The Royal Family #27

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
The thing with having Nannies is while they’re incredibly lucky to have them, what about if they want to bring their kids up themselves…? If they’re at engagements every single day they can’t.

I agree they could do more engagements, and I’m sure that now Louis is in school, and the Queen has passed away, they will, but Kate’s big thing is how important the years of being under 5 are and I get the impression she wanted to be really present for her kids. I can’t knock her for that. She’s in a position where she can be which is very luck for her.
Well why are we paying for her to have a nanny then? Also, if her ' big thing' is the importance of early years, how is saying that she can only be a good parent by being a stay at home mum for 5 years help parents? Who can afford to do that until their youngest child is 5? Is that who her programme is targeted at, people with rich husbands? ( although her husband thinks he needs to work part time too!) Early years is about suitable, affordable childcare and early years education. Both things that are highly political, dependent on funding from government and family income. Its clearly something that some courtier has told her to do as a response to the 'lazy' accusations and she knows little about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 15
Do they? I just think they are as hands on as they can be, doing the best they can. After all, they aren't bringing up 'ordinary' kids, are they.
No indeed but I wish they would stop trying to pretend they are.

Well why are we paying for her to have a nanny then? Also, if her ' big thing' is the importance of early years, how is saying that she can only be a good parent by being a stay at home mum for 5 years help parents? Who can afford to do that until their youngest child is 5? Is that who her programme is targeted at, people with rich husbands? ( although her husband thinks he needs to work part time too!) Early years is about suitable, affordable childcare and early years education. Both things that are highly political, dependent on funding from government and family income. Its clearly something that some courtier has told her to do as a response to the 'lazy' accusations and she knows little about.
Yes they don't have a clue about struggling to afford childcare or having to hold down a job and juggle child care .Its insulting!

Well why are we paying for her to have a nanny then? Also, if her ' big thing' is the importance of early years, how is saying that she can only be a good parent by being a stay at home mum for 5 years help parents? Who can afford to do that until their youngest child is 5? Is that who her programme is targeted at, people with rich husbands? ( although her husband thinks he needs to work part time too!) Early years is about suitable, affordable childcare and early years education. Both things that are highly political, dependent on funding from government and family income. Its clearly something that some courtier has told her to do as a response to the 'lazy' accusations and she knows little about.
I think it is a PR move as well but we are not as stupid as they think we can see through it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 11
Well why are we paying for her to have a nanny then? Also, if her ' big thing' is the importance of early years, how is saying that she can only be a good parent by being a stay at home mum for 5 years help parents? Who can afford to do that until their youngest child is 5? Is that who her programme is targeted at, people with rich husbands? ( although her husband thinks he needs to work part time too!) Early years is about suitable, affordable childcare and early years education. Both things that are highly political, dependent on funding from government and family income. Its clearly something that some courtier has told her to do as a response to the 'lazy' accusations and she knows little about.
But she wasn't exactly a normal stay at home mum either. She did some royal work. Obviously not enough in the view of most here.

If a family can afford it I don't begrudge them having a nanny either. Even if the parents don't both work 40 hour weeks. (Granted, they can afford a nanny for reasons which annoy people here 😅). I wish all parents had the option of childcare support.

I think we will see whether Kate's work with the early years foundation has any fruit in the next few years. I hope we do anyway!

No indeed but I wish they would stop trying to pretend they are.
I'm surprised you've got the impression they are pretending to be normal parents? They've always seemed quite aware about how lucky they are. I suppose we all read things differently!

On a more fun topic (sparkles!) It turns out Charlotte's little brooch was once the Queen Mother's:

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 6
It’s not a case of begrudging anything … it’s a case of don’t have a PR campaign of cracking on for 2 years based on how normal you are when you know and we know you are anything but. You, apparently, have a divine right to be where you are so don’t pretend you need to wait on a train station for Granny’s train to appear. Have a nanny (or several) but don’t pretend you have to be at the school gates or no one else will be.

Same as Mike and Zara, who always seem to be touted as the most ‘down to earth’ when in reality they live in a house on her mum’s estate, own and train horses worth megabucks, have sponsorship deals with top name brands, he has had a position as a brand ambassador for an online betting company and was publically bemoaning how the pandemic might affect payment of school fees (because grand daughters of the Princess Royal are absolutely bound for the local Grange Hill). If that’s down to earth, most of the rest of us are subterranean.

Basically, don’t wee down my back and tell me it’s raining.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 13
But she wasn't exactly a normal stay at home mum either. She did some royal work. Obviously not enough in the view of most here.

If a family can afford it I don't begrudge them having a nanny either. Even if the parents don't both work 40 hour weeks. (Granted, they can afford a nanny for reasons which annoy people here 😅). I wish all parents had the option of childcare support.

I think we will see whether Kate's work with the early years foundation has any fruit in the next few years. I hope we do anyway!


I'm surprised you've got the impression they are pretending to be normal parents? They've always seemed quite aware about how lucky they are. I suppose we all read things differently!

On a more fun topic (sparkles!) It turns out Charlotte's little brooch was once the Queen Mother's:

I thought wearing a horseshoe upside down (like the Queen Mother did and the art afterwards) was unlucky?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2
I thought wearing a horseshoe upside down (like the Queen Mother did and the art afterwards) was unlucky?
Yes me too! The IG post discusses this a bit, apparently some people think it's lucky upside too? Weird.

@Boring Monday I completely understand where you and the others are coming from, and your annoyances.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.