The Family and Background of the Duchess of Cambridge, the Middletons 1, Until 2022

[HRHHermione]

...P.S. I notice two personal attacks here directed at me.

Disagreeing with you and criticizing your opinions and perspectives does not fall into the realm of personal attacks. No one's calling you names, or insulting you personally, just saying that you're making some pretty gigantic leaps in logic to reach the conclusion you've reached.

The Middletons are a very, very small part of a very big economic system. Of course this type of labor is exploitative, but they didn't create the system nor do they have a whole lot of power to change it. The vast majority of cheap goods in the world are produced by underpaid laborers. It would have made a lot more sense for the Daily Mail to have gone after the companies big enough to influence the supply chain- Tesco. Walmart. (Which I believe goes by another name in the U.K.?) Companies like that actually wield a lot of buying power and that can influence suppliers. The Middletons' business? Small potatoes compared to all of those guys. The only reason they were singled out is because stories about them get more attention and because the Daily Mail enjoys writing hit pieces on them.

 

[Frelinghighness]

Pressure and this kind of bad publicity helps reduce sweatshop labor. The Middletons can find another supplier, or pressure the one they have.

 

[Lumutqueen]

The DM don't care about those workers, they care about slandering the Middletons and getting hits and comments.

Exactly what's new in that? What's the point of pointing so many obvious things out? This is a thread about the Middleton Family, not I hate the Daily Mail. They are an organisation out to MAKE money. Just like the Middletons. If the Middletons want to keep using cheap labour to make a profit, and that's morally okay with them, then they can go right ahead.

Should the DMs reporting be the real issue here?

 

[HRHHermione]

Those of you who are criticizing the Middletons for using this supplier- where do you guys suggest they purchase ethically sourced pinatas? I've done a few quick searches and haven't found a single supplier that makes this type of product that pays their workers a living wage.

Should they just give up their business altogether? What should they do to handle this global problem?

 

[cepe]

THe issue they are reporting needs to be out there - but they chose to target a small, family owned firm with very little economic/financial influence. They could have targeted people with real influence - Tesco, Walmart of Amscan, but they didn't.

They turned the story into a hit on the Middletons and also Catherine. I think that was wrong. And they showed their limitations as a serious newspaper in the position they took.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Excuse me but don't we all have a hand in cheap labor? Are clothes are gadgets are mostly made in China and Taiwan by people who are not getting paid a respectful wage. So if I have a problem with the Mids taking a trip to Mustique you should probably stop buying anything that says "made in Taiwan" in small print.

 

[NGalitzine]

If we all went to our closets and checked to see where the clothes were made, or looked in the grocery stores to see where food was grown, or checked our electronic or automotive purchases to see where all the pieces were manufactured I believe we would see that we in the west all benefit from cheap labour in foreign nations. We would not be able to afford the lifestyles we enjoy if the workers who make so many of the products we enjoy were paid the same wages we expect for ourselves.

 

[cinrit]

...Should the DMs reporting be the real issue here?

I thought this was a discussion about the Daily Mail's article being unfair. The Middletons just happen to be the people it's unfair to. The difference between the DM making money, and the Middletons making money, is that the DM sometimes deliberately hurts people to make theirs. Case in point, this article.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

The question is not illegality it is immorality.
...[It is about people] who take the profits generated from such an immoral system and go on a vacation which costs more than the average salary. As well as the future King of a country whose citizens could benefit from more manufacturing and industry on its shores.

The Middletons are benefiting from an immoral system. Now, are most if not all companies in the sales chain benefiting? Oh, absolutely. Do 1,000 wrongs make a right? Nop

 

[GracieGiraffe]

The future King and Queen of England have a moral duty to decline to benefit from such. JMHO, of course. But I wonder what Will's future subjects feel his duty to his people is?

 

[cepe]

where is he benefiting - you still haven't answered this question.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

where is he benefiting - you still haven't answered this question.

I have answered it. The trip to Mustique is a prime example. And all of the other vacations as well.

 

[HRHHermione]

What's he supposed to do? Decline to spend any time with his in laws? Not go to their home, or vacation with them? (Also- you're making the assumption that the Middleton family paid for the entire trip and that William didn't contribute)

All of this to protest the fact that a supplier they use, whose practices they have no control over, engages in unethical labor practices? That's ridiculous.

Also, like I said before: what alternatives do you suggest for them? I did a quick check and I didn't find a supplier of these types of goods who DOESN'T use this kind of labor. Do you want them to shut down their business?

 

[NGalitzine]

The Middletons are benefiting from an immoral system. .

The system may be "immoral" but it is one we all benefit from and participate in. We want to buy products as cheaply as possible and will search to find the cheapest price, we do not worry about where the product was made or under what conditions. Very few people are willing to pay a higher price for the sake of "morality", their pocket book over rules such sensibilities. If we wanted to make a statement about such things we would organize boycotts but we don't. We use migrant workers and illegal aliens to harvest our crops, clean toilets and be nannies to our children and any other job we would rather not do ourselves.

People may talk about moral outrage but at the end of the day we want our goods and services at the lowest possible price and then we take the money we have left to buy a second or third car or a tv for the bedroom or bathroom or an expensive vacation or any other luxury we fancy.
.

 

[HRHHermione]

I have answered it. The trip to Mustique is a prime example. And all of the other vacations as well.

As I've pointed out- you have no idea who is paying for the vacations. William and Catherine may very well be paying their own way on these trips. You're speculating and treating it as fact.

 

[AfricanAUSSIE]

...I expect they want to keep up with the Royals, who themselves are people who have accrued wealth and position by hurting and certainly killing others, including their own relatives!
.

 

[HRHHermione]

The Middletons do not employ these people and they don't make any of the decisions related to the labor practices being described here. They purchase their goods from a wholesaler and then mark them up and resell them to the public. They're retailers- and not very big retailers! They're not a Walmart or a Tesco, who wield intense buying power and can influence suppliers. They're a smaller, family owned firm that buys goods from wholesalers and resells them- and we have no idea what markup they make.

 

[Duchess of Durham]

Is this thread about Catherine's family or the immorality of cheap labor?

 

[Warren]

Members who wish to discuss wage rates in the Third World, international trade, slave labour, the price of frozen foods, the minimum wage in the United States, the cost of components in iPhones, colonial practices in the 19th century, comparison of German education levels to those in Britain, the evils of capitalism, the status of Mexico and the value of the peso, sweatshops, free trade, flat screen TVs, etc etc, may do so in Members' Corner or in a website devoted to trade, finance and economics.

thanks.

Warren
British Forums moderatror

 

[hkittybaby]

Duchess of Cambridge's brother James Middleton helped by family as cake business goes £17,000 into the red - Telegraph

 

[Warren]

Duchess of Cambridge's brother James Middleton helped by family as cake business goes £17,000 into the red - Telegraph

The headline is somewhat misleading as it doesn't refer to what most readers would think it refers to. He has two companies, Nice Group London Ltd (trading as Nice Cakes, still in start-up stage and not yet operational) and The Cake Kit Company, which has been operating for 5-6 years. It is the start-up company that has incurred a loss in its first year.

excerpts from the Telegraph link
Accounts filed at Companies House show that Nice Group London Ltd, set up in 2011, had losses of £16,858 at the end of April 2012. The balance sheet for Nice Group, signed by Mr Middleton, the company’s sole shareholder, states that: “The bank overdraft is secured by a member of the director’s family.”

Mr Middleton told The Daily Telegraph that the firm was still "in the early stages of development. Nice Group is a start-up company and as you can imagine there are overheads needed to start a company. I made the decision to finance the business myself along with a loan rather than go to investors. This has its pros and cons, it does mean things don’t move as quickly as I would like but it does mean I keep complete ownership and control over my company. It is not uncommon for start-up companies to make a loss in the early stages of development and it is not something I am concerned about right now. On the contrary I am very excited as after running a pilot over 2012, Nice Cakes will be officially launching later this year."

He also runs another business, The Cake Kit Company, which has won several awards since it was launced in 2007 and also needed a bank loan before it went into profit.

 

[EIIR]

Part of me is reluctant to post this article, but I just wanted posters to be aware that the Daily Mail's campaign against the Middletons continues. A couple of weeks ago it was an attack on Party Pieces, this time it's the turn of James Middleton:

Kate Middleton's brother: Naughty party photos, a business thousands in debt and scurrilous rumours about his sexuality: The truth behind that wild gossip, by Kate's brother | Mail Online

Yet another utterly shameful example of what the Daily Mail claims to be 'journalism'.

 

[cepe]

I'm not going to read it. But I will say that someone's sexulatity is their own business; start up companies do not always make money in their first year (mine didn't) and whoever gave any private photographs to a newspaper is a disgrace.

 

[EIIR]

I wish I hadn't read it, cepe, but I feel there are some posters here who don't want to acknowledge the campaign that the DM is clearly waging against the Middletons. Some here choose to see the Daily Mail as some sort of all-knowing barometer of British public opinion, when all it is is complete and total trash.

 

[cepe]

I despise everything about that paper - it is sanctamonious and hypocritical and has never, in my experience, had a balanced view about anything. It exists to motivated all the trolls out there.

I hope that this time they have over done it and they get sued.

 

[AfricanAUSSIE]

I don't buy the conspiracy theory. To me they are your average celebrity rag covering...celebrities. That usually means dirt is involved. Wouldn't go as far as to say they have it in for the Middletons.

They do include the best and most comprehensive selection of photographs which will secure readership. And everyone knows that sex, dirt and drama sells. The perfect combination for the masses. They are just sticking to the sales formula that works best. Morals are not of interest to them I think, just reader numbers.

 

[cepe]

I think its a cultural thing - some Brits would feel the same; don't expect others to agree.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

I think African Aussie has a point; if painting the Middletons as a family of Mother Teresas drove sales, that's what we'd see. Whatever campaign they are waging it is driven by their readership.

But the articles about James and his businesses were skewed and biased and based on half facts.

Also, while I think Kate's activities are now the business of the public, I don't think the same of the Middletons, unless their activities affect the public in some sort of way.

 

[hkittybaby]

Uncle Gary again
Kate's uncle cashes in with Hello! deal - and says he wants to help bring up her baby - Telegraph

 

[royalistbert]

It's hardly embarrassing interview.