XeniaCasaraghi
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- May 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,761
- City
- Texas
- Country
- United States
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.