British Royal News.

[cordtx]

Maybe the queen still requests one for kids at James age?
Maybe he has ADD or something and might need to leave the lunch?

[pixiecat]

Maybe the queen still requests one for kids at James age?
Maybe he has ADD or something and might need to leave the lunch?

If this is the Queen requesting this, then this is ridiculous and she clearly is out of touch with reality.  

If this is due to a disability, then I get that, but it is still odd.

I'm sorry, but I think this is ridiculous that children that old would need a nanny to accompany them to a family event where the parents are present.  It makes Ed and Sophie look ridiculous.  

Of course, we've also got a grown-ass man who has never been able to put toothpaste on his own toothbrush, so I daresay that this family is the most ridiculous family out there if this is indeed more of their asinine protocol.    I have zero respect for their "parenting" and "living" skills. I don't give a toss what their traditions are or how King Blah Blah Blah in 1902 once insisted that children have a nanny present until the age of 18. Ridiculous.

[Oh_Caroline]

She might be coming to help with the truly little ones.  I don’t think that the truly littles eat with the adults.  Plus with that many littles extra hands are always good. 


Sorry for the earlier snark.

[Margaret]

I agree it does seem really strange for Louise and James to have a nanny accompany them to a function such as this.  I can understand someone at home for them more as companion and general "minder" for want of a better word, but going out like this?  What are these two young people going to do if not watched all the time at lunch with the family at granny's?  Bust into the liquor cabinet?  I suppose it is possible that the nanny has nanny friends who we also going to be there and she wanted to go so they let her.  But it is still one more of those odd little things that the  BRF do that the rest of us cannot fathom.

[ralf103]

Maybe the nannies all have lunch together and enjoy having a great catch up? Maybe the RF use this opportunity to give the nannies their Christmas presents? Who knows.

Royal nannies are always close to their charges - Charles and Anne's nanny went with the RF for one of the summer cruises when the Queen chartered that boat a few years back. Can't see Charles or Anne needing a nanny.

My point is, maybe they are there for other reasons than just to look after the children.

[Margaret]

Maybe the nannies all have lunch together and enjoy having a great catch up? Maybe the RF use this opportunity to give the nannies their Christmas presents? Who knows.

Royal nannies are always close to their charges - Charles and Anne's nanny went with the RF for one of the summer cruises when the Queen chartered that boat a few years back. Can't see Charles or Anne needing a nanny.

My point is, maybe they are there for other reasons than just to look after the children.

You've expanded the thought that had started to germinate in my mind.  For all we know there is a slap up nanny lunch at the same time that all the nannies look forward to. It would make sense since they would all be there with their charges.  I think that is what I will choose to believe.

[pixiecat]

I highly doubt they have a nanny lunch that takes place at the same time as their own lunch-especially when there are several small children in the family at the moment.  There's no way that "granny" would allow for this as it would mean that there are little ones who would have to be looked after by their own parents, thus disrupting granny's luncheon. Not a chance in hell.

You all are far too kind. 

Based on the fact that there is a septuagenarian in that family who can't figure out how to apply toothpaste to his own toothbrush, it's far more likely that they really are that ridiculous and thus insist that all children have a nanny at all times.

[Jonathan]

The children do eat separately from the adults. They are only allowed to eat with the adults when they know how to behave/eat with the right cutlery/all the rest that comes with that weird family.

[pixiecat]

The children do eat separately from the adults. They are only allowed to eat with the adults when they know how to behave/eat with the right cutlery/all the rest that comes with that weird family.

 

I still can't get past Louise and James showing up with a nanny.      This family is so creepy and backward.

[Jonathan]

The children do eat separately from the adults. They are only allowed to eat with the adults when they know how to behave/eat with the right cutlery/all the rest that comes with that weird family.

 

I still can't get past Louise and James showing up with a nanny.      This family is so creepy and backward.

    I am with you on this one. I don't think Ann kept her kids nanny so long. But then Ann does actually have a job and lives in the real world.

[ralf103]

I don't understand the issue here,  I really don't. We don't know what goes on behind closed doors so have no way of knowing what role the nanny's take or why. It seems mad to me to suggest the Queen "demands it".
The outrage being expressed at this shows me how the whole Kate and Meghan feud story could have started and grown as it has. It's Christmas let's think the best of the royals or once and be happy they all get to spend time together. I am sure the children are happy their nanny (whom they re no doubt close to) AND their parents are there.

[Booklover]

The children do eat separately from the adults. They are only allowed to eat with the adults when they know how to behave/eat with the right cutlery/all the rest that comes with that weird family.

 

I still can't get past Louise and James showing up with a nanny.      This family is so creepy and backward.

The only one who seemed to be without a nanny was Lady Rose Gilman, Duke of Gloucester's daughter. And her two children are still young 8 and 6. 

[Oh_Caroline]

So honestly I can see an age cap for dinner...they probably use HISTORIC china, silverware, and glassware.  Lets say that 9 and under eat separately...by my count that would be 16 kids eating separately.   If each family brought their nanny I think there would be 9 nannies...we don't believe that the Gilman's can with one so that makes 8 nannies for 16 kids under the age of 10.   2 infants, 1 child age 2, 1 child age 3, 2 children age 4, 2 children age 5, 3 children age 6, 1 child age 7, 3 children age 8, and 1 child age 9.

Sure it sound stupid to us...but...to each there own.  I do agree with ralf103...the BRF is causing a lot of tension/dishing over the past year and irritation maybe spilling over from one branch to anyone/all.  I'm going to try to give myself a personal timeout to cool my own jets...because Oh_C is feeling hot.  Of course I spent all day wrestling with wrapping paper so that might have something to do with my angry mood.   

[NAOTMAA]

The children do eat separately from the adults. They are only allowed to eat with the adults when they know how to behave/eat with the right cutlery/all the rest that comes with that weird family.

They still do that    

Back in Victorian/Edwardian times children (rarely seen and never heard  ) ate in the nursery with their nanny/governess/governor or whoever looked after them until they hit the age where they can as you said behave themselves and not cause a fuss (breakfast/lunch/tea/dinner were rarely just family as there was usually other guests in attendance).

or am I totally misreading your post and its no longer like that today  


I remember when I was younger and we went to our cousins for Thanksgiving there was an adult table and a kids table although I guess that was because there was so many people and it was pretty chaotic with a lot of noise and the adults wanted their own talk. It certainly wasn't done on normal days though

[pixiecat]

I don't understand the issue here,  I really don't. We don't know what goes on behind closed doors so have no way of knowing what role the nanny's take or why. It seems mad to me to suggest the Queen "demands it".
The outrage being expressed at this shows me how the whole Kate and Meghan feud story could have started and grown as it has. It's Christmas let's think the best of the royals or once and be happy they all get to spend time together. I am sure the children are happy their nanny (whom they re no doubt close to) AND their parents are there.

I don't know what Kate and Meghan have to do with a teenager and an older boy showing up with their nanny?  

Also, this is a board where we discuss royals-good and bad; so, that's what is happening here. Not sure why this is a problem?  We're not required to only think positively about these people who neither know nor care that we exist-even if it is a particular time of the year. They're public figures.  They're not immune from criticism.   Personally, I think it is unhealthy and weird that Louise and James have a nanny escorting them to a family event where their parents are present.  You do not, and that is just as valid as my view.  This is all okay.  This is what we do here-we discuss and share opinions of all stripes.

So honestly I can see an age cap for dinner...they probably use HISTORIC china, silverware, and glassware.  Lets say that 9 and under eat separately...by my count that would be 16 kids eating separately.   If each family brought their nanny I think there would be 9 nannies...we don't believe that the Gilman's can with one so that makes 8 nannies for 16 kids under the age of 10.   2 infants, 1 child age 2, 1 child age 3, 2 children age 4, 2 children age 5, 3 children age 6, 1 child age 7, 3 children age 8, and 1 child age 9.

Sure it sound stupid to us...but...to each there own.  I do agree with ralf103...the BRF is causing a lot of tension/dishing over the past year and irritation maybe spilling over from one branch to anyone/all.  I'm going to try to give myself a personal timeout to cool my own jets...because Oh_C is feeling hot.  Of course I spent all day wrestling with wrapping paper so that might have something to do with my angry mood.   

None of them are untouchable as far as criticism goes. There are things that QEII has done that are completely unacceptable,  IMO.  Her snub of Queen Fabiola is one of the most ridiculous and rude things I've ever seen a monarch do in recent years.  Same for her lack of attendance at the major events her counterparts on the continent are holding.  I don't care how popular Ed and Sophie are; if Beatrix and Margrethe had not rushed over to England for all of Liz's family's events, she'd have had a meltdown. Meghan and Kate aren't the only ones who can be dished on.  They're all fair game.  If they're doing something obnoxious, they can and should be called out on it.