Reporter Challenges Kate Middleton to Breast-feed in Public

[Feberin]

I think it would be nice if she breastfed in public because it might help people feel more comfortable about it. However the choice is entirely hers and I wouldn't want her to feel like she had to do it. I'm sure if she does decide to breastfeed in public it will be done discreetly. I read somewhere that they are staying with her parents for awhile afterwards so I'm sure she won't be doing it alone and her family will be helping. I can't imagine they will go too long without a nanny. It's not like Kate can just throw on sweats or skip showering because the baby wanted to be held all day. However if she did that might get more conversation going then her breastfeeding in public!

[Soldevi]

I have no particular sympathies for monarchy coming from a republic country but I sense weird hostility towards royalty and so-called upper class. So what, they have money and their own careers to look after. It is not like they are the only form of people with busy scheludes while having small children. Reading some of these comments it seems that just because they are _royals_ it is worse with them than, say, with some London City worker.

I would prefer a nanny working in our home anytime but day care will do fine (mind you, I am childless ;) ), I just don't understand why a hired help is such a bad thing. And nanny taking care of children while parents are doing their own work? Oh my, how unheard-of! I wonder why we have all these kindergartens, day care centers, nannies and other caregivers if not to help parents with childcare. Of course, in my country stay-at-home-parenthood isn't a thing. Stay-at-home-parent usually returns back to working life when a child is three years old if not earlier.

Whatever they decide, it is up to them, haters gonna hate anyway.

[August]

OH totally! Still do. It was the upper class bit I meant. The richest residents of Chelsea after all tend to be the players and their wives of Chelsea FC! (an exaggeration, but you get my drift :lol: )

Rich isn't upper class, though. No matter how they try.

[Feberin]

I have no particular sympathies for monarchy coming from a republic country but I sense weird hostility towards royalty and so-called upper class. So what, they have money and their own careers to look after. It is not like they are the only form of people with busy scheludes while having small children. Reading some of these comments it seems that just because they are _royals_ it is worse with them than, say, with some London City worker.

I would prefer a nanny working in our home anytime but day care will do fine (mind you, I am childless ;) ), I just don't understand why a hired help is such a bad thing. And nanny taking care of children while parents are doing their own work? Oh my, how unheard-of! I wonder why we have all these kindergartens, day care centers, nannies and other caregivers if not to help parents with childcare. Of course, in my country stay-at-home-parenthood isn't a thing. Stay-at-home-parent usually returns back to working life when a child is three years old if not earlier.

Whatever they decide, it is up to them, haters gonna hate anyway.

My comments about them needing a nanny steamed from the pressure for them to look well groomed and especially in Kate's case well dressed. London city workers can run out for groceries not looking put together without having to worry about photographers snapping their pictures.

[Soldevi]

I am sure they will have and need a nanny. Looking well dressed and well rested is part of their job. Publicity is so important part of their lives and work that I couldn't deal with it, with all that negativity. I feel sorry for Estelle of Sweden already. Everything is exposed from the very beginning of her life. Every choice or silly childish decision kids usually make will be analysed thoroughly and always something negative will be found.

I am just hoping everything goes well and the pressure isn't too much for her. Anorexic tendencies among royal princesses seem to be rule rather than the exception. I agree with you that an anonymous (rich) city worker can live his/her life freely.

[miffy]

Sloane Rangers can't afford Sloane Square anymore. :lol:

Actually this isn't all true, the most stereotypical sloane ranger I know lives in Knightbridge.

[tabitha2]

princess Elizabeth of Belgium had an Antarctic base named for her and then gave a short speech to a room full of scientist thanking them;she was all of nine or ten and very poised and proper. these children esp. the heirs grow up pretty quick and know what's expected.

[August]

I am sure they will have and need a nanny. Looking well dressed and well rested is part of their job. Publicity is so important part of their lives and work that I couldn't deal with it, with all that negativity. I feel sorry for Estelle of Sweden already. Everything is exposed from the very beginning of her life. Every choice or silly childish decision kids usually make will be analysed thoroughly and always something negative will be found.

I am just hoping everything goes well and the pressure isn't too much for her. Anorexic tendencies among royal princesses seem to be rule rather than the exception. I agree with you that an anonymous (rich) city worker can live his/her life freely.

Having a nanny doesn't mean you have to have the child raised by a nanny. All working mothers need childcare, nannies are an excellent choice, but they don't have to use the nanny to raise the child. I've been a child-raising nanny and a working mother nanny and I'd be happy to explain the difference if anyone is interested. I only worked for one family where I took the parents place, and never again, by preference. It's too hard on the children to have bonded to you as primary carer and have you leave. But in that job I had many other parent-substitute nanny friends and heard their experiences.

Working parents' nanny : take over childcare either as parent leaves house or shortly before. Hand over child/ren when parent arrives home. Don't normally work weekends. Usually not be there if a parent is. Usually don't take child to doctor. Child happily comforted by nanny but usually runs to parent if both are present.

Raising children nanny: wake child/ren up, put them to sleep at night. Children may spend an hour or two unsupervised with parents during the day, plus one or one and a half days during week. Children run to nanny before parent if hurt and both are present. Child will cry for nanny at night even if parent/s are with them.

[debrand]

I have no particular sympathies for monarchy coming from a republic country but I sense weird hostility towards royalty and so-called upper class. So what, they have money and their own careers to look after. It is not like they are the only form of people with busy scheludes while having small children. Reading some of these comments it seems that just because they are _royals_ it is worse with them than, say, with some London City worker.

I would prefer a nanny working in our home anytime but day care will do fine (mind you, I am childless ;) ), I just don't understand why a hired help is such a bad thing. And nanny taking care of children while parents are doing their own work? Oh my, how unheard-of! I wonder why we have all these kindergartens, day care centers, nannies and other caregivers if not to help parents with childcare. Of course, in my country stay-at-home-parenthood isn't a thing. Stay-at-home-parent usually returns back to working life when a child is three years old if not earlier.

Whatever they decide, it is up to them, haters gonna hate anyway.

If I had a career that allowed me to make the kind of money to hire a nanny, I would have hired one. Just because a family has a live in nanny does not mean that the parents don't do most of the child care.

It could be an advantage for the kids to view the person who helps care for them as a family member.

whoops: I just read August's post.

[OkToBeTakei]

I have no particular sympathies for monarchy coming from a republic country but I sense weird hostility towards royalty and so-called upper class. So what, they have money and their own careers to look after. It is not like they are the only form of people with busy scheludes while having small children. Reading some of these comments it seems that just because they are _royals_ it is worse with them than, say, with some London City worker.

I would prefer a nanny working in our home anytime but day care will do fine (mind you, I am childless ;) ), I just don't understand why a hired help is such a bad thing. And nanny taking care of children while parents are doing their own work? Oh my, how unheard-of! I wonder why we have all these kindergartens, day care centers, nannies and other caregivers if not to help parents with childcare. Of course, in my country stay-at-home-parenthood isn't a thing. Stay-at-home-parent usually returns back to working life when a child is three years old if not earlier.

Whatever they decide, it is up to them, haters gonna hate anyway.

Oh I didn't see it like that to be honest. I could care less if folks decide to get a nanny, use a childminder, be a stay at home parent, use nurseries. Whatever works for each family unit.

Where I saw misunderstanding, perhaps cultural or stereotypical was the assertion of money equalling upper class. As August said being rich does not equal being upper class, I would translate that as her perception of class in the UK. Absolutely a lot of rich people have no class :lol: That goes for all demographics in my view, economic standing aside.

For sure the Monarch would be seen as upper class in years gone by, or even their very own separate class system. There was a lot of generalisation on this thread in regards to the way they are or were perceived many years ago. The older Royals still probably fit that stereotype. Queen's cousins, her sister etc. The nannies, governess etc. But if you look at all THEIR children none of them are supported in any way by the state. The Queen receives a salary for want of a better way of putting it. She then pays her family in kind. They obviously have their own personal wealth, Duke of westminster for example? But gone are the days of by being Royal you were assured a life of luxury and wealth at the hands of your subjects. Few if any of them command a salary by public service. Those that do are becoming fewer and tend to be of immediate family.

The generation after the Queen all typically work. Went to university and do their own thing. So unless supported by their own independently rich parents, basically make their own way. Sure the name helps. But the assertion that all Royals are rich, educated by governess etc is all just generalisation and stereotyping.

Also I do not understand at all that rich people are upper class. No they are just rich. The class system whilst still alive and kicking in the UK has changed greatly. There was a great thread about this recently. But money really does not denote the class system in the sense of what it used to be.

I think I used the landed gentry as an example. That would be the classic 'upper class' and yet many live in penury due to the very real economic difficulties of maintaining ageing country piles.

So no, money is absolutely not upper class. There is an interesting breakdown of the new 'class' system in the UK somewhere.

Anyway rambling now.

[ems]

That.

[FJismyheadship]

I wanted to breast feed. When I asked one of the nurses if I could, she said it probably wasn't a good idea because of the medicine I was about to go back on.

Turns out I could have. Most people are shocked when I tell them a nurse told me that. Now that I know better, I wish I had insisted, or asked my OB when she came to check in on me. I thought about trying it myself, but I didn't know where to begin, and besides, she had been on the bottle for a week by that time.

I really feel like I missed out.

[Soldevi]

I wasn't saying that only a nanny raises a child, I was criticising those who said that basically royal families leave childcare to other people while travelling around the world and then push children to boarding schools and don't really see or raise them. That sounded harsh to me. Nothing else bugged me :) Maybe it was like that once, but modern times have reached royal houses, too. I have understood that British Royal House is slow to changes habits but younger generation seems to do what it wants.

For me British class society is fascinating. We have never really had much so-called upper class (not that I particularly miss, either) and maybe because of that I am so interested of it, all that manmade hierarchy just because you were born in one family and not in another. But then again, I feel sorry for Kate being so much under pressure. I am very private person and I couldn't stand a moment being watched and photographed all the time. Do this or that, someone will always get mad.

[WonderingInWA]

I haven't read this whole thread. But I am the mother of 2 breastfed babies and I think it is best for them. We will probably never know what Kate chooses, but that's her choice, not ours. Personally, I don't need to see her breatfeeding in public, nor do I think we ever will, but she will ultimately make that decision.

[bekkah]

Help is help. If you take your kid to preK or daycare that is help and you are being a responsible parent. On top of that, day care is so ridiculously expensive these days that sometimes if you have 2 young children it is cheaper to hire a nanny. I think my cousin gets paid 300/wk to watch three children. It may seem like a lot of money but infant daycare can run high in my area like 300/wk to 400/wk because there is not enough providers. There is a cost benefit to having help. I don't know how I am going to raise my kids but I will work it out.