General News for the Duchess of Cambridge 1: November 2010-February 2017


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't get how her having a full time job working for her parents, coming up with the branch first birthday equals her not doing anything with her life. She was the liason between party pieces and Starlight Children Foundations. She even organize a charity event with Holly Branson

And that after her fail mail-order baby clothes and working for Jigsaw.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I know about the stalking part when Kate had her job at Jigsaw but surely there are "quiet" and meaningful things she could've done with her time instead of being a "socialite" or appearing at "events"? Charity work for instance (albeit very quietly, not the kind of charity work for publicity). It is possible.
Click to expand...

How do we know she didn't do those sorts of things? If she did the sort of charity work that's "quiet', and "not for publicity" then doesn't it follow that we, the public, aren't going to know about it?

In the same way we're not going to get proof that she did actual work for her parents' company - we're not going to get any photos of Kate sitting at the office at the family home working on her laptop the way we get photos of her going to a club or polo match with William. But that doesn't mean the work didn't occur!
 
Renata4711 said:
I just feel that the marriage has been a "done deal" for some time now - so why rehash what was before?

Much more fun checking out what's going on in their life .... and waiting for more developments :)
Click to expand...

Like I said, it's only recently that I went back to reading about present royals....

You're right though, let's see what happens....:)

miche said:
I don't get how her having a full time job working for her parents, coming up with the branch first birthday equals her not doing anything with her life. She was the liason between party pieces and Starlight Children Foundations. She even organize a charity event with Holly Branson

And that after her fail mail-order baby clothes and working for Jigsaw.
Click to expand...

To each his own, I guess, as these things can be quite relative. Maybe it's just me who thinks her lack of career is quite puzzling, given her education and intelligence.

camelot23ca said:
How do we know she didn't do those sorts of things? If she did the sort of charity work that's "quiet', and "not for publicity" then doesn't it follow that we, the public, aren't going to know about it?

In the same way we're not going to get proof that she did actual work for her parents' company - we're not going to get any photos of Kate sitting at the office at the family home working on her laptop the way we get photos of her going to a club or polo match with William. But that doesn't mean the work didn't occur!
Click to expand...

Re: doing charity work quietly, what you said is possible. If she indeed did meaningful things quietly, then I'd be the first to cheer her on!:)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Zonk said:
I think the point is that is its unfair to judge Catherine by the same standards as Maxima, Letizia and Mary.

They met their husbands AFTER they had established their careers. Catherine met hers in college. Yes, like a lot of women but let's face it not a lot of these women are marrying Princes. And with his schedule, it would have impossible to carry on a normal job. Does anyone remember how she was "stalked" by the press when she worked at Jigsaw. Who wants that outside of their business everyday? Working for her parents, in their home was a better option for her. And as someone who has worked for family and myself, I am here to tell you that sometimes you work a lot harder for them (and yourself) than if you worked for someone else (i.e. a company).
Click to expand...

Thank you. In the long run, I believe Catherine and William chose this path to keep their relationship as private as possible. Party Pieces and Berkshire protected her like no other, and just because she worked for her family does NOT mean she was idle. Unjust insinuations, in my opinion, and stirred by an upset media that would have rather had her working in London so they could photograph her everyday like they did when she worked for Jigsaw.
 
BritishRoyals said:
Thank you. In the long run, I believe Catherine and William chose this path to keep their relationship as private as possible. Party Pieces and Berkshire protected her like no other, and just because she worked for her family does NOT mean she was idle. Unjust insinuations, in my opinion, and stirred by an upset media that would have rather had her working in London so they could photograph her everyday like they did when she worked for Jigsaw.
Click to expand...

I second that. I don't understand why some people say that, post-graduating, all she did was waiting for William and did not have an active career. Just because much has taken place in the shadows and behind the scenes (Party Pieces, First Birthdays) doesn't mean that she didn't do anything. IMO a lot took place for privacy reasons, and again IMO rightfully so.
 
I'd rather wait for concrete proof of such things rather than getting into mere guesses/inferences/opinions at this point. Like I said, I'd be the first to cheer her on if that was the case.
 
Last edited:
monica17 said:
I'd rather for concrete proof of such things rather than getting into mere guesses/inferences/opinions at this point. Like I said, I'd be the first to cheer her on if that was the case.
Click to expand...

While I do understand your point, I think it's rather futile to "expect" or "want" concrete proof about things like these.
Until her wedding on April 29th, Catherine was a private citizen and as such not obliged to disclose anything.
 
Skippy said:
While I do understand your point, I think it's rather futile to "expect" or "want" concrete proof about things like these.
Until her wedding on April 29th, Catherine was a private citizen and as such not obliged to disclose anything.
Click to expand...

I get your point. :) I'm a fan of most royals. However, I dislike "fawning" over or exaggerating the attributes of royals. I neither like nor dislike her at this point.. and I do like to be surprised.

===========

So, can anyone please answer my earlier question, with dowry or no dowry?
 
Last edited:
I doubt Catherine had a dowry to give, such an old fashioned concept. But we will never know for truth.
 
... A dowry? Really? I think we can safely assume no
 
monica17 said:
I'd rather wait for concrete proof of such things rather than getting into mere guesses/inferences/opinions at this point. Like I said, I'd be the first to cheer her on if that was the case.
Click to expand...

What prove do you want, do you want to see her paycheck, her tax records?
 
Last edited:
As to the dowry, I would doubt it. After all Grace Kelly and Prince Ranier married approximately 55 years ago. Even then dowries in the US were almost unheard of. I have never heard of Diana Spencer's family providing a dowry, nor Sarah Ferguson so there would be no reason for Catherine Middleton's family to provide a dowry.

ETA, I suspect that for some people, there will never be anything that the Duchess of Cambridge can do to prove her "worth".
 
miche said:
What prove do you want, do you want to see her paycheck, her tax records?
Click to expand...

Something official from the palace issued biography (which can be found at their website) would do.

As for the dowry question, it is still practiced at certain circles in Europe. It's a fair enough question, did she have one or not? If it's no longer practiced by the BRF, then so be it. No more additional questions. Thank you for your opinions on this matter anyway.
 
Last edited:
monica17 said:
Something official from the palace issued biography (which can be found at their website) would do.

As for the dowry question, it is still practiced at certain circles in Europe. It's a fair enough question, did she have one or not? If it's no longer practiced by the BRF, then so be it. No more additional questions. Thank you for your opinions on this matter anyway.
Click to expand...

The Prince of Wales - Biography
 
What circles is a dowry still practiced in? I know the British royal family isn't the most progressive thing in the world, but I'm 100% certain they don't participate in that sexist, backwards, demeaning and insulting practice. The idea is laughable.

Can't you just see William sitting around haggling over how many goats Kate is worth?
 
HRHHermione said:
What circles is a dowry still practiced in? I know the British royal family isn't the most progressive thing in the world, but I'm 100% certain they don't participate in that sexist, backwards, demeaning and insulting practice. The idea is laughable.

Can't you just see William sitting around haggling over how many goats Kate is worth?
Click to expand...

There seems to be a consensus that the BRF do not practice the dowry system anymore. But they certainly did in the previous generations, most likely until 2-3 generations ago.

However, some royal/noble families in the Continent still do. I (personally) know some high nobility (Almanach de Gotha ones) families who do.

The dowry system also aimed to protect the bride as well.

For example, many royal brides (or their families in case the princess predeceased her husband) got back their dowries upon widowhood. This is to ensure that the princess has certain means to ensure a lifestyle suitable to their station (because they were not usually expected to inherit any of the family wealth, especially in Germany where the Salic law prevailed), even if (for some reason) the family they married into couldn't/wouldn't support them appropriately (upon widowhood). Of course, their marriage contract could have a provision for allowance upon widowhood but certainly getting back their dowry is a big help in case this wasn't followed. I'm not sure of the details in divorce cases, though.
 
Last edited:
The "dowry" system falls on its feet when considering the fate of Sarah Ferguson and the like.
 
And all too frequently the dowry was spent due to debts incurred in the grooms family or just to keep the family properties going. Yes, dowries may have been around two or three generations ago but clearly they no longer are. It also seems the continental royals continue many old practices. Apparently some of the non-reigning royals families still insist upon intermarriage with other royal families, interestingly not so in the case in the reigning familes. I am guessing it's important for these groups to continue to hold onto old practices which the reigning families no longer need.
 
Whether or not a dowry was paid, is not something that the British Royal Family would comment on as that would raise a whole host of other questions and/or concerns that they probably don't want to deal with.

So its time to move on from any speculation on dowries.

Any and all additional posts will be deleted without notice. Any questions should be directed to the British moderators via Private Message.

Zonk
British Forums Moderator
 
monica17 said:
Yes, of course I know Maxima was already working when she met the Crown Prince of the Netherlands. She was an international investment banker, I believe. The point is, she was not waiting (seemingly) to catch (or to marry) a prince (so to speak) and didn't even believe her husband when he first told her he was a prince.

I stand corrected on the second point. Thank you!
Click to expand...

So given your post above, and given in another one of your previous posts you said Kate was "doing nothing" with her education... What would Kate have to have done prior to becoming engaged to William that would change your opinion?
 
camelot23ca said:
So given your post above, and given in another one of your previous posts you said Kate was "doing nothing" with her education... What would Kate have to have done prior to becoming engaged to William that would change your opinion?
Click to expand...

monica17 said:
I get your point. :) I'm a fan of most royals. However, I dislike "fawning" over or exaggerating the attributes of royals. I neither like nor dislike her at this point.. and I do like to be surprised.
Click to expand...

Taking the bold part (my doing) into consideration, I think that plays a huge part in why she wants to see proof that Catherine did something useful (then again, who and/or what decides what is "useful"?) between graduating and becoming engaged to William.
I think that proof would mean that she is "worthy" of "fawning" over or exaggerating attributes. Which I take that she finds most of us doing here.
 
Last edited:
Skippy said:
Taking the bold part (my doing) into consideration, I think that plays a huge part in why she wants to see proof that Catherine did something useful (then again, who and/or what decides what is "useful"?) between graduating and becoming engaged to William.
I think that proof would mean that she is "worthy" of "fawning" over or exaggerating attributes. Which I take that she finds most of us doing here.
Click to expand...

We have proof in that Kate's biography, including her employment history, is available through the Prince of Wales' website, and I can also recall Kate herself talking about her work in the engagement interview she did with William. So, unless one thinks Kate and the royal household are lying, we know she worked after she graduated university and was therefore doing something other than waiting for William to propose. Pointing that out isn't fawning or exaggerating anything, although I know that's not what you were getting at. :)
What Im genuinely curious about is this: why is this employment history not enough? Specifically regarding this most recent discussion with monica17, why for example is Princess Mathilde working as a speech therapist for three or four years prior to giving it up to marry the Belgian crown prince a successful career while Kate working for her parents' business is not? Is it the type of job? The fact that she was employed by her family? The fact that it's not directly related to what she studied at university?
 
pardon me if i have missed something, but i dont see why she has to have a career. isnt ok to just want to be a stay at home mom? i am 39 years old. mom of 3 kids and i work out side of the house(full time) i still consider my career is my 3 kids and my husband. i would love to have a job where i could help with the family business. if the family thrives, then i would thrive too.

or am i way off base?
 
No bethaliz, you are right ON base! I agree with you! At some times in my life, I did not work outside our home; at others I did and have had a very active, creative and responsible professional life. But my children and spouse came first. Kate will have the duty to raise a direct heir to the throne, and that in itself can be a worthy -- and important -- occupation.
 
Didn't the Prince William himself suggest that Kate get a job? If I'm wrong in this, then I'm wrong. Sorry for upsetting you.

But I stand by what I said: her employment history isn't very impressive/meaningful considering her potential (coming from a very good school and seemingly intelligent).... Camelot23ca is right on the last part of her post (starting from the sentence about Princess Mathilde). In addition, Mathilde continued with her post-graduate degree and work after she started dating her husband. Also, Kate's choice of working for her parents entitled her to certain conveniences she likely would not have enjoyed while working for others (taking time off to go to events, vacations with William, etc.). You may have other views, but to each his own. :)

I won't bring up this particular topic anymore, I don't go to this forum to "argue". Besides, I have other royal interests other than this thread or section. Thank you for your replies.
 
Last edited:
Who cares about her employment history? What does that have to do with her ability to be a good wife, a good mother, a good friend, and a good consort for William?
 
It funny how William suggest to her to get a job, after she was already working. The girl tried to have her own mail-order business with baby clothing after university, then went on to work for her parents, opening up a branch first birthday. She was living her own life during what she wanted to do, but yet somehow she's a failure.
 
Miche,

Last word on this particular topic: I do not think and never said Kate was a failure. I only said she didn't seem to make the most of her potential. Big difference. :)

Also, you posted earlier (in the other thread) that my sources/facts are (from) the tabloids? The Daily Mail? I have other sources (other than the media and much credible than that) to form the basis of whatever I write. That is why I said that I try to base everything that I write (in this forum and my other forum, the Alexander Palace Time Machine Forum) on facts & proper context. I won't go into other details but let's just say, my sources are Almanach de Gotha families, historians (not mere royal watchers but serious historians/scholars/specialists on royalty) and my own research.
 
Last edited:
I think I now understand what monica17 is trying to say. According to me, she means that Catherine settled for (much) less, career-wise, than she could have with her potential. Could have aimed (much) higher than working for her parents and so.
A saying just popped up in my mind which I think sums up her opinion (no idea whether it's an existing one, but I think it's interesting): If you can reach for the sky, then why stop at the highest mountain?

I think her opinion will only change when she gets a good explanation for why, in her opinion, Catherine didn't use her potential. I do understand her point, but don't necessarily agree with it.

My opinion is that Catherine did use her potential, I don't believe that she has been wasting away so to say, but she used her potential in a different way than perhaps most of us would have. And I don't mind, every horse has his own rhythm in a trot.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom