Royal Gossip
April 25, 2019, 01:25:32 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

Pages: 1 ... 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Kate & Meghan Relationship Thread  (Read 30743 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Miss Hathaway
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2525



« Reply #460 on: January 14, 2019, 03:03:36 pm »

I think Maria does a lot of work.  However, body language doesn't lie.  Kate seems motherly now.  She is at ease with her children and interacts with them easily and naturally.  She was photographed with Charlotte at The Nutcracker.  I thought she was very at ease with toddler George when they were in Australia.  She is equally at ease now [more noticeably than 2011/2012] with children she greets in public, and they seem comfortable with her.  Contrast that with Megs who hasn't a clue how to deal with kids. Harry has to push them up under her nose for them to hug her.
Logged
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 11194


« Reply #461 on: January 14, 2019, 03:06:05 pm »

It remains to be seen how Meghan deals with her children. As long as the children don't end up like Harper Beckham who is already getting spa treatments and treated like a little adult.

William makes critical comments about his children. I think Harry will be better and actually act the proud dad instead of whining about how "noisy" they are.
Logged
Miss Hathaway
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2525



« Reply #462 on: January 14, 2019, 03:11:28 pm »

William makes jokes that fall flat, but I haven't read of any he's made lately; have you, Sandy?   Meanwhile, Harry is completely silent about the upcoming birth of his "first child".  Are you aware of any comments of excitement has has made, Sandy?  But it is noticeable that Kate seems to enjoy her children and Meghan is running around clutching her belly with her wild eyes looking for a camera lens.   If she is going to compete with Kate and Diana on being a good mother, she's got a lot of changes to make.
Logged
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 11194


« Reply #463 on: January 14, 2019, 03:18:59 pm »

William made some feeble joke about forgetting Kate's birthday and that was a few days ago.

Maybe Harry says these comments to individuals in the crowds and they are not part of speeches or anything like that.

The baby is not even born yet, and the jury is out on how Meghan will treat her child. Obviously some already have tried and judged her even before the child is born judging by some DM comments and social media.

Kate left baby George to go on a vacation and she was heavily criticized for that. So she is not some perfect mother. Nobody really is perfect. William left the wife and kids for hunting weekends (so he's not the ideal dad) with JEcca in the group.

Logged
misanthrocrat
courtier
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 396



« Reply #464 on: January 14, 2019, 08:47:11 pm »

If all of us had parents like the Midds, the world would consist of social climbers not doing much for themselves but finding someone wealthy to "take care of them." Even wealthy people go out and work and don't sit home on trust funds. Carole is very pushy. And maybe she would have been a role model mom back in the50s when girls went to school to find wealthy husbands. It also goes back to the early 20th century. I recall Rose's Mother in titanic told another woman the purpose of University for women is to find a husband and Rose already has done that. Carole is an anachronism.

Women who marry well are decidedly not guaranteed a good life or a variety of choices. Look at Mrs Bezos today her husband had some sort of a midlife crisis and started  courting a married woman. Even though Mrs B thought life was secure with a happy family and just like that the rug was pulled out from under her. Many women are ditched by their wealthy husbands. Depending on a man is not the answer for women. Marriage counselors have advised women to get an education and have a career. And some families even rich ones need two incomes.

The jury is out on James. There is a sense of desperation for Carole to marry him off. Maybe he doesn't even want to marry.

The jury is also out on Kate and Pippa. Royal marriages are not guaranteed anymore considering recent past history.

Carole is a wise and practical person. Just because most are not like her does not make her "wrong".
 
You are 100% correct that if everyone had parents like the Midds there would be few people left to do the jobs that need done in society.
But when I said "like the Midds" I did not refer to raising children only so they can marry a king or do enormous social climbs. (But if this is possible, why not).
 
My point is that Midds-like parents are long-term planners and always provision for their children. Heavily.
Financially, educationally, professionally, socially, emotionally  - in one way or another or better yet, all ways.

Obviously, not every mother would be able to pull strings so her child will marry royalty.
But real, long-term concern for one's child can manifest itself in myriad ways, not at all unlike what Ma Midds did.
In reality, few parents make such provisions.
They meet their basic duties towards their children (roof, food, clothing, etc... basic protections while children are minors); and when they hit adulthood, they send them out the door with a "good luck" on the wild job market and a shrug. Let then make it "on their own" even though few equip them with some kind of substantive head-start. Most importantly, they have children with minimal resources; so most set themselves and their children up for the precarious situation to live a paycheck-to-paycheck lifestyle...even when the child eventually manages to get a profession and make a relatively large paycheck.
Once caught in the system they can do nothing but continue to work, as there's no exit.  
 
Society, of curse, encourages such behavior in parents and considers it more than sufficient because otherwise, as Sandy said, nobody would be left to do the actual work. For the social system, it's good that things are this way. For the individual, it's bad.  
 
A wise, lucid and loving parent (which most are not) does not have children for the species or for the system's functionality.
They have them and try to give them a better life than most have.

So from the perspective of her family, Ma' Midds is not wrong. She did right by her individual children, though not so right by the social system itself.
MM herself did a phenomenal job in terms of snatching the opportunity.
But this is not what I resent about her.
Any other woman with that chance would have tried to snag PH. Unless of course, she was repulsed by him, which I doubt because few women appear to find PH repulsive.
What I abhor about MM is her Narcissism,  desperation for attention, phoniness, her pretenses of being something other than what she is (not just "lucky" but an "amazing modern SIW" ), her extreme individualistic ruthlessness and treachery towards her own flesh and blood, especially the ingratitude towards her father - things that are absent with the Midds.
  
Finally, may I remind you that what happened to Ms. Bezos or any other Ms. Married-Well who ends up with a marital betrayal - can also happen to Ms. Average, minus the enormous share that Ms. Married-Well can walk away with post divorce, but not Ms. Average?
I'll take Married-Well any day. In fact, Ms. Average, never mind Ms. Poor, stand much higher odds of divorce than Ms. Married-Well.
 
A career is not the end-all be all for women, despite the indoctrination of our times.
Women who are able to secure the solid support of a man (whether via marital loyalty or simply a nice chunk post-divorce) are blessed and liberated to be able to focus on other things in life such as their children, private life and personal interests. They will never need to worry about how to provide financially or how to compete in the market with many ruthless others to maintain a decent living standard.

I still say "good job" for Ma Midds - even though I can completely understand why the public resents her.
It could have been us with a mother like that instead.
I, for one, wish.  
« Last Edit: January 14, 2019, 08:54:05 pm by misanthrocrat » Logged

“To do good is noble. To tell others to do good is even nobler and much less trouble.”
― Mark Twain
HRHOlya
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 5062



« Reply #465 on: January 14, 2019, 08:58:04 pm »

^ Quite well put.
Logged
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 11194


« Reply #466 on: January 14, 2019, 09:03:09 pm »

Carole is manipulative and ambitious IMO. I don't see how she is "wise."

A mother should make sure her children are self sufficient and have skills so they don't have to depend on a marriage to get ahead. Kate did not ever have to support herself. She moved from her parents house to the royals once William proposed. If William had not proposed, Mrs Middleton would have had to have shifted gears and found a way to get Kate in with an aristo or wealthy crowd. IF William had dumped her for good I doubt his friends would have been hers, they would have moved on to the next lady in his life.

It seems to me there was an attempt of matchmaking Pippa and Harry but it decisively did not pan out. Around the time of the 2011 there were rumors about the two of them but nothing every came of it. So Ma can't achieve her goals all the time.

Women today work for a living and get educated. The 1950s are long since over. Also realistically and financially there is more of a need for a two income household.Also if a man is out of work, the wife has a job so the couple and their children do not suffer nor lose opportunities to get a good education. A man can divorce his wife and without a skill and only depending on him for child support, would not be able to support herself. Or if a woman is widowed and she is encouraged to wait for a man to rescue her from work and has no skills and suppose the man dies leaving her a lot of debts (this does happen), it would be a great hardship. Woman and men are equal it is no longer the case of the woman finding a man to survive and avoiding work. I would like to think women have advanced since the 1950s and women today get good educations and learn lifelong skills so they can support themselves and their families. I know of couples who both worked and the man was out of a job, thankfully for them they did not have the attitude that a woman needs a man to support her, the woman could bring in income to the family.

I don't think women should be treated like they are "precious" and too "delicate" to work and don't have to bother with learning skills because a man will take care of them. that is a very very unrealistic goal to me.

Even Kate is expected to work and participate in royal work, she can't just sit home eating bon bons and living off William.

« Last Edit: January 14, 2019, 09:06:58 pm by sandy » Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 38563



WWW
« Reply #467 on: January 14, 2019, 09:15:52 pm »

If a woman was going to be supported by a husband, if she was going to be a princess, it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for Kate to become a consort. A princess was expected to be pure and be on his level and NEVER have known other men. The only reason the Goldsmiths moved up is because the women had the realism to know that they had to make a living of some kind and so they did. Carole herself was a career woman. There is no other way for women on the lower socio-economic spectrum to move up in this world.

Not every woman might like working, but they do indeed need to since families no longer financially support impecunious family members forever and it is unsustainable. Meg made her way in the world as expected and second, Kate only didn't work because her parents were willing to fit the bill for the chase for a ring. She was not at all being virginal while she was trying to land William and he did not treat her respectfully. It's not like she was taken to nice places and treated as a lady. She was going to nightclubs and jet set spots and I wouldn't call that being romantically courted at all.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
misanthrocrat
courtier
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 396



« Reply #468 on: January 15, 2019, 05:01:48 am »

^ I never questioned the importance of women's employment when spouses find it necessary to raise the family's living standard or to advance in some way.
Necessity is one thing. Insisting that ALL women should be career-oriented, gainfully employed or productive outside their private sphere simply because this is "the modern way", is another thing.
I disagree with this latter view. Myself and the still sizeable percentage of families who arrange their lives the traditional way.
 The "modern way" is  not as applicable-to-all as some would have us believe. I sate this as a gainfully employed, professional woman.  
 
What I question here is this idea that Ma Midds is a "bad" person (ambitious!) because she worked to set up her daughters the old-fashioned way by guiding and supporting them to marry well. Actually "marry top". You don't have to live in the late 1800's or the 1950's to think this way. You only need to be in touch with reality.  
She may have been "bad" for others, but she certainly wasn't "bad" for her daughters.

Wanting one's daughters to marry well doesn't make a mother "bad". Not when this is also what the daughters want.  
She was willing to offer the family's resources to allow her daughter NOT TO get caught up in a career so she could focus on getting the guy she had set her eyes on instead.
In this particular case, the daughter needed quite a bit of focus. And guess what. It worked.

I fully understand this is an extremely unpopular opinion in our times - but I believe the Midds' strategy was a good thing for their children, not a bad one. And reality kind of speaks for itself.  

At the same time, the Midds did not risk their daughters' lives by having no plan B  (education, profession in hand, a trust fund, etc.) in case the marrying-well plan didn't work out. They were already rich and covered - and their daughters were never going to starve, that's for sure.
 
How many parents plan and provision like this for their children?
How many avoid having them if they don't have enough resources or at least the potential to provide a nice head-start to their children in life?
    
There is absolutely nothing wrong or immoral with wanting to marry well. Certainly not any less than being ambitious about climbing some corporate ladder.
Fact is many women still prefer to work and support their own family (this includes their husbands) to the corporate/business/working-outside-the-home career path.  
If they can arrange this lifestyle, be it in modern times, what is that supreme authority that decrees this is a bad choice?
  
How is it so much wiser to rely on a paycheck from an employer in exchange of services than to rely on financial support from a husband in exchange of domestic services and support?    
Why is an employer automatically better than a husband?
Why is even a woman's self-employment / owning one's own business better than focusing on her family, if a husband is financially willing and able to support such focus?  

Ma Midds didn't buy into this "modern career woman" propaganda and she facilitated not only a wonderfully traditional life for her daughters but also a phenomenal existence at the top of the socio-economic pyramid.  
I can't grade her with less than a 10/10 as a parent.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2019, 05:06:11 am by misanthrocrat » Logged

“To do good is noble. To tell others to do good is even nobler and much less trouble.”
― Mark Twain
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 38563



WWW
« Reply #469 on: January 15, 2019, 05:17:29 am »

Traditional families don't let their daughters be used like Kate was for so many years and don't let their daughters flash their parts for public consumption. Traditionalists would require a ring or that the relationship end. Traditionally if a woman could be a candidate to marry a prince, she would have to be spotless in her virtue and from an upper class family. Kate is not from an upper class family. I don't think Kate was behaving well if she got to William despite not being exceptionally wealthy, not being exceptionally accomplished, and not being from an exceptionally prominent family. She's not even exceptionally attractive. As for a career, Kate is not paid by the taxpayer to sit around and be a kept housewife; she is paid to make appearances and paid to build connections and paid to promote causes and paid to honor people. This isn't about Kate or making Kate comfy, this is about serving her nation. She has no business behaving like a kept housewife.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
misanthrocrat
courtier
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 396



« Reply #470 on: January 15, 2019, 05:51:49 am »

I agree, with the following caveats.

Traditional families don't let their daughters be used like Kate was for so many years and don't let their daughters flash their parts for public consumption. Traditionalists would require a ring or that the relationship end. Traditionally if a woman could be a candidate to marry a prince, she would have to be spotless in her virtue and from an upper class family.

This is true of authentic, century-old traditionalists.
But the Midds are not some unusual traditional purists in the 21st century.
They just seem like highly caring, involved and pragmatic parents.
They may have wanted that ring very soon too but they understood diplomacy and waiting was the family's best bet under the circumstances, whether Kate was "used" or not.
 Do you think that if she'd had been on some career path at that point, she wouldn't have been "used" by some colleague or corporate dude, here and there?
I suppose by "used" you meant sleeping with William before having any guarantee for a ring. 
I think she was using him just as much. They both just wanted to have sex and the Palace obviously allowed it. Neither could have cared less about virginity in the 21st century.
By no means am I arguing people shouldn't care about such a thing (I am all for a return to the no-sex-before-marriage morality).
But the Midds simply understood that ship has long sailed. The "marrying well" boat didn't, however.   
 

Kate is not from an upper class family.

This is clear.

I don't think Kate was behaving well if she got to William despite not being exceptionally wealthy, not being exceptionally accomplished, and not being from an exceptionally prominent family.

Yes, she wasn't behaving. This is also pretty clear.

She's not even exceptionally attractive.

I think she's just right for aristocratic circles.
Anything more and you'd spill over into cheesy Hollywood territory. Aristo men don't go for exceptionally attractive women anyway. Not traditionally, not until very recently. And even now - royal brides still have a little something discreet and "low key" about them as opposed to some "wow - gorgeous diva" factor.   

As for a career, Kate is not paid by the taxpayer to sit around and be a kept housewife; she is paid to make appearances and paid to build connections and paid to promote causes and paid to honor people. This isn't about Kate or making Kate comfy, this is about serving her nation. She has no business behaving like a kept housewife.

Well...she appears to be doing quite a bit of that required "showing up" thing because she seems to be in the news quite often.
But since this is not really a career but rather an opportunity for glamor, she will probably be able to add more of those engagements if what she already does continues to be seen as inadequate. 
Her entire family counted on it when they decide PW was a goal worth pursuing.   

In sum, I don't see these royal women as "career women" even if they live partially at the tax-payers' expense.
I see them in a traditional role, more like symbols and supports for their husbands or the queen.
Definitely not "career women" - which is what MM wants to sell to the public so awkwardly.   

Logged

“To do good is noble. To tell others to do good is even nobler and much less trouble.”
― Mark Twain
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 11194


« Reply #471 on: January 15, 2019, 01:34:18 pm »

Carole certainly bought into the modern career for women philosophy since she herself worked for a living and made money for her family and her husband worked as well and supported the business enterprise.  Oddly enough she bought into the fifties philosophy of the degree in Mrs or a woman latching herself to a rich man for security and not being bothered to learn a trade or work.

Kate was not assured of a marriage to William nor was there any formal betrothal obligating them to marry. He was looking around and trying to find someone else during cooling off periods and the breakup. He humiliated Kate by getting photographed with his arms around two women, and groping one of them in the photo and looking worse for wear. I think had he not been who he was Kate would have dumped him.

Oh royal women are career women. If the Queen Mum were around today she'd explain it in no uncertain terms. She was consort and was dedicated to her work as Queen Consort. She accompanied her husband to London to see the results of the bombings during WW II and spoke individually to people affected by it. To me that is hard work not sitting around the palace being a housewife. Queen Alexandra was a beloved consort because she gave back and visited her charities diligently, she was not well and was lame and deaf but that did not stop her. It's a whole lot more than "showing up."

Kate would do well to read about her predecessors to learn from example. As would Meghan in her role as wife of the second son.

An employer can be better than a husband if the husband is abusive and the wife either can't or won't leave. She can quit a job and look elsewhere. Depending on a man for support does not always turn out well. And sometimes men are supported by their wives when they lose their jobs.  how else can a family afford to get their children educated and provide the best for them. If the woman wants to be supported by the man and the income is halved she is clearly not thinking of the children.

The days of the fifties are long gone.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2019, 01:35:59 pm by sandy » Logged
Alexandrine
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15304



« Reply #472 on: January 15, 2019, 02:27:09 pm »

It was not about the fifties philosophy it was about moving up classes. Even when people get rich like thr Beckhams they are never upper class because of their parents. Imo Carole wanted her children to move classes. This is the reason they went to posh schools and posh colleges. If Will had been a duke or anything similar it would have been a good choice.

Carole wanted her kids to have the posh style life so they could meet similar kind of people. If Kate hadnt met Will she wouldnt have worked either. She would have found a posh job to meet other posh people until she got married like Pippa has done.

I think that when we like outside UK we forget how important class is there. Even Diana and the QM were not good enough being aristos.

Also I think I doubt Queen Alexandra and Queen Mary worked as much. Wasnt Q Mary husband so bored being the heir that he collected stamps?
Logged



“Three things are to be looked to in a building: that it stand on the right spot, that it be securely founded, that it be successfully executed.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 11194


« Reply #473 on: January 15, 2019, 02:44:36 pm »

women can move up in class and not just wait for a proposal but have their own education and skills Lisa Halaby moved up in class and became Queen Noor but she had her own career before she married up.

Kate would have married someone wealthy. But that said, Pippa did work more and wrote a book and still married up.

Queen Mary did work diligently on her charities. Queen Alexandra was much admired in her time for her appearances and charity work.
Logged
Alexandrine
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15304



« Reply #474 on: January 15, 2019, 03:00:03 pm »

Kate as future queen still hasnt moved up classes she is still a commoner born from a low class. Queen Noor was an american  who married a Jordan King. Totally different societies. Btw I wonder what the jordan people think of Noor.

Btw she is only known because she married someone who had the position. She didnt get to be queen because she did something special.

All these woman who marry into the RF wtih few exceptions would be totally unknown without marrying. Neither would they have the opportunity to meet that kind of important people or have any kind of impact.

The beckhams worked hard for what they have and they are still low class and nouve rich. Class is not about money it is about your ancestors.

Im a fan of Queen Alexandra but doubtful that she worked in the sense that we consider work. And QMary maybe should have taken care of her children a bit better? She wasn awful mother and it showed in her kids (same as her husband btw).

Logged



“Three things are to be looked to in a building: that it stand on the right spot, that it be securely founded, that it be successfully executed.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
YooperModerator
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15382



« Reply #475 on: January 15, 2019, 03:19:19 pm »

Kinda veering off topic, aren’t we?  I’m struggling to see how this angle is about Kate and MM’s relationship.
Logged


\\\"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.\\\"  Thomas Jefferson
Alexandrine
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15304



« Reply #476 on: January 15, 2019, 03:30:05 pm »

 sorry
Logged



“Three things are to be looked to in a building: that it stand on the right spot, that it be securely founded, that it be successfully executed.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
YooperModerator
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15382



« Reply #477 on: January 15, 2019, 03:44:15 pm »

hug 
Logged


\\\"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.\\\"  Thomas Jefferson
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 38563



WWW
« Reply #478 on: January 15, 2019, 04:20:10 pm »

I think it is kind of relevant in the context that Kate never worked, Meg did for a long time, and frankly Meg is being painted as some brazen hussy for having had a career while Kate is being painted as some prim/proper type that like Diana, was from a more sheltered background. Ever since Meg came on the scene, Kate has been painted as a retiring, proper English rose who never drank anything stronger than tea and was never outside the confines of either the poshest part of London or the cool country comfort of her family''s Berkshire estate. That isn't the truth at all and frankly I dislike how Kate is becoming more virginal by the week ever since Meg came on the scene.

Kate is not prim and proper because she never worked and I don't like how women who have never worked are being portrayed as virginal and proper and I dislike how Kate is being idolized for being like a typical royal princess, despite the fact that with her past of bar hopping and flashing, that she is so much holier than the rest of us. If she had not gotten that ring, she would be at a point where she would be a national punching bag and she would be openly derided and insulted. At this point in time, she has changed her image, but I will never forget the fact that she looks down on honest work. Meg worked and made her own way, as expected.

An employer can be better than a husband if the husband is abusive and the wife either can't or won't leave. She can quit a job and look elsewhere. Depending on a man for support does not always turn out well. And sometimes men are supported by their wives when they lose their jobs.  how else can a family afford to get their children educated and provide the best for them. If the woman wants to be supported by the man and the income is halved she is clearly not thinking of the children.
The days of the fifties are long gone.

Even in the fifties, a wife was taken care of, but in exchange, she was expected to be a virgin, all the more so if the future wife as a candidate as being a princess. As for abusers, yes, that was frequent. My own grandmother left my paternal grandfather because he was abusive and she started out as a wife/mother only. He was not faithful as well and she was willing to forgo major wealth and status so her kids would be able to grow up in a safe, stable place. Any guy who supports his wife will resent it in a while and he will dislike having the wife sit around all day and these days, being a housewife is not the same at all.

Quote
Carole certainly bought into the modern career for women philosophy since she herself worked for a living and made money for her family and her husband worked as well and supported the business enterprise.  Oddly enough she bought into the fifties philosophy of the degree in Mrs or a woman latching herself to a rich man for security and not being bothered to learn a trade or work.

For some reason, Carole I think has a lot of self loathing issues and hates herself for working and making her way up. For some reason she seems to think that women at the top have it easy, but in their own way, upper class women paid a high price for their status and material wealth. There is ALWAYS a price to pay in this world.

Quote
Oh royal women are career women. If the Queen Mum were around today she'd explain it in no uncertain terms. She was consort and was dedicated to her work as Queen Consort. She accompanied her husband to London to see the results of the bombings during WW II and spoke individually to people affected by it. To me that is hard work not sitting around the palace being a housewife. Queen Alexandra was a beloved consort because she gave back and visited her charities diligently, she was not well and was lame and deaf but that did not stop her. It's a whole lot more than "showing up."
Kate would do well to read about her predecessors to learn from example. As would Meghan in her role as wife of the second son.

In regards to Meg, she's doing more in her first year than Kate did in two or even three years of marriage. She's getting to know people and she's being seen. She's also just starting out and she's doing more speeches and doing a lot more than just mooching around and suing the press. For someone who has been new, she's doing a lot more and making the most of her appearances. She is at least working and that is more than Meg is doing.

As for Queen Mary and Alexandra and the Queen Mother, no one has broken more new ground than Queen Mary. She created charity as a career and she did the best thing and it gave royal women a reason to look forward to waking up. Charity work and appearances have always been a great outlet for women and have always been   a reason for them to get up in the mornings and not be miserable. In fact, charity work has been the way for upper class women all the time. Fact is, that Kate is being LESS upper class by being idle than she is being upper class. For someone who imitates upper class traits, Kate is woefully inaccurate.

Quote
Kate was not assured of a marriage to William nor was there any formal betrothal obligating them to marry. He was looking around and trying to find someone else during cooling off periods and the breakup. He humiliated Kate by getting photographed with his arms around two women, and groping one of them in the photo and looking worse for wear. I think had he not been who he was Kate would have dumped him.

Exactly; I think from 2005 to 2007 Kate was acting like it was inevitable and treated the situation accordingly, trying to get the palace to pay attention to her and I think she was so pretentious, showing up at his Passing Out dressed like it was a formal engagement and shaking hands and introducing herself. She never met HM at that point and it was kicking into high gear that an engagement was right around the corner. Then there was the 2007 breakup and I think that was William's way of delivering a smack-down that Kate deserved. He never owed her anything and he never should have been subjected to that kind of pressure.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
YooperModerator
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15382



« Reply #479 on: January 15, 2019, 04:39:28 pm »

^Not really, KF.  It was going all over the map.  Your post could've been condensed to "Meg understands work, Kate doesn't."
Logged


\\\"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.\\\"  Thomas Jefferson
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines | Imprint Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!