Kate Middleton: Family, Wealth and Background

[Zonk]

Again we can agree to disagree.

But let's be clear, in your opinion you consider the Middletons to be social climbers. And you are certainly entitled to believe that opinion.

I am not sure if one can prove someone is a social climber. As if there were a criteria that one must fulfill in order to be considered that the Middletons are.

But we are getting off topic, we can continue this discussion Kate Middleton: Family, Wealth and Background .

[muriel]

Originally Posted by Wisteria

Kate on the other hand, and her brother and sister I presume were sent to the best schools which gave them an entrée to a higher social circle than they would normally have been able to mix with and when Kate attracted a royal beau well she was immediately able to rise very high indeed.

... or do you think it was because the girls were sent to Marlbrough as it was one of the best schools in the South West, and their parents could afford it? Most parents I know would do their best to send their children to a school like that.

Originally Posted by Wisteria

The Middleton family have never belonged to that circle and I believe they still
don´t, although her sister is making good use of the entrée her sister has given her to this elite and hard to enter group.
If the Middletons are thought of as social climbers well if they are accepted in the inner circle they have climbed that high they must feel dizzy.

Most young people tend to socialise (to start with) with people they studied or worked with. Whats wrong with the Middleton girls socialising with their peers from school and college?NOt sure that is social climbing.

[Wisteria]

Misunderstanding. By Middletons being social climbers I meant the parents, more the wife than the husband. The girls are up there now, thanks to their education and their school friends and of course Prince William.
I don´t know why the parents sent their children to Marlborough, they had enough money that is certainly an important reason, but it has also taken the next generation up a step(or actually many steps), and there is nothing wrong with that, but in my opinion wanting to have their daughter a Queen consort is aiming just a tad bit high. But these days anything can happen as we have seen in other places, but for some reason I have always felt that the BRF would not take an unequal marriage as complacently as some royal families have.

[lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by Wisteria

Misunderstanding. By Middletons being social climbers I meant the parents, more the wife than the husband. The girls are up there now, thanks to their education and their school friends and of course Prince William.
I don´t know why the parents sent their children to Marlborough, they had enough money that is certainly an important reason, but it has also taken the next generation up a step(or actually many steps), and there is nothing wrong with that, but in my opinion wanting to have their daughter a Queen consort is aiming just a tad bit high. But these days anything can happen as we have seen in other places, but for some reason I have always felt that the BRF would not take an unequal marriage as complacently as some royal families have.

I am pretty sure that the middletons never thought about Kate becoming Queen Consort before she attended St Andrews. But if my daughter was in Kate's position (dating the prince) I would certainly do anything I could to keep her their if that made her happy. Kate attended Marlborough college, because her parents could afford it and it offered what she wanted to do, if she made friends in another aristocratic circle, it had nothing to getting her to the "top"


She's a wonderful girl, i don't think she's pushy or snobby, i just don't think she is right for william.

[muriel]

Originally Posted by Wisteria

Misunderstanding. By Middletons being social climbers I meant the parents, more the wife than the husband.

How are the parents or the wife demonstrating themselves to be social climbers? They / she is a successful entrepreneur, and her wealth allows her access to all sorts of events / venues that she may not otherwise have. If that is social climbing, I am all for it. Why should she not enjoy the benefits of what she has earned?

Originally Posted by Wisteria

But these days anything can happen as we have seen in other places, but for some reason I have always felt that the BRF would not take an unequal marriage as complacently as some royal families have.

When was the last time the royal family had a not "unequal marriage"? Diana, Sarah, Sophie, Mark, Tim, Tony A-J, Philip, the QM,..... Mary of Teck?

[Lady Ann]

I disagree, Kate always looks like a respectable young woman. If she had wore a something, like lets say her mother, she would have been underdressed and showing to much skin. I honestly dont think she can win no matter what she wears .... IMO any way ..... I would have liked to seen her hair in an updo. but that is besides the point ....Happy posting

[iowabelle]

I liked Kate's dress, although it was too low-cut for me, not that she appeared to be in danger of popping out. Mom's dress was too youthful IMO and just not attractive, although she does have a good figure (and I'm jealous).

[Westminster]

You all are very kind with this woman (Carole Middleton) what you dont are with other people.

For my taste this woman with a resemblence to Angelica Huston in roles as witches looks terrible disgusting and ridiculous. Yes, she has good legs, but came nearly naked to this gala! I like Kate very much but her mother really looks like a pushy mum and social climber to me! My opinion, I don't need to discuss it. I always thought britain is the land of good taste, but such a lady as possible mother in law to a king drives me mad.

[Wisteria]

Actually we are saying almost the same thing. But, if Kate hadn´t gone to the school she went to, let us say she went to the school her mother attended, she would never have met the first circle of friends that led to the next higher up social circle. I too
don´t think she is right for William´, but then I am not sure William is right for King.
I find it interesting that you think that Kate went to Marlborough college because it offered her the chance of doing what she wants to do, as so far we have had no sign of what she wants to do except date William.

[Zonk]

All posts regarding Kate Middleton's fashion choices should be posted Kate Middleton's Fashion and Style Part 1: September 2005 - November 13, 2009 .

Thank you!

Zonk
British Forums Moderator

[Dierna23]

Good point! I get more and more under the impression that Kate could be right for William, I mean after so many years there must be something what really unites them. But I asked myself too - is William right for King?

I watched this documentary about Wills and Kate a few weeks ago and "insiders" said, that Kate was only sent to Marlborough to make lots of new social contacts and to find an adaquate guy... I don't know.

[Westminster]

However I found it great to see Kate, she is a beautiful! I really think William and she will marry some day!

[iowabelle]

Westminster, you don't think the Spencers were social climbers?? They made an industry out of sucking up to the Windsors for employment and advantages of all sorts.

[Westminster]

iowabelle. Tricky, but at least Diana's father was an Earl.

[iowabelle]

So it's okay for an earl (and a countess) to be a social climber but not the common folk?

Pardon me for sounding antagonistic, don't mean to be, but I've become rather intrigued with the idea of class lately. (I discovered this when I told someone I didn't want a Kennedy family member to succeed Senator Kennedy... despite being interested in royals, I seem to have grown a distaste for inherited privilege lately, and I just don't know how to draw the line.)

[Dierna23]

I would agree with you Iowabelle, I always had a distaste for inherited privilege (I know, inconsistent for a royal watcher). But what Westwister possible wanted to point out, is part of the silly rules of the old world, you know. People like the Middletons will be called more often parvenu, social climber or whatever names they will give it, than people with an aristocratic background. Its my supposition and how I've seen it. There are the social castes, people say that they are still very "popular" in England. As I don't live in this country I can't speak for it, but actually here in Germany they are still felt.

[iowabelle]

I was talking to one of my friends about my inconsistent philosophies. Of course, being Americans we're going to have a prejudice toward self-achievement (hence, I can applaud the Middletons for accumulating wealth, running a business, etc.) But my friend lacks my interest in royals. He blames my year-long sojourn in Canada when I was 5-6 years old. And he finds it amusing that I'm pro-royalty... so long as they live in some other country. (Sort of like the line from Fiddler on the Roof... May the Lord bless and keep the Czar.... far away from us!)

[Zonk]

I don't think you can compare the backgrounds of Sarah, Sophie and Carole Middleton with the Phillip, Queen Mother and Mary of Teck. Mary of Teck and Phillip were royal prior to their marriages.

Sarah and the Queen Mother were/are descended from members of the aristrocracy. (the QM more than Sarah).

Sophie and Carole Middleton are from the same social beginnings.

[Wisteria]

Originally Posted by Zonk

Sophie and Carole Middleton are from the same social beginnings.

Sorry Zonk but you are absolutely wrong. Sophie is a distant cousin of her husband, Sarah, Diana etc etc.
Carole is absolutely not, she is from a coal mining family, and there is no shame in that, hardworking people doing what I consider the worst and most dangerous job in the world but aristocracy and royalty - no way.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by Wisteria

Sorry Zonk but you are absolutely wrong. Sophie is a distant cousin of her husband, Sarah, Diana etc etc.
Carole is absolutely not, she is from a coal mining family, and there is no shame in that, hardworking people doing what I consider the worst and most dangerous job in the world but aristocracy and royalty - no way.

I think this depends on what you mean by social beginnings (as opposed to genealogical ones). The fact that one or another commoner marrying into the royal family descended from a king several hundred years ago is a bit irrelevant if the family itself has been in the lower middle class for the last few generations. I'm sure there are descendants of William the Conqueror and even Charles II living working-class lives at the moment, and without any of the advantages that Kate Middleton has had from her family's money. I mean, really, would people be holding back from the social-climber label if it was found that Mrs Middleton was descended from Alfred the Great or something? These royal connections are so far-distant as to be meaningless in the 21st century. In the 1970s, Diana was considered a suitable bride for Charles because (among other things) her father was an earl, not because she descended from Charles II. Sarah also descended from Charles II, and she wouldn't have been considered suitable. Camilla was solidly in the upper classes (albeit not an aristocrat), and she also wasn't considered suitable, for much the same reasons that Sarah wouldn't have been. Sophie's immediate family was also self-made and middle-class - and I believe her father gave himself that double-barrelled surname because it was more impressive, which strikes me as the sort of thing a social climber would do - and I doubt that some long-ago connection to an ancient monarch would have made any difference.