To think the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge need to work on their PR strategy?

[SamanthaBrique]

In recent months they've been accused of being work shy and what's their solution? To release photos of them and the children on a luxury skiing break! Now I don't begrudge them a holiday, but why make it so public? If they wanted to release photos of the kids then they could've just released a few shots of George and Charlotte at Kensington Palace or Anmer Hall. I don't know who is advising them on their PR but AIBU to think they need to engage someone a bit more in touch with public sentiment?

Hardly strenuous? When you are wealthy and happy and busy with a young family, it doesn't take something strenuous to seem like a burden. I would consider it very strenuous indeed to have security, media attention, to be expected to always look ultra-presentable and not to be able to live the way I wanted to live. Who cares if it's strenuous. The point is that it wasn't chosen.

Marched of to India to a long list of boring events and fawning strangers.

By all means, hate the royalty but be fair. Presumably you got to choose your life? You don't live in a goldfish bowl. Look at your hair, your nails, your social diary, the choices you've made about childcare. Chances are you were free to make those choices, or you made them because of financial constraints. Now imagine being free of any financial constraints but still having huge amounts of pressure about your appearance, your day to day freedom, the childcare choices you make. And there being a sizeable chunk of the country who hate you simply for existing, while a sizeable chunk of the country would hate you if you tried to walk away. I'm not suggesting you get your violin out, just don't write off the enormous constraints they're living under as 'not strenuous'. What's the point of living to please people who will hate you anyway? Why do we berate William for appearing a bit negative about publicity and the public, and for not caring enough about trying to please us, when we dislike everything he stands for - why should he care so very much? I think he cares enough but there are many people who would never be convinced of that, no matter if they worked so hard that they saw their children as little as the queen saw her children when they were small.

I don't know that it's strenuous so much as endless. I think we should reserve judgement until their children are older.

They know they're on to a good thing, they don't have to do it, they certainly don't do it for any loyalty to the country. I'm certain the Cambridges resent many of their duties which they are more than well rewarded for. Imo, the lot of them are an unnessesary burden on the country.

inis what is it that you think their reward is?

Of course they get vast rewards. Wouldn't you take them? I would.

I honestly don't know what these rewards are you're talking about.

Thinking of the Cambridges this is. Their home is/was privately owned by his Grandmother. Nothing to do with state money. William inherited millions from his mother so has is own, private wealth.

What is it you think the state is giving them?

Kensington Palace they allowed to live in for free, when they fancy. But it's not theirs. It belongs to the state.

The PoW pays for the stuff they have to have to do their royalty jobs. The office staff, the transport, her work clothes.

They don't get paid cash to squirrel away, you know.

If they gave up their royalty what privileges do you think they'd be missing?

The use of a flat in Kensington Palace. Not really a very big deal.

In light of the life of incredible privilege they would live with their money, I can't really see what the rewards are either. When Kate and William weren't together for a few months, the photographs of Kate falling out of clubs etc. suggested that she would have chosen a more contemporary way of life, were it not for the royalty thing. I can't think of anything that could make this worth it.

I honestly don't know what these rewards are you're talking about. Thinking of the Cambridges this is. Their home is/was privately owned by his Grandmother. Nothing to do with state money. William inherited millions from his mother so has is own, private wealth.

His mother got most of her money in the divorce settlement from Charles, who got it from places like the Duchy of Cornwall, which includes all sorts of things including income from landholdings and the proceeds of all the estates in Cornwall where people have died intestate. That's private money all right.

What is it you think the state is giving them? Masses of land, substantial tax breaks over a couple of centuries, and allowing them to offset costs of staff not just for things like official banquets and organising official visits, but also valets and maids and the like. Letting them off council tax for private residences. Private use of state assets. I could go on.

Kensington Palace they allowed to live in for free, when they fancy. But it's not theirs. It belongs to the state.

Why can't I live in it then? It would be convenient for my work and save me a lot of commute, and obviously I couldn't pay rent on something like that out of a lecturer's salary. Let's be honest, they belong to the state but they are treated as private assets.

The PoW pays for the stuff they have to have to do their royalty jobs. The office staff, the transport, her work clothes.

These are offset by various things and there are also grants for clothes and so on.

They don't get paid cash to squirrel away, you know.

Riiiiiiiiight, depends how you see it. They have managed to accrue significant private assets through not having to pay much tax, and also being able to leverage these state assets for private gain when they need to.

If they gave up their royalty what privileges do you think they'd be missing?

If they were relying on a couple of middle class graduate salaries I don't think they would have substantial homes in Kensington and Norfolk, whizz off to fancy private hospitals for all their routine healthcare needs, have monthly holidays, pop over to New Zealand for free wining and dining and to be showered with presents because it's on one of their bucket lists, and never have to worry about getting a restaurant table or theatre tickets, queuing during days out with the family and arguing with people in shops over refunds. Again, I could go on.

The use of a flat in Kensington Palace. Not really a very big deal.

Having actually lived in a stately home for a long period of time you would be absolutely amazed at the leverage that brings to personal and business negotiations. It's like an attention magnet and people assume all sorts of things about you, many of them favourable, and doors open to privilege that you never would have expected. Don't knock it. The Royal family manages to multiply that leverage and influence by very many factors and, despite having to be circumspect in public, they live a charmed life, and in the main they know it. Don't kid yourself otherwise.

I think he cares enough but there are many people who would never be convinced of that, no matter if they worked so hard that they saw their children as little as the queen saw her children when they were small.

She moved to Malta for a few years with her husband when he was a naval officer to live as a private citizen, as it was felt Malta did not have a suitable environment for children. She left the kids with her mother and spent the time doing the rounds of coffee mornings and the hairdresser, etc. whilst living in considerable comfort out there and certainly not as the rest of the naval officers' wives. It is not a choice I can see anyone in my family making (and there are naval officers there) and not something I would personally see as self-sacrifice.

Any new mum focuses on their family and their children as much as they can, FFS. If there was a time in my life when I'd be least interested in my 'royal role' (and the public haven't paid for Kate's upbringing and she'd still be rich without them BTW), this would be that time. If it's a toss-up between pleasing the public and being there for my children (and stuff the nanny, I've had help in the home and still been completely hands on, there's always lots to do), I'd be there with my children with bells on. My children have spent the entire winter going from ailment to ailment. If I'd been away for them for the morning and thought they needed cuddling, I would have happily left my husband to dole out medals. He's the one who is going to be king, after all.

I can't imagine a situation where I would NOT have doled out the Shamrocks on such an occasion, as I would have appreciated how disappointed the troops would be. I would just have gone out and back as quickly as possible.

You're very bitter, boffinmum. You're also misguided. These are not people who would be just like you and me were it not for the royalty thing. They would always have been very wealthy, regardless of royalty, on both sides. Going to New Zealand would always have been possible, and possible in a much nicer way than as a member of royalty. Presumably you would not choose their way of life? Hardly anyone would. Yet they are supposed to be grateful for it? As for substantial homes...many, many people come from wealthy families who have been wealthy for generations. They will be able to enjoy a quality of life that they did not 'earn'. It's unfair. It's also the way the world works. Personally disliking individuals on this basis says much more about you than about them. As for living in state-owned property - how much do you think the state would be obliged to pay in security if the royal family were scattered all over London? As with many of the 'choices' you are sneering at, these are unlikely to be decisions that have been made in a vacuum, on the basis of a whim. But I suspect you wouldn't feel satisfied until the royal family were living next door to you.

As for sniping because the queen lived in more comfort than the average naval officer's wife...good heavens. Of course she didn't, and it's very unlikely to be her fault that she didn't. You also have no idea how she felt about leaving her children at home. Not something you would personally see as self-sacrifice? I think most parents would - what's wrong with you? You seem to understand very little about what it might be like to live under completely different pressures to the ones you know.

I can't imagine a situation where I would NOT have doled out the Shamrocks on such an occasion

Are you one of these women who don't care how much the children cry when you're at a work function because you 'have' to be there? If you are, that's your choice. But I'm not one of those women, and no other mother should be judged for not being one of those women. Each to their own and all that. Absolutely nobody deserves Kate's presence more than her children. She didn't sell her soul when she married her husband. It may just be one afternoon of shamrocks to the critical bystander, but she is probably aware that those days mount up quickly and the 'disappointment' may linger in her children's minds for much longer than any soldier would care. And they got her husband. They weren't exactly short-changed.

Of course she did

Are you one of these women who don't care how much the children cry when you're at a work function because you 'have' to be there? If you are, that's your choice. But I'm not one of those women, and no other mother should be judged for not being one of those women. Each to their own and all that.

She says...whilst judging other women

inis what is it that you think their reward is?
Are you actually saying they don't get rewarded?? [shocked]

loving the sentimental guff about kate and her children. What was her reason for doing naff all before she'd had them? Indeed, before she'd even got married?
they are both extremely inadequate people who would sink without trace if required to rely on their own efforts. Intelligent people rightly regard them with contempt. I totally see that the constitutional upheaval of doing away with the monarchy isn't worth the effort but can't we just focus on the monarch and lose these parasitic hangers-on?

Boffinmum is spot on!

---Actually - I don't know who is spot on. I can't work out which are the quotes?

Whoever said this below is spot on - I agree completely: -

"Any new mum focuses on their family and their children as much as they can, FFS. If there was a time in my life when I'd be least interested in my 'royal role' (and the public haven't paid for Kate's upbringing and she'd still be rich without them BTW), this would be that time. If it's a toss-up between pleasing the public and being there for my children (and stuff the nanny, I've had help in the home and still been completely hands on, there's always lots to do), I'd be there with my children with bells on. My children have spent the entire winter going from ailment to ailment. If I'd been away for them for the morning and thought they needed cuddling, I would have happily left my husband to dole out medals. He's the one who is going to be king, after all."

Intelligent people rightly regard them with contempt.

Actually intelligent people don't think about them very much at all.

I often think on these threads that people have no idea how the truly wealthy live (and both Cambridge's are truly wealthy independent of their royal status). the kind of lifestyle people presume comes because of their royal status (designer clothes/cars/ household staff/holidays/beyond first-class travel/not needing to work/polo/large country houses/central london apartment etc) are all things that the many many wealthy - old and new wealth- enjoy without having the daily mail and its like tracking their every move.

I'm intrigued by this assertion that William's would be wealthy independently of his royal status. What assets has he amassed independently of his family? is he running some hedge fund we don't know about?

All my three kids up to the age of five went through ailment upon ailment, so even if they'd had nanny help I wouldn't have had much spare time. I wanted to be with my kids. You see there is an assumption that Kate (and William) would prefer to leave the nanny helpers to it, and go off and do other things and I just don't believe it. With or without money parents are parents and are there for their kids.

Intelligent people rightly regard them with contempt.

Self-important middlingly intelligent people perhaps.

karlos

William inherited money from his mother.

Also, the royal family are not rich purely because they are royal. They are rich and have been rich for many generations just like many others in that class. By all means, detest the system, but don't pretend that this family would be living in Milton Keynes were it not for the crown.

The royal family are most certainly rich because they are royal, and they have been rich for many generations because of that too.

He inherited £10 million from his mother. That's not that wealthy these days. It's certainly extremely comfortable, but not super rich. He couldn't buy the houses he lives in with that at the market rate, let alone have enough money never to work again.

The £10 million he inherited from his mother is irrelevant, that's just left in the bank gaining interest. Prince Charles funds William, Harry and Kate out of his huge income of the duchy of Cornwall. All comes off us one way or another.