Duchess of Cambridge: What Now for Catherine? Future Duties, Roles, Responsibilities


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the bottom line is that every member of the royal family works more than Kate no matter which job they are working at.
 
Duchess of Cambridge: What now for Catherine? Future Duties, Roles, Responsibilities

What if the Duchess of Cambridge has no ambition for a public role and solely wants to be a loving wife to the Duke and a devoted mother to the infant prince? It is not that she has to "deliver" something, she is only the Duchess because she married the Duke. There is no contract or something.

In the old days the Countess of Grantham, let alone her mother-in-law the Dowager Countess would not even think about working. Work? Isn't that why we have all that staff for? In those days the duties of such a lady were at her House and to manage the often formidable Household.

For an example Camilla, when she has a public role, she often has a fantastic interaction with the audience. When I see her however, I have the feeling that she loves Charles and his boys, that she is a soul-mate, but that the public outings are not her favourite. When she has to, she does it wonderfully, but I have the feeling she prefers to arrange things at Clarence, St James or Highgrove, to give her attention to the boys, to Catherine and the grandson, to enjoy a nice walk in the nature, etc. But when she chooses that way, she will be burned in media as lazy and whatever. In some sort of way the royals are slaves to the merciless scrutiny of media.
 
Last edited:
The difference between an aristocratic lady and a royal lady is that the royal ladies are expected to do charity work while aristocratic ladies can do other things if they wish.

The public have come to expect charity work from their royals and the royal ladies have been delivering on that side of the 'contract' for generations.

For the perks they get they are expected to give a return and being a wife and mother isn't enough. If that is what Kate wanted for her life she should have turned down William's proposal and found herself another man who could let her be a stay-at-home mum but for a royal woman that isn't an option.

Kate is also married to the future King so the expectations are even greater than say on Sophie who is only married to the 8th in line and he will only drop further or The Duchess of Gloucester who is now married to the 22nd although he was 8th when they married but she understood that in marrying Richard she would be expected to do some charity work and after the death of her brother-in-law and then father-in-law was expected to do even more - as did the Duchess of Kent.

Kate's personal wishes aren't relevant as she didn't just marry a man but a position and a job - that of being a royal wife and public engagements are expected from her for the rest of her life - just as Camilla has shown - they aren't what she necessarily wanted to do with her life but her love for Charles means that she was prepared to embrace them as part of the marriage contract and Kate will have to step up.
 
Last edited:
The difference between an aristocratic lady and a royal lady is that the royal ladies are expected to do charity work while aristocratic ladies can do other things if they wish.

The public have come to expect charity work from their royals and the royals ladies have been delivering on that side of the 'contract' for generations.

For the perks they get they are expected to give a return and being a wife and mother isn't enough. If that is what Kate wanted for her life she should have turned down William's proposal and found herself another man who could let her be a stay-at-home mum but for a royal woman that isn't an option.

Kate is also married to the future King so the expectations are even greater than say on Sophie who is only married to the 8th in line and he will only drop further or The Duchess of Gloucester who is now married to the 22nd although he was 8th when they married but she understood that in marrying Richard she would be expected to do some charity work and after the death of her brother-in-law and then father-in-law was expected to do even more - as did the Duchess of Kent.

Kate's personal wishes aren't relevant as she didn't just marry a man but a position and a job - that of being a royal wife and public engagements are expected from her for the rest of her life - just as Camilla has shown - they aren't what she necessarily wanted to do with her life but her love for Charles means that she was prepared to embrace them as part of the marriage contract and Kate will have to step up.

That's it in a nutshell.
 
The difference between an aristocratic lady and a royal lady is that the royal ladies are expected to do charity work while aristocratic ladies can do other things if they wish.

The public have come to expect charity work from their royals and the royals ladies have been delivering on that side of the 'contract' for generations.

For the perks they get they are expected to give a return and being a wife and mother isn't enough. If that is what Kate wanted for her life she should have turned down William's proposal and found herself another man who could let her be a stay-at-home mum but for a royal woman that isn't an option.

Kate is also married to the future King so the expectations are even greater than say on Sophie who is only married to the 8th in line and he will only drop further or The Duchess of Gloucester who is now married to the 22nd although he was 8th when they married but she understood that in marrying Richard she would be expected to do some charity work and after the death of her brother-in-law and then father-in-law was expected to do even more - as did the Duchess of Kent.

Kate's personal wishes aren't relevant as she didn't just marry a man but a position and a job - that of being a royal wife and public engagements are expected from her for the rest of her life - just as Camilla has shown - they aren't what she necessarily wanted to do with her life but her love for Charles means that she was prepared to embrace them as part of the marriage contract and Kate will have to step up.

QFT
Kate just can't be a wife a mother, she is married to a prince who is supposed to be king one day. I get the sense that Kate may not be a career driven person, she does not seem as ambitious as the other members of her family to work at something. She might be a Camilla type person, only wanted to be a wife and mother and now has to work because of the man she loves. Camilla has progressed well, Kate not so much but I'm hoping it will get better.
 
She knew what was expected of her
She will never have a normal life
It's a long road for her
She has adjusted very well,but.but.but there will be more and more
 
From what I've seen, Catherine loves carrying out her royal engagements and she's settled pretty nicely in her royal role. Of course there's still room for her to grow in her role. At some point (hopefully in the not so distant future) she'll be taking on honorary military appointments, presenting Colours on Her Majesty's behalf and even she'll be taking on charitable presidencies. At the moment, not a great deal of responsibility been handed down to her as a senior royal. Catherine representing The Queen on her solo trip to Malta seems to be the very beginning of her taking on more responsibility as third lady of the land.
 
Last edited:
^^ Let's hope she can manage to keep her bottom covered up on her next trip!

I have been a huge fan of the Duchess until recently. The dress fly-ups have made me start to re-think that. She knows very well it's a continuing problem, and she knows there are solutions. Yet she continues to risk flashing the world. Why?

Then I started looking at her engagements. I applauded her and the Royal family for starting her off slowly, but honestly, it's been more than 3 years. If anything, she seems to be slowing down. She hasn't done a public engagement since the weekend of July 5-6, when she appeared at two sports events. Prior to that, there were only one or two after the Australia/New Zealand trip.

Which got me to thinking... her "job" is to promote her charities. If we exclude the fun sports events and glamorous movie premieres, as well as non-negotiable Royal Family appearances such as Trooping the Colors -- how many charity engagements is she really doing? Does anyone know?
 
Last edited:
In the US we see that the one First Lady has an active public role (Michelle Obama) and an another chose more for 'the wife behind the screens' role (Barbara Bush).

In my country we see the same: Mme Bernadette Chirac was a far more active Première Dame de France than Mme Carla Bruni-Sarkozy who did not develop an own independent role as Première Dame.

I think all must be open for consorts. Not all of them have the same desire for an outspoken public role. If Catherine wants a more restraint image than, let's say, Diana who had the maximum spotlight, that must be possible and no reason to nail her in media.
 
How many patronages etc. are available to her at the moment ? There are quite a few senior royals who maintain their existing commitments and these will become available in time. If Catherine amasses quite a few new patronages at this stage, she will be unable to take on the ones which will eventually become vacant and by tradition have a senior role as their patron. It has been stated before that we do not know much about the private visits that occur, but we know they do happen. I am as keen as anyone to see the Duchess out and about more, but I don't put this down to any aversion to carry out her royal duties .


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app
 
I expect given the choice, the Duchess would just like a quiet life in the countryside.

Who decides if she takes on Royal Engagements? I'm sure the Queen keeps well out of it. So I expect the Palace Advisers advise her. But in the end its up to her what she chooses to do. Any pressure, William will come down hard on that, as he is very protective of her. At the end of the day they will do what they feel is best for them.
 
Even if that isn't the best for the nation - that is the difference between William and The Queen - she doesn't always do what is best for her or what she wants to do but what she knows she has to do and what is best for the nation - she, and Charles, have a sense of duty that seems lacking in William and even more so in Kate.
 
Duchess of Cambridge: What now for Catherine? Future Duties, Roles, Responsib...

Isn't also best for the nation that Prince George grows up to be a well adjusted adult knowing he is part of a tight knit loving family. The Prince of Wales could have cleared his schedule for George's birthday but chose not to. He went to demonstration of gray squirrel trapping to promote saving the native red squirrel instead of his only grandchild's 1st birthday party which the Queen was able to attend.

William and Kate are not the next in line. They are focusing on their family right now which will only help them in the future as they become the Prince and Princess of Wales and then King and Queen. Any major decisions are discussed with the Queen and the Prince of Wales. When William joined SAR and left the Raf, it was discussed. So it is safe to assume, part time or full royal role for W&K was also discussed.

Did anybody notice where George's birthday photos were shot ? I did. It could have easily been in the garden or sofa of KP but it was at the butterfly exhibit of the Natural History Museum. I wonder whose is the patron of the NHM? Oh, yes - it's Kate. Now that millions of people have seen the butterfly photos maybe some of those people if they are near London will go and visit the butterflies at NHM. What great free advertising and raising the profile of the butterfly exhibit. I wonder who thought to do the photos there- Kate perhaps?
 
Last edited:
Duty come first for the royal family.

Your statement about Charles is harsh.

You do not know if there was a party on Saturday/Sunday for George that Charles attended. Or if the party was originally planned for Saturday/Sunday but William/Kate changed the plans and Charles was not able to change his schedule. Or if the party will be held this Saturday/Sunday.

The Queen & Prince Philip were not at Prince Charles' first, second or third birthday. They also were not there for Charles' first Christmas even though he was not yet 6 weeks old. The Queen & Prince Philip also missed Charles' second Christmas.

They made it for his 5th birthday but were 3 days late as they had a shooting party at Sandringham.

Diana and Charles missed William's first birthday. They were in Canada.
 
Why does the song, "Cat's In the Cradle", suddenly jump up in my mind?
 
Perfect selection.

Now that song will stay in my head.
 
It is very possible in my book that Kate goes about doing a lot of things for her charities and the Royal family that just isn't called to our attention. William and Kate have very good reasons to want to keep the media at bay and to be honest, I don't blame them. I think they've been working very hard to set limits and ensure those limits are becoming set in stone. We see Kate only when the media is allowed to be there. The private photo sessions are very few and far between.

It will be interesting to see the media frenzy as Kate goes to Malta.
 

Even if that isn't the best for the nation - that is the difference between William and The Queen - she doesn't always do what is best for her or what she wants to do but what she knows she has to do and what is best for the nation - she, and Charles, have a sense of duty that seems lacking in William and even more so in Kate.


---------------------------------------------------

William is what the Queen and Charles have groomed him to be ...perhaps they realize there are some pitfalls with the approach they took and are trying to find a more balanced way of things ...afterall the monarchy is not what it was when the Queen was crowned.

LaRae
 
Last edited:
It's going to be fun watching the royal spin doctors over the next few years earn their keep with these two. :lol:
 
Lets face it, this isn't about how many engagements W&K carry out. William doesn't collect a salary from the government. Everything he receives comes from the Queen and she is the only person to answer to parliament.

The same people who criticise William and Kate for not working enough are usually the first people to bash them when they do public engagements. Most times a mixture of Americans and Aussies republicans and members of team Harry.

The other argument people seem to use against the Cambridges is that because William is 2nd in line to the throne he should do more but if we use this yardstick then all the Queen's grandchildren should do more. Up until last year Harry was 3rd in line and did hardly no official engagements.

Same with the York girls. If the Queen is in such a clamour for more "working royals" she could enlist Beatrice.

I've long ago accepted the fact that certain people just don't like Kate and it wouldn't matter what she did they still won't like her.

Imo Kate should just keep on doing what she is doing because for the critics they look to have a pop at her regardless of what she does.

I'll repeat what I stated earlier. If Camilla after 10 years of marriage and our next Queen, married to the heir to the throne, if she can do around 250 engagements a year than Kate is in the clear.

Camilla's numbers put her in 8th place overall behind even the Duke of Gloucester. Now if this is acceptable for out next Queen than Kate should be given all the time in the world.
 
Lets face it, this isn't about how many engagements W&K carry out. William doesn't collect a salary from the government. Everything he receives comes from the Queen and she is the only person to answer to parliament.

The same people who criticise William and Kate for not working enough are usually the first people to bash them when they do public engagements. Most times a mixture of Americans and Aussies republicans and members of team Harry.

The other argument people seem to use against the Cambridges is that because William is 2nd in line to the throne he should do more but if we use this yardstick then all the Queen's grandchildren should do more. Up until last year Harry was 3rd in line and did hardly no official engagements.

Same with the York girls. If the Queen is in such a clamour for more "working royals" she could enlist Beatrice.

I've long ago accepted the fact that certain people just don't like Kate and it wouldn't matter what she did they still won't like her.

Imo Kate should just keep on doing what she is doing because for the critics they look to have a pop at her regardless of what she does.

I'll repeat what I stated earlier. If Camilla after 10 years of marriage and our next Queen, married to the heir to the throne, if she can do around 250 engagements a year than Kate is in the clear.

Camilla's numbers put her in 8th place overall behind even the Duke of Gloucester. Now if this is acceptable for out next Queen than Kate should be given all the time in the world.

:previous:
But then, some of those same people use "royal" when it is convenient to use it against Kate and then do not hesitate to remind us that she is not a "real royal". As I've said before .... sometimes ya just can't win. :flowers:
 
Just pointing out I am American and I am a supporter and a defender of Kate and William. I have defended them many times on this numerous issue over the years, now the defense is just getting tedious. I don't think she should be on the same level as Anne, Charles of continental royals, I just think she needs to do more than she is currently doing.
 
I think that at this point in time, Catherine's first priority should be her son. Yes, she has a full time nanny, but nothing replaces a mother's love and attention. I'm sure as George gets older, Catherine will step out more, but now, she is doing what is best for her, and her son. I'm sure if this was a big issue, Her Majesty would have spoken to William and Catherine, and made sure that they changed their ways. However, I have a feeling that Her Majesty supports their approach, and if she does, then who are we to criticize? She's been on the job for over sixty years, so she definitely knows how it all works. No need to sit here and constantly bash the Duchess for her choice to currently spend more time with her child.
 
Sophie's first two years as a working royal was also while she was running her own business and thus she was holding down a full-time job and she managed way more than Kate.

My figures for Sophie in 2000 - her first full year as a royal having married in 1999 - are 120 and as I said she was also running a business.


Sophie's first year of marriage -- 1999 through 2000 -- she did not undertake official engagements of her own. She did accompany Edward to some functions, but it was very much publicized that she would be a career woman and not an official engagement undertaking royal.

This is from her pre-wedding interview:

" . . . Asked how she saw her future, she told a television interviewer: ''I certainly see it more in a supporting role to Edward rather than rushing off and forging my own path, going off and taking on the mantle of various charities.''

Showing her practiced hand at public relations, she added: ''I also think there is the Queen and the rest of the Royal Family doing an exceptionally wonderful job in a public role. I don't see a massive need for me to go out there and do the same thing.''


At Windsor, Royal Wedding Has a Common Touch - NYTimes.com

The undercover investigation of Sophie's firm is what catapulted her into a full-fledged working royal.
 
It is very possible in my book that Kate goes about doing a lot of things for her charities and the Royal family that just isn't called to our attention.

I'm American, so it's possible I don't understand the purpose of royal patronage duties. But it seems to me that the whole point is to call attention to the charity, for the purpose of fundraising. I might add that I think this is a very worthy "job" and one which the royals are uniquely qualified to do. A private visit from a patron would be a lovely thing for the few people involved, and I hope they all do it from time to time. But as a fundraiser, it wouldn't be very effective.

As I said above, I have been a huge fan of the Duchess since I first learned about her right before the engagement. HUGE. I'm one of those people who stayed up all night long to watch the wedding, which was at 4:00 a.m. my time. I've followed her every appearance. Almost every day as I'm googling for news, I google her. She hasn't put a foot wrong in 3 1/2 years (except for her puzzling refusal to wear underwear in public).

So it's with disappointment that I say that it's beginning to seem that she's more a pampered housewife than a working royal. I don't begrudge the royals their lavish lifestyle, because most of them seem to work hard at a job only they can do. But if I were a UK taxpayer, I would be getting a little upset about the Duchess' obvious enjoyment of the "lavish" part of the bargain, while having little apparent interest in the "work" part.
 
I'm American, so it's possible I don't understand the purpose of royal patronage duties. But it seems to me that the whole point is to call attention to the charity, for the purpose of fundraising. I might add that I think this is a very worthy "job" and one which the royals are uniquely qualified to do. A private visit from a patron would be a lovely thing for the few people involved, and I hope they all do it from time to time. But as a fundraiser, it wouldn't be very effective.

As I said above, I have been a huge fan of the Duchess since I first learned about her right before the engagement. HUGE. I'm one of those people who stayed up all night long to watch the wedding, which was at 4:00 a.m. my time. I've followed her every appearance. Almost every day as I'm googling for news, I google her. She hasn't put a foot wrong in 3 1/2 years (except for her puzzling refusal to wear underwear in public).

So it's with disappointment that I say that it's beginning to seem that she's more a pampered housewife than a working royal. I don't begrudge the royals their lavish lifestyle, because most of them seem to work hard at a job only they can do. But if I were a UK taxpayer, I would be getting a little upset about the Duchess' obvious enjoyment of the "lavish" part of the bargain, while having little apparent interest in the "work" part.

One thing about royal patronages and charities is that the events that the public sees is often times booked months in advance. There is first the scheduling, then the work starts on just how the event is going to run and what will be done. Most times, to my understanding, its planned down to the very minute from start to finish. The security has to canvas the area and make sure all possible things that could go wrong are acknowledged and plans put in place for any kind of a scenario. The royal themselves, prepare in advance by reading up on the plans for the day, who they're going to meet and their connection to the charity, figure out the appropriate outfit to wear. They also meet from time to time with the people involved with the charity and get updates and such. Will, Kate and Harry also have The Royal Foundation which has been put together to kind of umbrella quite a number of their charities and patronages and such. The three main focus of the foundation are the military, young people and conservation. Sometimes we've even seen more than one of their causes band together in joint functions. They regularly attend board meetings and I imagine there's a lot of other areas with this foundation that they're involved with.

Basically we're never told what Kate does in her own time. It is just assumed that when she isn't in sight, she's living the high life and munching bon bons. We really don't know as the Cambridges are really quite adamant about their privacy and they're definitely not talking to the press about their future plans or what they do when they're not appearing for an engagement. Its all been speculations on unsubstantiated rumors, half truths from "a source close to the couple" or "a high ranking staff member" etc.

This is the difference between royalty and celebrity. Without being constantly in the public eye and being "followed" and admired on a daily basis, a celebrity soon becomes a has been and forgotten. Its the opposite for royalty. They do what they do for different reasons and the public is allowed to be a spectator when they're out and about in public but the royals definitely do not need to be constantly in the limelight to maintain who they are.

Also, about the tax payer and the "lavish" lifestyle. The tax payer does not pay for any part of Will and Kate's private life at all. They are supported by Charles and also Will has his own money from inheritances from family members such as his great grandmother (its an example. I'm not totally sure if he did inherit anything from the Queen Mum) and his mother.
 
Last edited:
I far as I can see Catherine is enjoying a happy life as a "homemaker" being fortunate enough to not need to work.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that being a mother is a full time job and, to be honest, too many kids miss out on the joy of having mum or dad as their primary caregiver. That she is an at-home mum doesn't bother me at all, after all, being financially secure is not a sin.

I think that we need to look back and see the life that William's grandmother and mother lived when they were pre-schoolers. We all know that the Queen didn't get enough time with her children because tours took months and his parents took weeks. But his grandmother was the queen and his mother the wife of the heir.

Catherine doesn't have to do much of anything except be a wife and mother and, if that's what floats her boat, good for her.
 
I'm an Australian who has no problem with Kate or Wills I am happy they are together. I wouldn't really have cared if she chose to become a full time mum after George, power to her! I have a problem with the fact she didn't work prior (both marriage and prior George). And now this indecision with what Wills is doing/not/maybe doing is becoming tedious. They are starting to come across as work shy or just plain........
I think people need to stop confusing "Lack-Of-Work" with a like or dislike of these two, one does not automatically infer the other!
 
It is interesting to note that in the Netherlands, after the accession to the throne, both the new King as well the abdicated Queen have laid down all their hundreds of honorary functions connected to charities. Reason: King Willem-Alexander wants to be "everyone's King" and has the opinion that being a honorary chairman or protector of so many groups d(the abandoned dogs, the Friesian ice-skating, the preservation of traditional regional costumes, playgrounds for children, the preservation of an old chicken breed, etc. etc.) does not necessarily fit in this idea connecting to modern kingship. Only a selected number of patronages were held.

The new King has decided to keep 12 patronages which he thinks is in line with the royal function and represent the whole of the Netherlands:
- the Orange Fund (to promote social cohesion)
- the Royal Society for the Arts (to promote arts)
- the Royal Academy of Sciences (to promote sciences)
- the Royal Society of Knights of the Militaire Willems-Orde (the highest royal Order)
- the Society for Industry and Trade (to promote industry and trade)
- the Society for Literature Sciences (to promote literature)
- the Netherlands Biblical Society (to promote awareness of the Bible)
- the Netherlands Nobility Accociation (the society of Dutch nobles)
- the Netherlands War Cemeteries (to maintain War cemeteries)
- the Old Limbourgian Marksmen Federation (the King is also Duke of Limbourg)
- the Historical Society Orange-Nassau

So we see an interesting change in thinking about patronages: instead of being honorary chairman, protector, benefactor, namegiver, etc. of hundreds of patronages, just a select group which in total represents the whole nation receive a royal patronage. Because it are only twelve, the King can have a real personal commitment and involvement instead of just being a name on a plaquette. I think it is interesting to note this change in thinking about the traditional royal patronages. We will see how it works out when the British royal family will downsize. It is simply impossible to bear the burden of countless patronages and maybe the Dutch example will be an inspiration.
 
William, Harry and Kate are sort of doing that now. Having a small number of patronage, doing things on a shorter term such as William was patron of the WWI centennial exhibit for the Imperial War Museum which just opened. Not the museum itself so he can move only to a different short term project. They are also using the Royal Foundation to help instead of always becoming a patron of something such as Walking with the Wounded. Neither Harry or William is officially connected with it but the RF gives money to several of its expeditions.

The Queen is patron of Wimbledon but she has only been there a couple of times. Wouldn't it be better for Queen to resign it and let someone who actually likes tennis such as Kate become patron?

By the way, Kate did work before the marriage. She worked at Jigsaw in London and got followed by paps all the time and then for her parents firm in Buckleberry where the people there protected her privacy. There isn't many jobs she could have done where she won't be accused of cashing in on her royal connections or get caught up in a sting like Sophie did.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom