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?

Maybe her aim in life is not to please us, ready? Don't forget, she has more or less done what William told her to do where PR is concerned and he seems to have a deep-seated desire not to please the press, having seen what being loved by the press did to his mum. Why should she have a 'strategy' to massage our opinions of her choices? Especially if, as has been nowhere more plain that during this week, the most carefully constructed strategy can be overturned in days by one pissed off newspaper? Why on earth shouldn't she bring up her children first and foremost? Bloody hell, I wouldn't spend an afternoon away from my children to please anyone, especially if they been sneering at me for years.

As for not publicising her work, why would you? My husband's family all work in the business but not all of them using their specific degree and any job title would be very artificial as they all muck in, apart from those who have the specific qualifications required for the service being offered.

I think it's unfair to claim a 'big fuss' was made about an internship and what-have-you when (a) it was the press making a big fuss, not her - she was complaining about the fuss and complaining that the fuss was making London living impossible (b) many of us had short-lived enthusiasms in our twenties and why not? Especially if you're trying to find something to kill a few years because a 'normal' life has suddenly become very, very difficult. I think you'll find that the media has become a different animal since Diana engagement day and wasn't exactly helpful to her having a normal life thereafter.

How dare you call working for your parents the easier option. It's not, right? You don't know what you're talking about.

And how unfair to say that she should have chosen something 'harder' when we all know that she did try to work for a different company, only for the papers to be deluged with pictures of her attempting to go about normal life in London and failing miserably because of course, there were photographs everywhere. And at that time she was given no security so it was one girl in her twenties against umpteen people standing in her way with cameras. Every day. I daresay she would have quite agreed with you that it working in London would have been a better option because it was her first option. So why take pot-shots now? Have you no interest in cause and effect?!

I genuinely like the Royals (apart from Prince Andrew, obviously).

But watching 'The Queen at Ninety' on ITV right now, I think it's very obvious she will be our last 'proper' monarch. Maybe she'll last another 10 years, but I don't think the establishment of the Royal Family will survive her death.

Prince George might inherit the title of King but I don't believe he'll be sitting in Buckingam Palace opening the red briefcase everyday. Maybe the Cambridges know this. They're just biding their time.

Right. We are the Royal Family's employer because we pay for them aka we pay their wages. If anyone in a normal job only worked when they felt like it then the P45 would be issued quicker than you can say "FFS Kate, turn up to bloody work and, no, the Rugby World Cup and Wimbledon don't count.'

The Queen always puts duty over family. The younger set seem to put family over duty - in fact, duty seems to be on the backburner. I've met Prjnce Andrew at an overseas High Commission do and all he did was turn up, act a bit pissed, patronise a few people and f off after 20mins.

I want my money back.

fugg I have the same feeling. When the Queen dies, all the goodwill, experience and respect goes with her. Either she will be succeeded by a cantankerous interfering 80 year old King Charles or a reluctant William. I can't see George being King in the same way at all. It will all fizzle away.

After the Stuarts, Charles just isn't a good name for a King.

gonetoseeamanaboutadog I struggle to see these qualities that you plainly do. You seem very protective of someone you don't know. ...I just wish we didn't have any royal family, the whole idea of one is ludicrous.

I feel strongly about being fair, inis. I feel strongly that we, as parents, shouldn't mercilessly pull apart someone who never applied for a job as a royal, never signed a contract, whose employment history none of us knows in sufficient detail to pull apart, and who is simply having her babies and spending time with them, as every mother should be able to.

She's not remarkable. She didn't sign up to be remarkable. Since when does mumsnet criticise women for choosing to bring up their children? Since when does mumsnet criticise women for choosing not to spend their working hours doing their husband's job, sharing his identity? She didn't ask for any of this; she simply married the man she loved and is now attempting to bring her children up in the most hands-on, normal manner that she can.

This is a free country where every woman should have a right to make her own choice about whether to work or to be at home with her children, and this is a parenting site that is primarily about parents supporting each other. I will never turn a blind eye to any parent being pulled to bits because they decided to be with their children.

Regarding the 'she should have tried to please the British public by working in the city during her twenties' comments, it's just ridiculous and requires dizzying combination of both cattiness and stupidity, since all of us are aware that she did attempt these things (though not to please us) and it must have been very, very difficult to do successfully under the circumstances. If life outside my immediate circle was turned into a circus where I was suddenly famous for nothing and couldn't have a coffee without being all over the papers, I would gladly eschew that in favour of a more constrained but 'normal' life where I could get on with things outside that fictional, claustrophobic bubble.

I do understand the 'we pay their wages' argument but the crucial point is that Kate did not sign a contract and does not have the freedom to return her wages, therefore demanding 'work' from her is a breach of her liberty and, given the age of her children, exploitative.

gonetoseeamanaboutadog - I think you are missing the point I am making about PR. Of course it matters when you are the Royal Family (knowing that a young woman nearly engaged to a future King) and trying to be relevant to and accepted by the public in a role that no longer carries automatic respect. I accept that your family members work very hard in their family business. I don't accept that it was impossible for Kate to get any other job when it has been managed easily by Diana, Chelsy Davy, Sophie Wessex (until she was rather indiscreet) and even Beatrice and Eugenie when they feel like it.

And of course Kate signed up to this life! We all fall in love with people knowing that certain choices and sacrifices are likely to be made to be with them. You might marry somebody with low earning potential knowing that you will have to earn. You might marry somebody who you have to move towns to be with. Kate married somebody who came with a job for life. She knew exactly what she was signing up for. If she and William just "fell in love" and want to go and bring up their family in the countryside they should blooming well abdicate!

Personally I think that might be the best thing anyway. I don't see the point of what is perceived to be a reluctant monarch and even more reluctant spouse that just reinforce outdated ideas of subservience and status without embodying the concept of duty and service to the country that the Queen has demonstrated. The Queen derives her status now from being that embodiment of the Crown. The Royal family can't expect respect simply by being born into or marrying into a particular family.

ON the Queens 21st birthday in 1947 she said "I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong."

Nearly 70 years later we have a couple of pansy asses who hide away from everyone and do fuck all.

If Will doesnt want the job his Grandmother did then......

When The Queen was 21, she was the heir to the throne (the heir presumptive as technically her parents could have had a son to usurp her).

William is not the heir to the throne yet. His father is and, I imagine in any family business, it must be difficult trying not to usurp your father's role and not looking like you want him out of the way.

someone who never applied for a job as a royal, never signed a contract

She willingly signed up to be the future Queen the day she married William. This is where I have slightly more sympathy for William than her - he's never had a choice and the only way he could get out of it (abdication) would cause drama. Kate actively chose to do this. Let's not pretend they have some kind of great love story, it's clearly far from that. She could have chosen an easier life, but she wanted this. Yet she can't be bothered to actually fulfil the role.

She could've led an equally idle life minus the media intrusion by marrying some other loaded posho though. Perhaps she really did fall in love with William.

Work shy?! So as well as his shifts as a rescue pilot, they both do lots of formal engagements. Showing an interest in endless charities, causes and chatting to person after person all whilst being watched constantly etc wouldn't be my idea of fun. They took a family holiday and even then they took time to pose for public photos because their lives are quite literally not their own, they are public property to all intents and purposes. I wouldn't choose it, if Kate hadn't married into the royal family she would be free to go to coffee with her friends and take the children on lovely days out, instead she takes them out so they too can be watched and judged.

So as well as his shifts as a rescue pilot, they both do lots of formal engagements.

He doesn't actually do much of either.

If she and William just "fell in love" and want to go and bring up their family in the countryside they should blooming well abdicate!
She willingly signed up to be the future Queen the day she married William.

What rot. For a start, you don't know how willing she was to be a queen by the time she'd seen the inside of the gilded cage. She didn't look overjoyed (and still doesn't) about being photographed while not at public functions. I would say that given her dislike of publicity, she quite possibly wouldn't have chosen for William to have this role - and we can't have it both ways, criticising her for being attention-seeking on one hand while sneering that she doesn't show up often enough to have her picture taken on the other.

She signed up to be a loving wife and mother, to support her husband in his role, under his guidance, and to make a difference where she could. In that order. And that is what she's doing, with her own prioritising system rather than anyone else's. No one, in this day and age, is obliged to wear their husband's identity when they marry. The reason we have moved on from that is because it was wrong and oppressive. It's disappointing to see mumsnet advocating that another woman have parenting choices etc forced upon her.

The idea that she could merrily suggest to William that they abdicate before they ride off into the sunset together is ludicrous. She doesn't have such an option, but that shouldn't mean she shouldn't have other options that are open to all women; when to be at home with her children and whether to work. Again, she didn't sign a contract with the British public as her employer and she is not at liberty to return her 'wages' to the British people, therefore it would be unethical to force her to work for us. I disagree with those who are suggesting that marrying her husband was tantamount to signing such a contract, and I also disagree, given the ages of her children, that she would now be in breach of such a contract if she had.

At the moment, Kate seemed moderately willing to do her best in her public role but far more interested in her children. I don't feel that is unacceptable and I wouldn't suggest that she shouldn't have married her husband if she wasn't prepared to work her ass off. She married him because she loved him and she's amiable about the life they're obliged to lead. To my mind, that's quite enough for a couple who are not even next in line to the throne.

Diana certainly didn't work once she was in Kate's position. No other female younger royal has comparable media attention. It would have been difficult to do a job that allowed her to move to Wales etc at the drop of a hat.

Gonetosee I don't think you can reasonably say that she "signed up to her help her husband in his role" and didn't agree to take on a public role and 'job' herself.

I am quite sure that it was spelt out very clearly that she was marrying a man and taking on a job. The RF had years to slowly integrate her into 'the Firm' and show her the job from the inside.

And I think that she did 'sign' an informal contract with the British public. Anyone marrying into that family does, especially when their spouse is in the direct line of succession.

Oh stop it. I love love love having a royal family.

Alternative - the high chance of having a narcissistic nut as a president.

I know what my choice is.

They are back on holiday on April 10. Overseas trip to India. What better way to entice freeloader Kate back into action!

With regard to the Duchess's career pre-marriage it's well known that she was forced to leave Jigsaw because her colleagues kept selling stories about her, I remember one in particular suggesting she'd made comments about Charles.

It isn't like she didn't try. Both Edward and Sophie had to give up non royal jobs for the same reason. Fake Shiekh etc.

We have no way of knowing what she did and didn't do at her Mum and Dads business - and I remember that William looked annoyed and she looked upset when this was questioned in an interview.

As to the quiet ski trip, I have no doubt this happened because William has terrible recollections of banks of cameras following his every move at a young age.

They can't do more without usurping other peoples roles. They are given roles by the Queen if she wanted them to do more, they would.

But Babylove it will be classed as gruelling work won't it.
Vintage I'd rather have a narcissistic nut who we can vote out, and at least there on his own steam. But really, why is the alternative to having a monarchy always seen in a negative way. Why couldn't a president be very good. Ireland does ok, and a lot cheaper than our monarchy too.

They can't do more without usurping other peoples roles. They are given roles by the Queen if she wanted them to do more, they would.
How do you know that, from what I've read the queen is quite exasperated by their laziness.

Inis - I had heard that they arrange 'who gets what' committee style, with the Queen and senior royals there, forget where I read it.