How much do you think Will and Kate "pick their battles" with the royals?

[Dr_Finkelstein]

Face it folks, living at the top of the order of succession is a job, and as at all jobs, there is someone at the top of the heap who has final say. The rewards are very nice, but they come at a cost.

The big difference is that the Duchess of Cambridge understands this, and her late mother-in-law absolutely did not. Diana was a psychological train wreck and should never have become the Princess of Wales. (At the time, many of her friends expressed strong surprise that she was a candidate; they said, rightly, that she was awfully high-strung for that kind of life.) Thankfully, "The Firm" learned from that debacle and changed certain traditional requirements that had helped to put Diana in that position.

There will be a nanny; there is simply no way to avoid it with the kind of public duties that they have. However, one can have a nanny who is there as a backup, or one who is there in loco parentis, and that choice has always been a personal one for people in this position. (Not for reigning monarchs, however; they really have to depend heavily on nannies for daily life, because their time is really not at all their own.)

Absolutely, Kate was very well vetted after the debacles with both Diana and Sarah Ferguson, and Kate would have been well prepared for what she was entering into. IMO William was well aware of his mother's emotional issues and flaws and wanted to make sure his wife wouldn't be absolutely overwhelmed by the role.

For all intents and purposes Charles and Diana had an arranged marriage and neither really loved/cared for each other, not truly. William has been given the freedom and time to build a relationship and be happy.

He is well aware of his duties and expectations, and while they will be very much hands on parents, they will need help, as most people do when they are working parents.

I think had the baby beena girl, it would have been a HUGE mistake to name her Diana...the comparisons all her life would have been horrible.

I agree, and it definately would not have happened.

I think the Royal Family have learnt from their mistakes and are certainly more flexible and modern in their approach, but there are certain issues that just will not change.

The whole succession issue for one, Charles WILL be King after his mother dies, despite what some may think/hope. And I don't think William would want it any other way tbh.

 

[CdnCarrie]

They can go as far as they want however, their lives would be miserable. The couple is bucking tradition but with the Queen's approval. They did go to Kate's parent's house BUT they stopped in to visit Queen Elizabeth before they left.

That's not really tradition. I think any of us would have visited with our great grandmothers to show off our baby before she went away and so did we. Great grandma wanted to see the baby! And actually she came to see the baby not the other way around.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

They can go as far as they want however, their lives would be miserable. The couple is bucking tradition but with the Queen's approval. They did go to Kate's parent's house BUT they stopped in to visit Queen Elizabeth before they left.

Actually, the Queen visited them at Kensington Palace (before they left for Kate's family's home in Bramblebury), instead of the other way around, the Queen putting off her own vacation waiting for the baby to be born. Gotta give her credit for that, I think - seems like a nice gesture on her part and I doubt very traditional.

 

[Robbi]

That's not really tradition. I think any of us would have visited with our great grandmothers to show off our baby before she went away and so did we. Great grandma wanted to see the baby! And actually she came to see the baby not the other way around.

I meant Kate and William going to stay with the Middletons so soon after the baby was born.

Actually, the Queen visited them at Kensington Palace (before they left for Kate's family's home in Bramblebury), instead of the other way around, putting off her own vacation waiting for the baby to be born. Gotta give her credit for that, I think - seems like a nice gesture on her part and I doubt very traditional.

Thanks for the information. I agree it was very nice.

 

[MagicallyDelicious]

Why do people care about this? The whole royalty worship thing is just so silly and disturbing.

I care, because it's history in the making.

Why is it such a big deal if people are interested in a baby's birth? I don't see anyone here worshiping the royal family, so I'm not sure what's so disturbing about this thread.

 

[NotUrsula]

For all intents and purposes Charles and Diana had an arranged marriage and neither really loved/cared for each other, not truly. William has been given the freedom and time to build a relationship and be happy.

Oh, Charles was given time as well, and that was part of the problem. There is a reason why he remained single into his 40's; he had already met the love of his life, but she didn't qualify as an approvable bride, and for only one real reason: she wasn't a virgin, and everyone knew it. Camilla Shand had the right heritage and moved in the right circles, but in the early seventies she was a party girl, and she got around before she met him. When he asked permission to propose, his mother's staff investigated, and the answer that he got was no, because virginity was required by custom for a prospective Princess of Wales.

That was why he married a 19 yo girl; she was one of the few he could find who would pass the test in 1980. (And it WAS a test; a medical exam, no less.) Charles turned 21 in 1969; even then it was awfully hard to find an aristocratic virgin in the UK who wasn't underage, and it got still more difficult as time went on. Thankfully someone with influence finally saw reason, and that particular requirement was dropped.

 

[castlecouture2011]

Oh, Charles was given time as well, and that was part of the problem. There is a reason why he remained single into his 40's; he had already met the love of his life, but she didn't qualify as an approvable bride, and for only one real reason: she wasn't a virgin, and everyone knew it. Camilla Shand had the right heritage and moved in the right circles, but in the early seventies she was a party girl, and she got around before she met him. When he asked permission to propose, his mother's staff investigated, and the answer that he got was no, because virginity was required by custom for a prospective Princess of Wales.

That was why he married a 19 yo girl; she was one of the few he could find who would pass the test in 1980. (And it WAS a test; a medical exam, no less.) Charles turned 21 in 1969; even then it was awfully hard to find an aristocratic virgin in the UK who wasn't underage, and it got still more difficult as time went on. Thankfully someone with influence finally saw reason, and that particular requirement was dropped.

Well I learned something new today! Very interesting. If this requirement hadn't been dropped would Kate have had to "pass the test?" Since she wasn't really in the running for Princess of Wales? Or would it be a requirement for any wife of an heir? Because I mean they did marry 10 years after meeting...that's quite a long time to...wait, if you know what I mean, haha.

 

[CdnCarrie]

Oh, Charles was given time as well, and that was part of the problem. There is a reason why he remained single into his 40's; .

Charles was 31 or 32 when he married Diana. Not in his 40s.

 

[NotUrsula]

Well I learned something new today! Very interesting. If this requirement hadn't been dropped would Kate have had to "pass the test?" Since she wasn't really in the running for Princess of Wales? Or would it be a requirement for any wife of an heir? Because I mean they did marry 10 years after meeting...that's quite a long time to...wait, if you know what I mean, haha.

It wasn't a legal requirement, but the ruling houses had by custom insisted on it for dynastic reasons; before DNA testing, that was the only way to tell for absolute sure that the bride wasn't potentially carrying someone else's child (well, other than imprisoning the woman for at least 30 days directly before the ceremony.)

I'm pretty sure that it was only required of the wives of heirs apparent or heirs presumptive, not further down on the tree.

Carrie, my apologies, that was a simple typo, I was off by a digit. He was a few months shy of 34 when they married.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I thought I read somewhere also that when heirs were born there had to be a room full of people so that they would know there were no switches or something like that.

 

[Skywalker]

Thankfully someone with influence finally saw reason, and that particular requirement was dropped.

Actually I'm surprised the requirement was dropped. In this day and age I can just imagine some guy stepping forward selling his tape of "My hot night with the Queen!!' for a million bucks or something, lol. I don't think that would go over well.

 

[NotUrsula]

True, for children of ruling monarchs or the heir apparent official witnesses were mandated. (Weil, not a whole room full of people, but at least two representatives of Parliament.)

The Queen Elizabeth (the Queen Mother) was spared that because her husband had a perfectly healthy elder brother when her children were born, and by the time the present queen took the throne the custom had (mercifully) been done away with.

I think that the last person to have to put up with that might have been Queen Alexandra, who was Princess of Wales when her children were born.

 

[DebbieB]

I thought I read somewhere also that when heirs were born there had to be a room full of people so that they would know there were no switches or something like that.

They said they did not do that this time. In the age of DNA testing, if there was a question about it, it would be easy to prove.

 

[Squidgyness]

True, for children of ruling monarchs or the heir apparent official witnesses were mandated. (Weil, not a whole room full of people, but at least two representatives of Parliament.)

The Queen Elizabeth (the Queen Mother) was spared that because her husband had a perfectly healthy elder brother when her children were born, and by the time the present queen took the throne the custom had (mercifully) been done away with.

I think that the last person to have to put up with that might have been Queen Alexandra, who was Princess of Wales when her children were born.

And that still didn't help poor James II and his queen. Some rather pernicious rumours concerning a suspicious warming pan (kind of a metal hot water bottle, the thing Elizabeth whacks and burns a pirate with the first POTC movie) and a smuggled baby (past dozens of people of course) soon got around.

It was complete nonsense, so of course everyone believed it, mostly because they wanted to. (Religious and political reasons.) It was known as the warming pan plot.

 

[sandramaac]

I think by the time William see's his reign, the face of what and who the royal family are, will be VERY different. And he knows that. He knows ALL the family secrets (good, the bad and the awful), the nature of how the last 75 years of his family's history has played out. It seems to me there will be household staff, yes a nanny to act as care giver when mom and dad are busy, but they seem as if they are going to parent George. The second they came out with that baby in the car seat, and he placed it in the car and drove off themselves, and then drove to her mother's---this is going to be a very different family going forward. Charles will be the last of his generation.

As an aside, anyone ever wonder 'IF' it ever got to the point where Harry were going to be King, if there would have been a paternity test required?? Let's face it, Charles is not that kid's father---I wonder what would have happened in this media crazy time---pushing politicians and such to push the point that biologically he could not be King.

 

[Squidgyness]

I think by the time William see's his reign, the face of what and who the royal family are, will be VERY different. And he knows that. He knows ALL the family secrets (good, the bad and the awful), the nature of how the last 75 years of his family's history has played out. It seems to me there will be household staff, yes a nanny to act as care giver when mom and dad are busy, but they seem as if they are going to parent George. The second they came out with that baby in the car seat, and he placed it in the car and drove off themselves, and then drove to her mother's---this is going to be a very different family going forward. Charles will be the last of his generation.

As an aside, anyone ever wonder 'IF' it ever got to the point where Harry were going to be King, if there would have been a paternity test required?? Let's face it, Charles is not that kid's father---I wonder what would have happened in this media crazy time---pushing politicians and such to push the point that biologically he could not be King.

To be honest, the family secrets of the last 75 years surely aren't too bad compared to previous monarchs.

The Hanoverians hated their fathers almost as tradition, one later went nuts, one became a massive glutton and ate meat pies and opium laced sherry for breakfast, blowing hundreds and thousands of pounds on faux-Chinese style palaces and solid gold salt cellars, whilst Victoria was a childish, selfish and sometimes unbalanced person in her private life, particularly after her husband died. Her kids were even more varied. Leopold slipped and fell, dying of haemophilia at about thirty after rebelling against his mother and her smothering, his older brother Albert Edward spent three nights with an "actress" provided by comrades whilst training for the army, then almost got himself tangled in a divorce case to the shame of his mother, and his sisters often had damaged relationships with their mother. Then we have the obvious scandal of the abdication and wallis Simpson, not to mention a taint of association with the nazi party in Germany during the thirties.

And thats just the big stuff. All in all, its probably gotten a lot better in later years.

 

[Ofinn]

I care, because it's history in the making.

Why is it such a big deal if people are interested in a baby's birth? I don't see anyone here worshiping the royal family, so I'm not sure what's so disturbing about this thread.

To each it's own. I'm glad I don't live in England and have to support this family with my taxes. "Let them eat cake comes to mind". Not that our government is much better. How many vacations does Obama take a year on our dime? Just my two cents.

 

[mnrose]

To each it's own. I'm glad I don't live in England and have to support this family with my taxes. "Let them eat cake comes to mind". Not that our government is much better. How many vacations does Obama take a year on our dime? Just my two cents.

All Presidents take vacations....some more, some less. In general, the President (regardless of who) spends less time on "vacation" then members of Congress. And, the "leader" of the pack in taking "vacation" time was the second Bush, who spent 32% of this time in office on "vacation."

I don't begrudge any President their "vacations"....and I use that term loosely as they have security briefings, etc every single day of their Presidency, including weekends. I don't think any of them truly take "vacations."

 

[Disney Doll]

I don't think Presidents take vacations. I think "president" from different places.

That's why the job takes such a toll on them. They don't get a break unless they're under anesthesia.

As far as the new little royal family, I think their world will be different in some ways and the same in others. William seems to be a bit less invested it the snobby royal thing, which I think will be good.

 

[CdnCarrie]

To each it's own. I'm glad I don't live in England and have to support this family with my taxes. "Let them eat cake comes to mind". Not that our government is much better. How many vacations does Obama take a year on our dime? Just my two cents.

Lots of us are glad we don't live in the U.S. and are quite happy with our monarch. But thanks for your concern.