points about the way Will and Kate comport themselves at events with their children and I’m sure your perspective is well-informed, but I’m just not comfortable criticizing their parenting style (or anyone else’s) or engaging in negative comparisons between George and other kids. The only point I wanted to make is that there is nothing abnormal about George’s behavior.

            3. Will and Kate overcompensate with the kids in public which likely means that George and Charlotte spend a lot more time with Nanny Maria and the unnamed other nanny than they care to admit.

            4. Lobbit,

               No one has ever said that there is something ‘abnormal’ about George’s behaviour.

            5. Maven, yes it has been repeatedly suggested in this thread that something is wrong with him.

            6. Lobbit: i think we are in agreement. I don’t blame the kids at all. I blame the parents based on the way the parents behave in public which is primarily to use their kids as PR props, to avoid interaction with other adults and do not socialise their kids to adjust to the situation with confidence.

         3. I think part of it is trying to show the optics of hands on parenting. The look how well they are with the kids. They bend down and talk to them! Yet this is the same hands in parenting that didn’t appear to have a diaper bag when it appeared to just be the family at church? I also think Kate doesn’t really know what to do, instead of turning to talk to some of the host, she just stood behind William, like she was a prop with charlotte
            I agree the Swedes seem to do the children in public better. They still let them be kids yet expose them to public duties as well. Love Estelles’s little throne =)

            1. Kate with Charlotte on the Tarmac in canada was rude. She made perfunctory greetings then was wholly absorbed with Charlotte such that the adults couldn’t engage her in conversation. Charlotte didn’t look distressed or uncomfortable.

               It was a masterful avoidance tactic. And it was rude.

            2. Yes, the optics of ‘good parenting’ seems to be a high priority. The Cambridge’s are intent on building quite particular, contrived family narratives.

               Occasionally the mask slips when the kids get in the way (literally) of a photo op: shoving George out of the way in Canada, being dismissive of Charlotte’s distress at TofC. As they grow, the children – being children – may not tow the line.

               Yep, Kate was incredibly rude on the tarmac in Canada, using Charlotte to mask her disinterest in her hosts. I wonder if the Trudeau’s regretted their invitation.

            3. Jen,

               Kate really wanted to get on with her vacation. The Trudeaus were a necessary but insignificant evil, I’m thinking.

               “Contrived” is the perfect description for their engagement with the outside world. Completely.

               I’m not too unhappy about the Trudeau diss. Serves them right.

            4. Kate’s actions are on Kate. William’s actions are on William. George and Charlotte, two children under four, cannot be held accountable for two 35 year old adults’ actions.

            5. KMR, as I said above, knowing what William was like as a child helps us see and recognize those behaviors in him as an adult. The same will be true of W&K’s children.

            6. notasugar,

               I agree. Billy Basher is alive and kicking.

               Have you seen Michael Apted’s 7 Up series? It’s based on the Jesuit motto, “Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man.” He has followed and documented a bunch of children through interviews from the age of 7 up to the current time every 7 years. They are all entering their 60’s now and I can’t wait to see the next film.

               It’s a fascinating longitudinal study of personality and class and personality’s stability over time. I can’t get over how in effect, one’s personality is pretty well stone set in stone by the age of 7 no matter what life threw at them later.

               I highly recommend it to everyone.

            7. I thought that documentary was brilliant and at times incredibly depressing. I wasn’t surprised when one of them (the most successful who went into tv production), refused to participate in the later episodes.

         4. George seems like such a sweet little boy. But around his parents, he is reluctant, reticent, shy. Perhaps William and Kate’s comments about him constantly have gotten to him in some fashion; he knows he is to behave impeccably in public, and it makes him anxious. It’s so sad. Then you have that stupid party where W&K fawned over Charlotte and mostly ignored him, not allowing the children to interact with the other kids and them as parents not interacting with the other parents who believed they would be able to meet W&K and converse with them.

            Criticizing the children is not okay. KMR has made that clear.

      3. Please don’t attack or insult the royal children. They have no say in whom they are born to nor any say in what their lives are like. George and Charlotte are both under four, they’re not “layabouts”, they’re young children.

         1. Agreed. The children should not be up for comment.

            From reading all these posts a few opinions seem clear.

            1. The children should have been left at home.
            If the parents would have missed the children too much, they should have stayed home and not accepted the invitation. W&K already had one big trip to India during the year.

            2. The children were used as props by their parents.
            There was no reason to bring such young children to a place that they would not remember. It was the good mum/good dad trip that they won’t take in their home country.

            3. The children caused extra expense for the trip in care-taking, accommodations and security.
            It seems as though W&K took selfish advantage of their hosts.

            4. Photos of the children have been scarce and with little opportunity to see them in their home country.
            Now, away from home, they are seen by the public and photo opportunities more numerous. Why did the Candians get to see the children and those in their home country don’t?

            5. The presence of the children didn’t enhance the sightseeing opportunities for W&K.
            W&K didn’t see very much of BC culturally. Not even one trip with their parents to a child-friendly destination (zoo, kids museum, aquarium) as they did in Oz?

            6. For all their effort to accommodate their children, Mrs Cambridge was especially thoughtless with the bouquet given to her — by a child — just before they departed on the seaplane. How hard would it have been to say ‘thanks, but I can’t take this with me so take this home to your mum with my best wishes’? Or something similar.

            6. Do you think that W&K will ever go back to Canada unless someone else pays their way?
            I don’t. No ski lodge, hunting lodge or other Canadian special adventure will lure them back for a visit paid with their own funds. (Despite the fact that someone else will always be paying their security costs.) It feels like the Canadians have been taken advantage of by the 2-steps-from-the-throne couple.

            Just my observations.

            1. Very good observations.

               I agree, the children were far too young to go. And they were hardly seen anyway, except at a party where neither they nor their parents had any interactions with other guests. Incredibly wasteful of resources all round.

               William did say to Canadians that his family would have quite a bit to do with Canada in the future. I’d say this is the royal line in trying to delay Canada’s inevitable move to a more independent status. Or maybe he’s thinking he’d be Governor-General – a fantasy also enjoyed by Charles in relation to Australia in the 1980’s (and roundly rejected by Australia). William was also judged unsuitable: http://www.news.com.au/news/howard-snubs-william-for-governor-general/news-story/f2cfd6e314e5e8176dbcbc30099dd50f

            2. In regards to 5. The presence of the children didn’t enhance the sightseeing opportunities for W&K.
               W&K didn’t see very much of BC culturally. Not even one trip with their parents to a child-friendly destination (zoo, kids museum, aquarium) as they did in Oz?

               As an Australian I can tell you that nobody was impressed with their $474,137aud trip to the beach and zoo. Everyone I speak with says that they are voting republic when the Queen dies. And they had the b#lls to complain about invasion of privacy when they d#mn well knew our media laws are more lax then the Brits.

               But still, I suppose $474,000 is better than several million ?

               -First time commenter 🙂

         2. How many times can you say that, KMR? There are some people who are going to continue it no matter what. One, whose name I won’t divulge, was criticized by you during the Canadian trip for equally insulting remarks about George. An apology came, but the comments still come. This is your blog and you should run it the way you want. We commenters should comply by your rules. I just want to say that this nastiness is running amok and I, for one, am sick of it. Little kids are off limits. Whether their parents are liked or not.

   3. And when Harry flew off to visit his gf, how much did that little jaunt cost taxpayers?

      1. Well Harry is still suffering from that. Great way to end 2016 with all the good he has done.

      2. KMR has made it a point many times asking commenters to refrain from making negative comments about children. That is a fair and wise thing, I think.

         Red Tulip, you consistently never follow the rules when it comes to posting about the children. Others have done so, in the past, too. If someone spoke so terribly about your child/children, how would you feel?

         It’s just rude and hurtful. That is how bullies behave, I think. Please take into consideration that George and Charlotte are little children.

         1. Well said.

            1. I also am offended when nasty comments are floated here concerning George and Charlotte. KMR, you are in charge and you always ask people to refrain from them. Sadly, many refuse to follow your rules.

               There is something mean and downright insensitive when innocent children are despised because of who their parents are. Stop the madness, please.

               Such anger is hateful and makes each who partakes in it a lesser person. There’s enough anger in the world today. Do we really need to aim it toward children? I for one, don’t appreciate many of the nasty comments that have been made here.

               Anger will eat away at your core, people. It needs to be tempered and helped. And, for those who are critical of Will’s anger concerning his Mum’s death. Why don’t you look at your own rage? If you let life be ruled by the fact that injustice is sadly, part of living, then you are no better that those you dislike. You can be angry, but turn it around to a positive way of fighting such injustice.

      3. Harry pays for his flying in private capacities himself, so taxpayers would have paid for security, as they always do. One plus to Harry’s tours as they don’t cost as much and he almost always flies commercial.

         1. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn’t pay. Still no proof that he paid after breaking protocol flying from his holitour to visit his GF. There is a lack of financial transparency so we only have Harry’s and the BRF’s word for it and they have been proven liars in the past.

10. I feel sad, they could of used that money for many children’s charities in Canada. The kids would of truly had genuine smiles.

    1. Amen, Fiona. A wise comment.

11. This couple are supposed to be an inspiration to the down-trodden. Perhaps, 3 million dollars would help to lift up the down-trodden. They are like the pretty balloon, full of hot-air and nothing left to show for it. Is it any wonder that they want to come back to Canada many times?

12. I would be interested in knowing what, if any revenue was generated to offset the cost. Things like royal weddings and visits are usually a boost to the economy.

    1. A good question. I think the Cambridge’s are liked well enough by the general public – the children, especially – but they are not ~loved~ and so I doubt that these visits provide enough value to offset the cost.

       1. My friend in Vancouver went down to see the Cambs and take photos like it was something on her bucket list. She had no idea why they were there and I got the impression she had no idea the kids were travelling with them.

          1. A friend of mine went to see Trudeau because she salivates over him.

             She said W&K were rude and everyone was upset they just ignored all the people who had waited hours. They had no idea someone who competed on the Invictus team was there to greet them and ignored that wonderful veteran.

13. This is so dissapointing. I was a little happy that they visited two worthwhile charities in the last few days. William opened up, a little. And then this. They are not worth all the money spent on them. Stay in GB and help people there, live in one house, do at least 250 engagements a year or just go away. Ugh. All the money saved could go to help taxpayers.

14. Aside from the shocking reactions this piece of news provokes, I’d ask that – especially in this time of age – isn’t it time that BRF tours should be reevaluated? It seems for the amounts spent, the holi tour kind is not generating the impact it should, neither for the country visited nor for the royals themselves.

    It seems the European royals we follow here e.g Maxima & Victoria are more focused and business oriented in their tours so that to create some value for their country. I’m not sure why W&K wouldn’t do something similar. At least this way it wouldn’t look like a total waste of money.

    1. I agree, Elina.

       If I were a Canadian taxpayer, I would be furious. So many issues on which the money could be better spent.

       1. Canadian taxpayer here and I am furious!

       2. I’m livid and I’m not a Canadian taxpayer, just someone who thinks that this amount of money spent on nothing is wrong. Not to mention the logistics and hassle the people who are trying to get to work face. Too many hungry, homeless, hurting people in this world to justify a worthless, pointless trip. And again, they were so incredibly rude and arrogant. Time to end this ‘but the ‘royals’ boost tourism malarkey, if that’s all they do then perhaps they can open a bloody travel agency. I can’t believe how angry I am, not being Canadian.

    2. I’d agree with that too. They appear outdated and with no obvious return to the taxpayer. The tours comprise the host country putting together a jam-packed schedule of agreeable experiences for the royal visitor/s, with a few ceremonial tasks thrown in. The BRF does not generate news as in the past, nor can their visits be definitively tied to increased tourism. Countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand operate independently; royal visits are a bit of a novelty, though an expensive one. At the end of the day they are foreigners. The tours bulk up CC numbers but surely the BRF should be focusing their activities on home soil? Mind you, this costs too in terms of security and local councils bearing the brunt, money better spent on local people and local issues. Apart from other considerations, the monarchy is pricing itself out of existence.

       1. Unless Harry marries another “Diana” who has star power and a global phenomenon and everything she touches turns to gold, then the royal family is screwed after Diana passes.

          1. I don’t think that would help. The BRF is a dinosaur destined for extinction. And Diana was great but I don’t think she would be so well loved if she emerged on the scene today. We live in very cynical times.

             1. We live in times where people are less likely to ascribe goodness and intelligence simply by virtue of one’s birth. Monarchies all over are going to feel the pain.

             2. If only that were true…

             3. I agree that Diana wouldn’t go over as well as she did in the 80s if she were to join the RF today just because of how people are now. But I do think someone charismatic, articulate, and hardworking could be beneficial to the RF. Although they probably don’t think so. They want someone who won’t overshadow them.

             4. @KMR, well I think they need someone who has starpower and a global phenomenon.

             5. People are much more cynical these days, not prepared to believe a pat story dished out by PR reps about ‘x’ because, often, they prove to have feet of clay. Look at how Kate was billed as being perfect princess material etc prior to marriage. Part Middleton/DM PR campaign, part palace, but all self-serving. And look how much has needed to be whitewashed. And still does. W+K behave the way they do – without consequence – because they know someone will sort out any mess they make and whitewash any nastiness. Hence, no maturity on their part because they learn nothing.

                As Nic919 said, ascribing virtue and worth simply because of an accident of birth is an anachronism in a modern world. It makes no sense, and is an incredibly insulting concept to the rest of humanity.

          2. She already passed, Kitty. Did you mean, HM?

15. What was the point of this tour exactly? I honestly forgot about it and it seemed like everyone else did and this tour didn’t even get enough press. Royal tours are now not making an impact like they used to be. The bubble might burst once The Queen passes.

    1. Officially it was to promote tourism to the area

       1. But did it really?

       2. Seriously? In BC which is totally overrun by tourists *all* year (I used to live in Vancouver)??? That can’t be right.

16. Everyone seems so worked up at W&K over this, but I feel like if I were a Canadian taxpayer, I’d be mad at Justin Trudeau. He invited them (and did it publicly before plans were made so they really had to say yes). It seems like his mistake to me. ?

    1. I agree, Trudeau does need to shoulder the blame. They weren’t needed to promote the tourism industry. William and Kate probably didn’t need to have a +10 entourage with them either. Some of the costs I think are truly questionable. Why were they buying 192 umbrellas or whatever the #was?!? I do think this tour did more damage than good.
       After seeing how much the RCMP costs were, no wonder they don’t release the cost of security for the BRF. THen they wouldn’t be able to spout the low figure of 62pence or whatever it is they say they cost
       Isn’t Harry coming for a visit this year too? Maybe to promote invictus?

       1. Harry is going in September for Invictus, not an actual tour.

    2. You mean Trudeau’s cutesy invite on July 6th to William and Kate, asking them to bring the kids? Well it got Trudeau a bit of press didn’t it. But that pissed hotel manager put a date on when he got the official word on their stay set in stone in May. Which also suggests to me that it was being worked on before May. So THAT invitation was not THE invitation. I also thought there was at least a rumor of QEII basically inviting/begging for some countries to invite the Cambridges. I mean, think about it. It’s common knowledge for royal watchers at least that countries turn the royals down all the time. So really there are many occasions where the royals are asking to be invited first. It wouldn’t surprise me if Trudeau salivated and took the bait. But all the royals do regular drive-bys to Canada. There was nothing unusual about that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_royal_tours_of_Canada_(21st_century) And if he wouldn’t say no to Liz, or Charles, or Sophie and Edward, what excuse would he have had to say no to the Cambridges?

       If anything I would say it’s funny to me that people are outraged because it’s in keeping with the cost of other royal tours I’ve seen. Like The Queen’s pre-Jubilee trip to Australia cost nearly $3 million. Then Charles and Camilla’s 2012, six day trip was $500-600,000 not including security. Then William and Kate’s trip reportedly cost between $1.2 to 2 million but was considered a “bargain” because they only spent an alleged 400K where C&C supposedly spent that $500-600K. Canadians didn’t get the bang for their buck that they’d get from Charles and Camilla. But the Cambridges did have the three heirs of the heir in tow. That bumped the cost up considerably. Otherwise this is just on the slightly higher, luxury end of your average royal tour.

       1. These royal trips remind me of the royals’ reasons given for the ‘royal processes’ of the 16th, 17th & 18th century: to cause their hosts to spend excessive amounts of money entertaining the royal party. It decreased the bank account of the host thereby making them less of a threat to the king. When the current Queen made all the trips earlier in her life, the protection of their country by the armed forces of the UK would have been a good enough reason. Other alliances have since been made and the visits by the monarch’s family are no longer needed to refresh the protective cover. They have become the host country’s travel advertisement. Visa is easy to obtain for this country if you live in a commonwealth country so come and visit. Except that the host countries have developed good travel PR already so the royal visit isn’t really needed anymore.

          The countries who need reassurance of alliance will not be visited by the heir to the heir. They are visited by PC.

       2. Good Lord. If the BRF is scratching round for things to do – such as begging Commonwealth countries to host holiday tours for rotating groups of royals at great expense – then really, it’s time to call time. As someone said above, they should rehabilitate W+K at their own expense. Or as a former Aussie Prime Minister said, “There is a place for British Royals. It’s in Great Britain.”

       3. Lol these tours are completely pointless.

17. I wonder what all these people that clearly dislike Kate and her family so much to call them “4 good for nothing layabouts” etc. are doing at this website? Why do you bother to read about them if you think they are worthless? Is it an act of self-punishment to get online read about Kate and get angry?

    Btw by visiting website such as this one (which posts I really like to read) we are all contributing to the business (and the value) of celebrities and royals.

    1. I don’t dislike Kate. I get frustrated with her because I honestly want her to be successful and I don’t think she is. But I don’t dislike her.

       I will say I probably do dislike William at this point. I think he is petulant and hypocritical and not as smart as he thinks he is.

       I enjoy royal watching and writing – although I do get burnt out sometimes from writing posts almost every day. If I didn’t enjoy what I do here I wouldn’t do it.

       1. @KMR, do you ever think its William’s fault Kate after 5 years still hasn’t got it?

    2. Rachel, the point is to have discussion regarding the people, their performance in those roles, and whether or not these roles should exist. These people are not celebrities, they have a taxpayer-funded, government job to perform. How they perform in that job is important.

       It is possible to be both an ardent monarchist and a critic of W&K. Royals serve at the will of the people, not the other way around. Heirs or monarchs have been removed when they do a lousy job (Uncle David). At this point, I suspect monarchy to end with the death of Charles. Both because the UK (and other realms) are ready for it, and because the prospect of W&K in the roles of monarch and consort is laughable at best.

       We are not contributing to the value of them, we are contributing to the discussion about whether or not they have any value at all. To fail to have those discussions, to have them wander listlessly through life wasting money and doing little good while being kept by taxpayers in a ridiculous lifestyle? Sitting back and not commenting would be the worst possible thing, if you dislike seeing government employees failing at their jobs.

       There are plenty of sites out there for people who only want to view royals through Disney lenses. Who only want to discuss fashion without commenting on how incredibly wasteful Kate Middleton is in spending $200,000 a year of taxpayer money on mostly single-use clothing.

       This site, which KMR polices very well, is a place to have logical discussions about the concept of royalty. When things get out of hand, KMR reels it in, as shown throughout this thread.

       Coming here, to what is obviously a site meant to allow criticism of royals, and trying to shame people into not having these discussion? Disingenuous.

       1. I agree that it is disingenuous to visit a website and then wonder why others discuss the topic of the website. This is not the first time recently another visitor has visited and made similar comments if I remember correctly. Interestingly, the Love Lola site has in the last few days had similar comments from a visitor. Is this a coincidence?

          As others pointed, the Cambridges are not celebrities but government employees who have defined roles which are not faithfully fulfilled. I have an interest in the British royal family because I lived in England during the Silver Jubilee and I was fascinated by the interest in the Royal Family. I still am and I find that the lackadaisical performance of the younger royals interesting

          1. I love my Royal family and believe in Monarchy but it doesn’t come with a free pass. As we all know with privilege comes great responsibility and if some of those appear to be coasting I have the absolute right to call them out on it.

             What makes this website so refreshing is that despite the many conflicting opinions there is intelligent debate, respect for each other, constructive criticism and praise where it’s due. It’s a mature, adult place to have informed discussion and learn from others who you may not agree with but have huge value in their views who are adult enough to express them with rancour.

          2. To me, if we’re thinking of the same previous poster on here, I thought they went way over the line. They used KMR’s personal experiences and feelings against her, to try to shame her into shutting down this site. Emotional manipulation getting very close to bullying.

       2. Uncle David was not “removed”.

          1. How would you define a forced abdication based on his politics and failure to do the job? Wallis was the excuse not the reason.

             1. I agree to disagree.

             2. History doesn’t blame Wallis Simpson, they blame David, his politics, and lack of work ethic. The smokescreen of blaming the woman? Long past time that smokescreen be removed.

18. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4120822/Meghan-Markle-s-brother-arrested-charged-holding-GUN-woman-s-head-drunken-row-turned-violent.html?ITO=1490

    Please do not yell at me or shoot the messenger…. I just thought people may be interested in reading this article. Make of it what you will. 🙂

    I really don’t know what to say about how much the Canadian tour cost. If I had to pay for it I would be annoyed. It was lackluster at best with the highlight of the tour seeing the kids a little bit. But really, Will and Kate didn’t accomplish much when it comes to bringing any attention to meaningful causes, not when William himself admits that he doesn’t even read his briefings and obviously doesn’t care.

    The charities would have been better off if all of this money had just been donated directly to them instead of to Kate’s beige clutch bag collection. Let’s hope they do better this year. I am cautiously optimistic since they have more on their calendars this month than in previous years.

    1. Good god! Her paternal relations are so dysfunctional.

       1. https://twitter.com/SamanthaMGrant

          Absolutely, Lobbit. This is Meghan’s sister, she won’t stop writing things on social media. She even has conversations with royal reporters, that’s how I found her page. Just look at some of the things she has written today.

          Meghan has some really crazies in her family. Holy Moly. I kind of feel bad for her because this must be embarrassing.

          1. If I were Meghan I’d be more sad than embarrassed. Her brother (or half brother) clearly has substance abuse issues – in fact, all of her father’s children seem very troubled. I do feel for Meghan, though. Can you imagine having siblings that care so little for you? Who would sell you out for a few pennies? Terrible. Meanwhile, her mom (and her dad, actually) has been the picture of discretion.

    2. I wonder how much this dude and his ex-wife are getting paid to talk to the DM about Meghan. The only reason this story exists is because this dude has talked to the DM multiple times. It’s just ridiculous at this point.

       If I were Meghan, I’d be pissed that my family was using me for money or fame.

       1. I can totally see why she cut ties with them. Yeesh. They seem toxic. Poor Meghan.

19. Whoa on that story about Meghan. I truly have sympathy for her bc what the hell does she have to do with that honestly? It’s just a cheap shot, and the DM knows it.

    On another topic though, re: the value of the monarchy. What are the true chances that the BRF will one day dissolve? All of the comments upthread from Canadian taxpayers really got me asking myself how much energy I’d devote to the cause of abolishing the monarchy if I didn’t live in America. I always hear that folks in the U.K. have great respect for the Queen but otherwise don’t think about it much at all, except maybe royal weddings. But how seismic would something have to be to really fundamentally shift the bedrock, or maybe the strength of the establishment that keeps the royal family in place? I would be so grateful if some of our British posters would school me on this.

    Happy New Year everyone!!

    1. Happy New Year GreenTrees!

    2. I think the 5 to 10 years after HM passes will be the point at which we decide whether we value the monarchy or not. Many of the commonwealth realms will likely replace the monarchy with an elected head. It makes little sense for a foreign head of state in such places and most polls show a loyalty to HM only. My belief is that eventually the UK will follow, but the time course may be different.

       It’s important to know the relevant news, but knowing about Meghan’s American family is not relevant news at this point. Shame on DM! I am sure the poor girl is horrified.

       1. @Linds, my thing is I respect The Queen so much that I can not imagine the monarchy without her. 60 plus years of her!

    3. Until there is a seismic event that puts the royals at the top of everyone’s everyday concerns, we are going to continue with monarchy.

       It’s not a simple thing to get rid of the family. We are a monarchical system which means our legislation at every level is bound to it.

       Getting rid of it involves changing legislation from the bottom of society to the top. All our legislation and public systems and govt are locked into the system. It’s also a very expensive exercise in real terms.

       It’s easier to do the cosmetic changes that will take place when Charles is King eg changing faces on money, changing signage and photos in public buildings and singing ‘God save the King’ instead of ‘God save the Queen’. ‘king’s Counsel’ rather than ‘Queen’s counsel’, ‘his majesty’s govt’ rather than ‘her majesty’s govt’ etc

       That said, if it is the will of the people, it will happen and sod the cost.

       In every single monarchy that has disappeared, it’s been an extreme economic circumstances that have led to the demise of the monarchy and even then it wasn’t a sudden removal, but a gradual understanding that the monarchy system wasn’t a good thing and slowly an understanding that the system has to go because there is a seemingly viable alternative. Once this is a widespread understanding, the seismic event that ends the monarchy seems sudden and out of the blue when the reality is that it takes a long time for the end to come. If there is no appetite for the end and an appetite remains for monarchy, plus no viable alternative, no seismic event can end it. We are currently horrified at the propect of president blair or president Cameron. In comparison, we’d rather have a monarchy than our venal politicians as heads of state.

       Besides, England has already flirted with a republic in the ten years of Oliver Cromwell, and we still went back to monarchy.

       1. @Herazeus,

          The monarchy is becoming less relevant yearly, I heard the BRF recently referred to as “celebrities with tiaras” and although disgusting, it is becoming a reality.

          The whispers about the costs and value to the public has been increasingly audible over the last 10 years as the current generation matures into adults and they have less connection with BRF. And while our older generations are fond of HM and monarchy, the younger generations question its worth. Particularly when the perception is the royals live in luxury on taxpayers money while the average UK citizen is struggling.

          Unless this perception changes or the current economic restraints ease, I don’t think George will make king.

       2. I think right now apathy is the monarchy’s best friend. Until people stop being apathetic about the status quo and really want a HoS that’s not based on hereditary rule, then it’ll keep. William and his bad attitude might be the unraveling.
          I also think with Brexit looming and the state of affairs else where will have people not necessarily ready to embrace the challenges of changing the system

    4. I am British by birth and have lived here since shortly before QEII’s coronation, so I think my opinion is as valid as anyone’s.

       To be honest, I don’t think that the RF do anything for this country – they are an extremely expensive and unnecessary burden on the taxpayers. One of the big problems, as I see it, is that many of the older generation were brainwashed from birth in that you had to admire the Royal Family. My question is : why ? What have they actually done for any of us ? They don’t know that we exist, they did not prevent us from going into an illegal (in my view) war in Iraq – in fact, I cannot think of one single thing that they have done to make most people feel that they are a good thing. Most people here go about their everyday lives without (I suspect) focusing any thought at all about them or what they are actually doing – in short, they are an irrelevance. All this stuff about them working so hard and bringing in so much tourist revenue is utter nonsense – I spent many years working in the tourist industry and none of the palaces even make the top 10 attractions ! People come here for the buildings and the history, not on the off chance of seeing a member of the RF.

       The question I am asked often is – well if you got rid of them, what would you replace them with ? The answer is simple – they don’t need to be replaced by anything else – the institution of monarchy is outdated and archaic. I truly believe that ultimately, it will go in Britain, although I doubt that I will still be alive to see it happen. The slimy politicians will still be around (no change there) and the country will still run – I don’t view it as a seismic event at all.

       W and K (in my opinion) represent all that I detest about the institution and the sooner the whole things is dispatched to the history books, the better.

       There – I’ve said it. 🙂

20. It’s just so funny when you contrast the accepted line that the royal’s schedules are set months if not years in advance. These two obviously have nothing going on, or I should say nothing that they will commit to.

21. Eh. I’m not sure what the stink is about – the money went to the local economies – it was the locals who got the money — didn’t go in W&K’s pocket. If the publicity increases tourism – then perhaps it was money well spent.

    1. But it is taking it from one pocket and putting it in the other via taxes paid. There is no gain from this visit. The royals didn’t come and spend their own money in Canada. They may diverted funds that could have been spent helping citizens.

    2. The money spent would’ve been better off being donated in the first place.

22. “I don’t think we should judge children for their looks, both positive and negative. I don’t think we should be encouraging children to base their self-worth off of what other people think they look like. But that’s just my opinion. And considering how many people have said how ugly Charlotte is because she looks like Carole or Pippa, I think I’m right to ask people not to comment on the royal children’s looks.”

    I can’t figure out how to respond directly to this comment, KMR, but I agree completely and this is something that really bothers me, too. I made the mistake of reading through an online forum after Christmas and some people on the forum took pictures of Charlotte at Christmas church service and said that she had the “jowels of a bulldog” and the eyes of a snake. This poor little girl is going to go through hell when she hits puberty. Puberty sucks for any girl, but Charlotte will be constantly compared to Princess Diana and Kate. It kind of reminds me of Chelsea Clinton being a teenager in the White House and how nasty people were about her looks. Charlotte is one and already people are asking if she is going to be a great, classic beauty or glamorous like Diana. That is a hell of a lot of pressure to put on a little girl. I think Princess Anne went through a hard time when she was growing up, too.

    I hope that we can continue to talk about George and Charlotte respectfully in the future if they appear at other events. I liked seeing their personalities in Canada. I think Charlotte is a bit feisty and George appears shy to me, not the little hell-raiser his parents had implied. I did feel that George was shy/awkward/anxious when around people. As a nanny I took care of a three-year-old who would struggle to greet even his grandparents and pre-school teacher. He would turn his back to them and bury his face in my leg even when I tried to teach him how to greet people. He was a deeply sensitive child prone to anxiety. But when you got to know him, he was incredibly sweet and thoughtful. Just very, very sensitive.

    So however you want to do things, KMR. if you want to ask us not to say anything about looks at all, positive or negative, that’s fine. I hope we can discuss their personalities and their clothes but if things get out of hand I understand if you have to change your policy again. I personally feel badly for both George and Charlotte. I honestly think that if they were someone else’s children people wouldn’t be so critical. People have projected their feelings about William and Kate onto George and Charlotte, IMO.

    1. I think George and Charlotte , like most kids, are adorable. I love how feisty Charlotte seems, and George seems like a little observer. Some of my favorite pediatric patients at the hospital where I work have been observers who just need a little time to warm up to strangers.

23. Happy New Year – I agree with sentiments about unnecessary comments about the children – George is at an age where he is uncomfortable with too much attention – I think they should have been left at home. I see no benefit to these tours – Will comes across as a bore and Kate as empty headed – they may be very different but they make no effort – Canadians Australians ect have IMO zero interest in them – they don’t sell magazines as they have no gravitas – that pretty much sums them up

24. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xl0NZg9Xhk4

    so nothing came out after all this preparation kate went through.

25. Every person is born with their own personality. There is nothing wrong with that. It can partially be guided and shaped by upbringing, but never, imo, completely changed. I have 2 kids (well 19 and almost 18) and their brains are wired in opposites. I cherish how each of them think and perceive things, and as a mother understood that what you say to one child, the other would take to heart and eat away at them. I mean otherwise you’ll be raising repressed little robots.

    What I am trying to say, as many people have already, is that so what if George is anxious in public and Charlotte is not? These are their natural tendencies. Estelle is a lovely little girl, but had she been born with a shy introverted personality rather than her outgoing friendly and curious one, we would not see the girl we see today.

    I have no doubt that “nanny knows best” in the Cambridge family, it’s just their social reality and my eyes aren’t closed to that. But if W&K wish to be good parents to their children, they will hang on Maria’s every word and take her advice. That is why she’s there- to love and care for those children above anything else. At least they have that constant in their lives.

    1. Ha that’s so true, my mom says who we were at 3 are essentially who we are today =) I think that’s why a lot of people have 2 kids too. My sister and I are essentially the same in our beliefs but differ in other areas. Gives parents best/worst of best worlds=)

26. I apologize sincerely if I have upset people by my comments on George and Charlotte’s personalities. As George (and to a lesser extent) Charlotte, are public figures and are fed from public money and George is expected to take on a role of power through an accident of birth, it does open up the kids to criticism. I still say, if WK want to protect their kids fully, then they should look after them using their own money; take them on vacation using their own money (not on taxpayer funded holitours like in Canada).

    George is not just any other child, whether we like it or not. So the fact that at the age of three, his caregivers have not seem to have taught him to greet people waiting to see him; is happily going and punching decorations at a party where the decor is meant for the enjoyment of all kids (I bet if George was just a commoner, somebody would have gently told him not to punch at the balloons..but because he is Prince George, no one would dare to remonstrate him. And his parents did not do anything to stop him either); really highlight the fact that this whole hereditary monarchy thing needs to go the way of the dodo. You have William and Kate who have proven themselves to be totally unfit; and they are raising their son, a future public figure, to already be anxious around people and to not mind his manners, which would be unfit personality traits to have in a public figure.

    The arrival video on the tarmac, where Kate was fussing over George and George had his back turned to everyone…I would say is quite rude. Will and Kate should have used that moment to encourage George to greet the waiting dignitaries, amongst them a nation’s Prime Minister…someone who you know, has an actual job.

    Charlotte has a fun and spunky personality, but she has Kate as a mom & Carole as a grandmother. Let’s hope Charlotte has the wherewithal to be a greater person than her upbringing would suggest.

    While I am tired of the Royal children being gushed over as if they are the most beautiful, smartest, amazing kids on the planet…but still saying Charlotte looks like a bulldog is just cruel.

Comments are closed.