Pippa Middleton: May 2011-May 2017


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I was thinking more on the line of breeding.

I know you were. And I personally think that it's in poor taste to talk about "breeding" in people as one would dogs or horses.
 
I know you were. And I personally think that it's in poor taste to talk about "breeding" in people as one would dogs or horses.


Why not - that is what has sustained the concept of monarchy and aristocracy for 1000s of years - the ancient Romans and Greeks right down to the more recent past - Diana was an appropriate girl for Charles because of her aristocratic background while Camilla wasn't - that was as more about breeding - having the right 'blood' to be the mother of future royals.
 
Why not - that is what has sustained the concept of monarchy and aristocracy for 1000s of years - the ancient Romans and Greeks right down to the more recent past - Diana was an appropriate girl for Charles because of her aristocratic background while Camilla wasn't - that was as more about breeding - having the right 'blood' to be the mother of future royals.


But trace back the Spencers far enough, and you find sheep farmers.
(Didn't some nobleman once sneer at them for that?)

And I thought the difficulty about Camilla wasn't family background, it was that she wasn't virginal while Diana was without a past.
 
Why not - that is what has sustained the concept of monarchy and aristocracy for 1000s of years - the ancient Romans and Greeks right down to the more recent past - Diana was an appropriate girl for Charles because of her aristocratic background while Camilla wasn't - that was as more about breeding - having the right 'blood' to be the mother of future royals.

Yes, and look how well that turned out? The idea that some people are superior to others because of their "blood lines" is absurd and it's one of the traditions around the monarchy that seems to have finally died out.

I think most people recognize now that what matters about another person is their individual characteristics- their intelligence, kindness, willingness to work hard and contribute to those around them. I think judging Pippa based on THOSE characteristics and not some archaic idea of her "breeding" is much more appropriate.
 
Even in wartime, women still bought lipstick. If they couldn't have new clothes or fresh meat or things for the house, they could still buy lipstick. In places like France, it was almost a method of defiance. I think that the same is true for products such as the Middleton's have. Even if parents skimp on things for themselves, they'll still want to treat their children if at all possible; and that's what the Party Pieces business was founded on: mothers wanting to treat their children to parties without spending a lot of money and time.

The Middletons could have the last laugh. If Pippa and James and their descendants keep the family coffers full, the family will eventually be known as "old money.":lol:


I can't see in the Pippa in the future taking over her parents' business, I can't see with the state of the world finances that people will be making others millionaires by buying paper plates and hats. Perhaps they will branch out to something else.
 
How dare they want the best education available for their children? How dare the Middletons make enough money to send their children to good schools, where they happened meet upper class people and those in their circle? Didn't they know that middle-class people like them should send their kids to state schools where they'd meet people more suitable to breed with???? :whistling: My questions are, of course, highly tongue-in-cheek.

The fact is that if the Middletons are at all likable, friendly people, they did and will make upper-class friends--at least among those who don't care about "breeding" but judge people on character.

I thought that the Daily Mail article was extremely snide. It was written to trash Pippa outrightly or else make the Loudons seem like upper-class snobs.




I have never understood the nastiness directed toward the Middleton family. I mean, their business is trashed, their children are called social climbers. From what I can see, they are just living their lives and have done nothing to deserve the vitriol.

And speaking of tacky, I'd find it quite tacky if Alex or his family/friends are the sources for this latest article.
 
Yes, and look how well that turned out? The idea that some people are superior to others because of their "blood lines" is absurd and it's one of the traditions around the monarchy that seems to have finally died out.
.

And the fact that it has died out will presumably soon see the end of the monarchy worldwide. When the King or Queen is as common as the woman or man on the street, what makes the royal family special?

We can all dress up nice, wear a tiara and sit in our own palace not actually doing anything for the country. :)
 
Mermaid1962 said:
How dare they want the best education available for their children? How dare the Middletons make enough money to send their children to good schools, where they happened meet upper class people and those in their circle? Didn't they know that middle-class people like them should send their kids to state schools where they'd meet people more suitable to breed with???? :whistling: My questions are, of course, highly tongue-in-cheek.

The fact is that if the Middletons are at all likable, friendly people, they did and will make upper-class friends--at least among those who don't care about "breeding" but judge people on character.

I think there's more to it than just wanting to open up doors for better education and entry into better institutions. I think the British press sees them as the kind of people stuck on appearance - making sure the kids wear the right clothes, have the right hobbies and interests - in order to move ahead in the world. Look, I'm American and things are much different here in terms of social classes and social mobility. But I think what the British press gets at by characterizing them a social climbers is that they were overly ambitious to get ahead by social means and not necessarily by pushing their daughters to be the next CEO or forge a career and create their own glory. I think the Middletons are ambitious to be accepted on social terms, and are very concerned with fitting in, having the right associations, wearing the right things, etc. And frankly, I think the Middletons LOVE the attention that comes from their newly found social acceptance. Perhaps, that love for the attention, and the desire to break into that social strata is what turns off the Loudons/the British press.
 
How a person acts or conducts themselves is a good indicator of whether or not they have class as opposed to what socio-economic background they came from. Some people from very humble or middle class backgrounds can be very classy while others who come from upper crust can have no class at all. Breeding has nothing to do with it. It's how they conduct themselves.

Most people want their children to have better opportunties than they did. There is nothing wrong with this. Most of the time the motive had nothing to do with social climbing.
 
Common?

Not all commoners are common.

Not all nobles are noble.

The Middletons worked hard, became successful, stayed married (apparently happily), sent their children to the best schools, provided a nice lifestyle for their family, and produced one child who was chosen to be a part of the royal family, a mother (eventually) of a Queen or King.

Whether they are viewed as pushy climbers or not, it's certain that they couldn't possibly have pushed themselves or their daughter into the Palace. William chose her, and his family graciously welcomed her.

I find their lives to be much more successful and admirable than those of some people of royal or noble blood. They didn't divorce, they didn't cheat, they didn't develop a sleazy business. And they earned all the money they spend.

Sometimes the royal gene pool needs refreshing.
 
Last edited:
I couldn´t agree more!Some of my favourite royals came from middle-class families and they are doing extremely well,sometimes even better than the "true-blood" royals.
I have never met the Middletons in person but they´ve always seemed like a normal,classy and ambitious family.They have a successful marriage and both Pippa and Kate are smart,independent young women who are trying to live a good life just like everyone else.They have both attended and finished university and never had any scandals (apart from some minor wardrobe malfunctions that were scrutinised in gossip papers like Daily Mail) I don´t know why there is still so much hatred for them,they always well-behave and act with class and integrity and they are very much adored in other countries.The BRF should be happy to have such a lovely,attractive and tough woman like Catherine marry into their family who comes from a solid family background without marital problems like Charles/Diana...
 
Does anyone remember the comments that were made about the Middleton's after William and Kate spilt?

If you do, than you might agree with me that this "Pippa isn't marriage material" sounds like a play by play story from the Daily Mail.

Frankly, if the Loudon's are discreet as the paper suggest they are...than why would they comment about Pippa at all? Wouldn't they just prefer that the break up be last week's story. Why add fuel to the fire.

I think the Loudons probably did like Pippa, maybe didn't they she was marriage material (because they are low key and she doesn't appear to be) but have no desire to comment about the story at all. Methinks someone took it upon them self to add one plus one and come up with three.

So I wouldn't put the blame on Alex or his parents.
 
Last edited:
You're right, Zonk. I'd forgotten about that. Someone at the Daily Mail loves to see the Middletons humiliated and has highly snobbish, chatty sources. Or the DM makes it up.

Does anyone remember the comments that were made about the Middleton's after William and Kate spilt?

If you do, than you might agree with me that this "Pippa isn't marriage material" sounds like a play by play story from the Daily Mail.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pippa can't help what has happened to her socially. If the Loudon's don't like it too bad. I don't see how Pippa isn't "wife material" either.
 
Well you could look at "not being wife material" a couple of different ways in my book.

Of course, there is the she isn't proper wife material in a social class kind of way. Not our kind of people is a phrase used in the states for different social classes.

Or you could think that Pippa is not wife material because at this point she simply isn't ready to settle down, marry and have a family and leave the party circuit. Just like some men aren't husband material because they still want to sow their wild oats.

There is nothing wrong with that imo. If you aren't ready to get married than you shouldn't. It could be that Pippa and Alex are a different points in their life and they want different things. Alex might like to go out with couples and have a somewhat quiet life. Pippa might like to be in the midst of things, at all the hot spots. To see and be seen.

Frankly, that is no good for a marriage unless one or the other compromises. Ands its no use pretending otherwise. I had a good friend whose first husband (yes she is on number two but I think this one is a keeper), the day after they got back from their honeymoon...he was at the club with his boys? That was just ONE of many signs that they weren't going to work out.
 
^^^^
Pretty much agree. The press can be snootier than many of the oldest aristocratic families. The media give attention to Pippa because she is beautiful and she sells papers, but it is typical of the press to build a person up only to later tear them down. Pippa will be an easy target because right now the press cannot attack her sister.
 
I think there's more to it than just wanting to open up doors for better education and entry into better institutions. I think the British press sees them as the kind of people stuck on appearance - making sure the kids wear the right clothes, have the right hobbies and interests - in order to move ahead in the world. Look, I'm American and things are much different here in terms of social classes and social mobility. But I think what the British press gets at by characterizing them a social climbers is that they were overly ambitious to get ahead by social means and not necessarily by pushing their daughters to be the next CEO or forge a career and create their own glory. I think the Middletons are ambitious to be accepted on social terms, and are very concerned with fitting in, having the right associations, wearing the right things, etc. And frankly, I think the Middletons LOVE the attention that comes from their newly found social acceptance. Perhaps, that love for the attention, and the desire to break into that social strata is what turns off the Loudons/the British press.

How do the Middleton's love the attention?

Other than Pippa, who do you see in the press a couple of times a week?

And really, does the press need to take a picture of Pippa when she is out and about shopping and/or getting a cup of coffee?

Pippa might like the attention of the press but I don't think she is calling them. Its like they are stalking her.
 
I was thinking more on the line of breeding, and of course I know they are already millionaires, I was talking about the future, I can't see that tacky party stuff will be that in demand in the future. The Queen gave her permission to the marriage so no one can complain but, thank goodness, we can still express our opinions.
As far as what I can interpret from the article the ex boyfriend and his family were fine until she started to flirt with the newspapers and old flames.

I always think that term is hilarious. Pardon me, but the only people who still use it are massive snobs and the very very elderly. IMHO, breeding has to do with horses, dogs, cats etc., it really has no place with reference to human beings. Of course I'm guessing that people who use the term consider themselves to have the proper kind of "breeding" in order to make such judgements. :lol:

ETA, certainly there is social mobility in the US but ANYONE who says there is not snobbery and classism just isn't hooked into reality. The schools you go to, where you live, where you go to university even to a certain extent what religious denomination you belong to says a lot. Just going to the "right" schools (private in this country) can pave the way for success all the way, assuming one is reasonably intelligent. BUT even that being the case, if "one" doesn't live in the proper area of a city or town it can have major repercussions despite the proper schools. Snobbery is EVERYWHERE!!!!
 
Last edited:
And the fact that it has died out will presumably soon see the end of the monarchy worldwide. When the King or Queen is as common as the woman or man on the street, what makes the royal family special?

How they behave and the service they give to their country. The Royal Family inherited their privilege, but they have to work hard every day to keep it. I doubt we'll see the monarchy fade away as long as the royal families continue to work hard and contribute and make sure they represent their countries admirably.

And some of the "commoner" royals have been fantastic at this- look at how much Crown Princess Mary helps the image of the Danish Royals, and how great Prince Daniel has been in Sweden.
 
And some of the "commoner" royals have been fantastic at this- look at how much Crown Princess Mary helps the image of the Danish Royals, and how great Prince Daniel has been in Sweden.

Additionally Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, Princess Grace of Monaco, Queen Silvia of Sweden, Queen Sonja of Norway......they all seem to have done pretty good jobs as consorts to reigning monarchs without having the advantage of being born a princess.
 
Princess of Durham said:
I always think that term is hilarious. Pardon me, but the only people who still use it are massive snobs and the very very elderly. IMHO, breeding has to do with horses, dogs, cats etc., it really has no place with reference to human beings. Of course I'm guessing that people who use the term consider themselves to have the proper kind of "breeding" in order to make such judgements. :lol:

ETA, certainly there is social mobility in the US but ANYONE who says there is not snobbery and classism just isn't hooked into reality. The schools you go to, where you live, where you go to university even to a certain extent what religious denomination you belong to says a lot. Just going to the "right" schools (private in this country) can pave the way for success all the way, assuming one is reasonably intelligent. BUT even that being the case, if "one" doesn't live in the proper area of a city or town it can have major repercussions despite the proper schools. Snobbery is EVERYWHERE!!!!

Yes, but social mobility in the UK is much more difficult.. I always bring up the fact that at my boarding school in the US there were kids who had British parents in the entertainment industry who chose to send their kids to US schools bc it would have been very difficult for them socially in UK schools.

The Middleton's have achieved great success on their own through their business but at the same time I don't think it's a stretch or blasphemy to call them social climbers. They are ambitious to be accepted socially ( on various terms - wearing the right clothes, marrying into the right families etc) and that's not
necessarily a venomous thing to say. It's just realistic. It makes sense why an old money family would be wary of that too- there's nothing worse than feeling like someone is riding coattails- Especially if it is at the expense of a family that has attempted to be discreet.
 
The Middletons should consider moving to the USA.

Why should they leave their homecountry? Makes no sense to me.

Perhaps they prefer something more discreet and have got different standards regarding people, who wish to join their family. Additionally Alex knows Ms. Middleton better than any of us.

As for the Loudons: what could be read in tabloids about their opinion is hardly discreet. They or their confidants should have kept quiet and not blabbed to the media. As for Mr. Loudon knowing Miss Middleton better than we do: you're right. But that doesn't necessarily mean that "us" have to share his reasoning.
 
As for the Loudons: what could be read in tabloids about their opinion is hardly discreet.

If they even did! This story could have been made up completely. There have been a lot of non-stories about Pippa and Kate- they sell papers.
 
If they even did! This story could have been made up completely. There have been a lot of non-stories about Pippa and Kate- they sell papers.

Not so sure about that. The Loudons could complain about this and obviously the Mail editors believe they won't do that. Yes, they do invent stories all the time but normally you can trace these by checking if anyone could (or would) complain about them writing lies. They know what they can fabricate about the Royals but I doubt they'd dare to put such opinions in the mouth of the Loudons if they didn't believe there is some truth in it. Eg they never reported something like that about the Middletons and their opinion on things.
 
The Loudons , contrary to some opinions on this thread, have shown class, there are not many families that would show stick to their principles and show relief at their son breaking off from the sister of a future Queen, in other words they will not be bought, and it is true anyone can have an opinion when it comes to Pippa. The Loudons, if the story is true, have their opinion because they know her and not because they like the photographs of the backview of a girl at a wedding.
The royal family can make friends, allow marriages,etc without ever losing the tiniest piece of class, other families not being royal can't afford to do the same.
 
Okay...so am I the only person NOT believing this story from the Daily Mail.

You know the Daily Mail that erroneously reported that Catherine had met the Queen MANY times before she actually did at Peter and Autumn's wedding, that reported that Carole had behaved in rather poor form when she used some incorrect words when meting the Queen at William's Sandhurst graduation when she only met her a couple of days before the actual wedding; that the Middleton's used unfair advantage and profited from the royal wedding because they were selling Brittania souvenirs (like everyone else but no pics of William and Kate); etc.

Who said really horrible things about Kate and the Middleton's when William and Kate broke up and attributed them to William, unknown Palace courtiers and/or William's friends. So much so that William is reported to have phoned Kate (and/or the Middleton's) to apologize before they got back together for good.

I am sure there are more than enough inaccuracies to go around.

But that Daily Mail?

I just want to be sure.
 
Yes, but social mobility in the UK is much more difficult.. I always bring up the fact that at my boarding school in the US there were kids who had British parents in the entertainment industry who chose to send their kids to US schools bc it would have been very difficult for them socially in UK schools.

Well if that is the situation in the UK. Then I find THAT far, far, worse than the fact that the Middletons succeeded, where others did not. Seems like misplaced criticism and simple jealousy to me that people would condemn the M-family for it.

Criticise the system instead! This is not the 19th century. It is the 21st. We are all equal and have the same rights to education etc. as people with 'old money'. Different levels of education give different types of people with different interests. But Lord X or Y isn't necessarily any smarter or proper than the local grocer. They both have to handle money to continue living as they do and they both have to have common decency when handling people.
We are all taught to use our brains and abilities. So why, if the M's managed to use those traits to their advantage, it is called social climbing? It is like first encouraging a todler to try and stand and then criticise it for doing so.
 
Who said really horrible things about Kate and the Middleton's when William and Kate broke up and attributed them to William, unknown Palace courtiers and/or William's friends. So much so that William is reported to have phoned Kate (and/or the Middleton's) to apologize before they got back together for good.

I am sure there are more than enough inaccuracies to go around.

My point was that the Mail could be reasonably sure that neither the Middletons nor the RF would complain about these articles because they have known for some time that this is not the style of both families.

But what about the Loudons? If they are really that discreet people, surely there must have been concern over their reaction if it was a blatant lie? That makes me think there could be a bit of truth in it, that words to that effect that Pippa is no marriage prospect have been said.

But you're point is as good as mine - you never know with the tabloids...
 
The Loudons , contrary to some opinions on this thread, have shown class, there are not many families that would show stick to their principles and show relief at their son breaking off from the sister of a future Queen, in other words they will not be bought, and it is true anyone can have an opinion when it comes to Pippa. The Loudons, if the story is true, have their opinion because they know her and not because they like the photographs of the backview of a girl at a wedding.
The royal family can make friends, allow marriages,etc without ever losing the tiniest piece of class, other families not being royal can't afford to do the same.
I fully agree with you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom