To think there is nothing wrong with Carole Middleton's background

[arabesque]

There was a pretty sneery article in the Sunday Times last Sunday by Camilla Long, which seemed to be very critical of the fact that Carole Middleton's parents and grandparents were working class people who made their living in shops and factories. There was also some comment on the lines of 'oh yeah, well William might find TV suppers and family games a novelty now but I'm sure he'll soon get sick of it'.
AIBU to think 'fair play' to her for building up a business from nothing and giving her kids advantages she and her parents could never have dreamed of? From what I can see Kate has a far more stable and supportive family than Princess Di ever had (bitter divorce, very public custody dispute, no decent advice when she was just 19 years old and about to make an enormous mistake with her life etc.) Yet a lot of people seem to think there's something preferable about a fragmented and dysfunctional family because they're upper class; while a middle/working class background with a strong work ethic is just not suitable for the future queen.

Apparently she's 34. How sad to be so cynical, bitter and world weary so young.

Maybe she is jealous- Carole Middleton will go down in history books and Camilla Long has no place.

jealous or it may be her nose is out of joint because of this

I think the Meet the Fockers comments was funny.
I like Camilla,she seems like a right laugh, and her son seems like a nice chap.
Of course they could all be cannibals in real life, who even knows?!

just ploughed through it. it's a very boring article. nothing that hasn't been said before, she's just said it all at once in one relentlessly snide and boring article. Usually bitching is more interesting.

Can you imagine what they went through when those Australian Djs phoned the hospital and that nurse killed herself leaving 2 kids behind??

Or when she was hospitalised with morning sickness and had to announce the pg before she was ready

And when those photographers totally invaded Kate's privacy and put the topless photos in the press??

Kate so obviously relies on her mum and their family home as a nurturing, well needed bolt hole - and her mum is probably praying for a safe delivery but dreading the birth and the invasion of her daughters privacy at such a previous time - her first grandchild is practically public property.... That's quite a lot if pressure for any family and they are handling it with dignity and, often, a smile ....

Just think - Kate could be a mumsnetter soon - posting during a 4 am feed .... -waves to the duchess

Camilla Who????? Pull your head in you trout

Hth

"Carole Middleton will go down in history books "
WTF kind of "history" books do you read???

Any history books! You can look up the family of any spouse, or mother, of a monarch.

Are future historians expected to see the wife of a future king as a foundling? What an odd idea.

I opened my nearest history book, opened it at random and found Henry III's wife's parents in 1236, if I bothered I could find the rest so I can't see why Carole Middleton would be the exception!

I hate to break it to you, but the monarchy had rather more influence on the governance of the nation in 1236 than it has today. The notion that anyone in 100 years' time will be interested in Carole Middleton - other than, possibly, writers of Mills and boon novels, assuming they still exist - strikes me as fanciful at best.

YANBU. I thought the article was outrageous.

Ahhh, well, the tone of it did get quite a bit nastier on pages 2&3 didn't it? Even then, MS Long managed to take quite a few potshots at the upper crust too. We don't know that Carole Middleton advised her daughters to 'marry well'. Certainly I would advise mine against marrying any royal in the unlikely event they were to face such a dilemma. Was Carole's dad Jewish? Now that would make the likes of Camilla Long sneer with derision and decide to do a 'hatchet' job. No one can help the family they are born to, including the aristocracy and the royals, and we don't know that Carole herself schemed to marry up - she was a flight attendant and he was a flight controller - seems perfectly natural that they would have bumped into each other. This article does leave the impression that Ms Long does have rather a large chip on her shoulder and is trying to ingratiate herself with whom she considers her 'social betters' by running others whom they might look at askance at down.

Quite nasty to be doing that right before the birth but hopefully they can just laugh it off. I have a feeling Ms Long will regret writing that article and it won't endear her to the people she's trying to impress.

Hamishbear: You're right in terms of not fully accepting the person as one of them but that's because they aren't one of them, and so long as the person doesn't have any pretensions of being one of them, it's not really minded. It's not that easy to get into Marlborough without some connections, even if you have the money, so I don't think they were completely arriviste anyway...

Only time will tell Karlos- the Queen has dominated the second half of the 20th century- she can't be ignored by historians, in the way that you can't ignore Elizabeth I and Victoria- she has been the constant as PMs and governments have come and gone- she will be in history books, as will a commoner marrying into the royal family and their names. If it were to be the end of the monarchy there would be even more reason to have Carole Middleton mentioned. I can't see why a monarch's wife nearly 800 years ago has any significance and most people couldn't even tell you her name- yet she is in history books. Mills and Boon could make a story of her, as could serious historical novelists - I dare say both will be using Carole Middleton in the future.

And Henry III's wife had no influence on the governance of the nation in 1236- women were only marriage pawns.

Her name may well end up in history books if they print family trees, but so what? Her achievements won't be mentioned.

I didn't say that her achievements would be mentioned- I specifically said her name would be in history books- it will. Camilla Long's name will not. I can't see what is wrong with my statement. If historians are talking about changes in the monarchy, which they will, the Middleton's name will be there. Unless Camilla Long commits a notorious crime or becomes something quite outstanding her name will not be in a history book- even if she were to become an outstanding journalist she won't rate a mention.

Yes, I do see what you mean. I guess what I'm not seeing is why anyone would care about being named in a book just because their daughter married a royal. Unless that person were very pushy and a keen social mountaineer, of course...

Yanbu, agree CL can be unnecessarily sneery... Not a royal watcher, but get the feeling that the Middletons have been a real refuge of warmth and humanity for William, this must have been an incentive to hook up with Kate, not the opposite.

You see, I think taking sneery potshots at a despotic psychopath like Roman Kadyrov is a public service, it really is. But somehow, the fact that she can do that just highlights how odd and pointless it is for her to bother giving Carole Middleton the same treatment.

Totally agree Eldritch, it seemed utterly excessive and pointless.

Hamishbear: You're right in terms of not fully accepting the person as one of them but that's because they aren't one of them, and so long as the person doesn't have any pretensions of being one of them

Yes , lick your knife your knife occasionally, tug your forelock, don't expect to marry thrir daughters and they will tolerate you.

Can I just take completely irrelevant and pedantic issue with the view that women were just marriage pawns in the Middle Ages?

The wife of Henry III (since her name came up) acted as regent in his absence and raised troops against Simon Montfort, so presumably she had some political significance. Other queens ruled large areas in their own right and waged war for (or against) their husbands. Without Eleanor of Aquitaine, King John would have struggled even more than he did- and Henry II would have had a quieter life. Acting as regent on the absence or death of the king was a normal role for the queen to fill. They weren't all fluffy headed little things that sat on cushions and embroidered silk whimples- at least not all the time.

Some of them would have made fine Mumsnetters