Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Kate Middleton

573 replies

WILKO9 · 27/09/2015 13:13

AIBU to find Kate Middleton really annoying ? It's probably just me but I find her so smug. Anyway feel much better for getting that off my chest !!!

OP posts:
TheIncomparableDejahThoris · 28/09/2015 07:33

Did anyone ever seriously consider that after the split, she needed to be persuaded back to him? That the split was because she couldn't imagine living the crap life being married to a royal offered (see this thread) for the rest of her life when she was a young, pretty, intelligent, educated, well connected woman who had loads of other options.

Me too. If it wasn't an act in the first place, which also seems plausible.

merrymouse · 28/09/2015 07:44

Her parents paid top dosh for the most expensive uni accommodation in the first year so that the chances of her seeing Wills on a regular basis would be greatly increased.

Or maybe, being loaded, they just paid top dosh anyway, because that is the kind of thing rich people do.

The royals are surrounded by children from rich families who don't really appear to do an awful lot. Those are just the circles in which they move.

EponasWildDaughter · 28/09/2015 08:04

Would it be such a bad thing if she did indeed want the 'job' and actively sought it out?

Better to go into that public life; with all it's life long pressures of constant media interest and scrutiny, with a degree of enthusiasm about it, surely?

merrymouse · 28/09/2015 08:09

I don't feel that she is deserving of her prominent position. I don't think she has achieved enough in life so far to be a respected public figure or a role model.

That is how the royal family works.

Mehitabel6 · 28/09/2015 08:09

A bit of a disaster if she wanted the man but not the job!

Mehitabel6 · 28/09/2015 08:10

If the followed that merrymouse the woman would be past childbearing age! She would at least be past the best age for having children!

Northernlurker · 28/09/2015 08:17

This is a depressing post. I agree with the pp who said that on every other mumsnet thread being a sahm is a valid choice. Not for Kate though Hmm

The poster who was checking my facts via the Court Circular Grin no it's not on there because it wasn't 'announced' until it had happened for security reasons.

merrymouse · 28/09/2015 08:17

I'm not saying she should have done something to deserve her position, just pointing out that to expect any of them to have done something to show that they deserve their position would seem to be a bit of a misunderstanding of royalty - why pick on her?

merrymouse · 28/09/2015 08:20

People seem to be less upset by the concept that the head of state holds the position through accident of birth than than KM has somehow got above herself.

Mehitabel6 · 28/09/2015 08:21

I was agreeing with you merrymouse - you generally have to be at least 40yrs to fit that brief.

GoodtoBetter · 28/09/2015 08:25

Am I the only one to feel slightly inadequate that KM looks so well put-together and is out and about so much with two very young children?

Do you have servants, nannies, hairdressers, flunkeys? No? So why on earth would you compare yourself to her? Of course she always looks perfect, that's her entire purpose in life, to look perfect and smile nicely.

Honestly people, she's NOT like you. Stop calling her a SAHM for God's sake, she is not an ordinary woman, she is massively rich and privileged, that's the whole point of royalty, the whole point is that they are NOT like us, that they are special and different, better. If not, then why have them? Personally, I think that is bullshit and that there is no justification for their existence, but you can't pretend they are normal and then afford them all the things others don't have.

InimitableJeeves · 28/09/2015 08:49

No, it wasn't setting the bar high but it was a different time and world then. Diana was too young to know any different, Kate wasn't.

FFS, it was the 1980s, not the 1950s, it really wasn't that different. It was entirely normal for girls to go to university and/or go into careers; Diana's contemporaries and friends were certainly doing so.

Bakeoffcake · 28/09/2015 08:55

"She's barely ever seen out with the children"

You mean we haven't seen her out with the DC- that's because there is an agreement with the press not to publish photos of her out with the DC when not on official duties.

She's often out and about with her DC. (Or was before she had her second baby).

merrymouse · 28/09/2015 08:55

If it were necessary to get a more prestigious degree than history of art at St. Andrews to be a royal the rest of them would be out of a job.

With all of those stately homes and art collections to maintain it's actually quite relevant.

DisappointedOne · 28/09/2015 09:01

Pre wedding, the Middleton's business was valued at around £8m. Post wedding, £30m. So £250k on private education seems to have paid off. Wink

annielouise · 28/09/2015 09:21

No, Inimitablejeeves, for someone of Diana's background and educational abilities (a couple of O levels at the most) going to university wasn't normal. Which friends of hers went? Apart from that, in the late 1970s and early 1980s only about 1 in 7 went to university, so it wasn't "normal", probably more boys went than girls too.

She would would have been expected to make a good marriage and that was all. Times have changed. It's far more normal to go in recent years, even if you don't need to (e.g. Beatrice and Eugenie) whereas it probably wasn't normal for society women of Diana's era.

pinkfrocks · 28/09/2015 09:38

annie- that's not entirely true. I was a sec school teacher in the late 70s and many, many girls went to uni, as well as before that! We are talking just over 30 years ago- not 300 years. The overall increase in students is across both sexes. Diana was simply not academic.

All this talk about K having to somehow 'justify' her position is odd.

Thinking back, no one questioned the background in terms of 'success' of any royal spouse. The Duke of Ed. was in the Navy but he gave that up quite quickly. The wives of Andrew and Edward did have careers (Sophie more than Sarah) and had to give them up due to conflict of interest.

Kate has no obligation to do anything except produce an heir and spare. If Royals do charity work, all well and good, but they are not compelled to.

The problem with the Royal family is that whatever they do, some people will have a problem with it. If K worked, she'd be accused of using her royal connections. She's also be accused of neglecting her children (as the Queen was, for spending too much time away from them)

As far as I can see, K is trying to live a normal life as a SAHM with 2 children under 3 years old. She has every right to do this and if she wants to connect herself to charities, that's a bonus- not an obligation.

The spite and jealousy on this thread is shocking. I wonder how many of the people posting are high achievers and have done anything really special or worthwhile with their lives?

annielouise · 28/09/2015 09:47

I'm not saying people didn't go but only 15% of the population went anyway. And (as said twice before) someone of Diana's background and academic abilities was never going to go.

Completely disagree with comments that the royal family don't need to earn their keep, or at least be seen to. It's the very reason she doesn't seem to that has resulted in so many thinking she's lazy and a grifter.

eddiemairswife · 28/09/2015 09:53

Carole would not have been able to plan a royal wedding until Kate was 6 months old.

Cerseirys · 28/09/2015 10:00

And (as said twice before) someone of Diana's background and academic abilities was never going to go.

That's true, it does seem that back then the more privileged a woman was, the less likely she was to go to university. Probably because marrying well was all that was expected of her.

TheIncomparableDejahThoris · 28/09/2015 10:01

Completely disagree with comments that the royal family don't need to earn their keep, or at least be seen to. It's the very reason she doesn't seem to that has resulted in so many thinking she's lazy and a grifter.

I think it's more complex than that. There are an inordinate number of threads of AIBU castigating the female half of the Cambridges each year, but a surprising few about Prince Andrew!

Have a look at his royal engagements each year! Note hhe doesn't currently have two very young children.

riverwalk · 28/09/2015 10:07

Kate has no obligation to do anything except produce an heir and spare. If Royals do charity work, all well and good, but they are not compelled to.
What is expected of them then. Just to sit back and be lavished with immense money and privilege? Of course things are expected of them, and the fact she's had two children shouldn't be used as an excuse to shirk her extremely unstrenuous duties. The idea of her only being good for her ability to produce a heir and spare is preposterous and insulting to women, and only demonstrates everything that is wrong with the royal family.

katemiddletonsothermum · 28/09/2015 10:08

I've actually met Prince Andrew in real life. He's an absolute idiot.

annielouise · 28/09/2015 10:09

Prince Andrew has rightly been bashed in the press over the years. He's not of as much interest any more as he's not in direct line to the throne while the Cambridges are.

All those saying she has no obligation to do anything and any work she does is a bonus. How on earth can you think that. They're the royal family - they're someone the public are "supposed" to look up to. It could be said they're largely there as the public allows them to be so why shouldn't we have expectations of them? What happened to royal "duty"? The queen has it. The Duke of Edinburgh has it (at least he works). When are the Cambridges going to get it. Maybe not William so much as he does his flying but Kate? I hope she's planning on picking it up when the queen goes as it'll be more obvious then. She's such a damp squib though. She has failed to garner the respect of so many, and yes I strongly believe they need to to justify them staying. Once Prince Charles is not paying for them, which presumably when William becomes prince of Wales, then they'll have to. I just think it unfortunate she's not setting the ground now. There's so much she could do. I just can't respect her while I could see Diana's worth.

Swipe left for the next trending thread