Vanity Fair recently published a piece called “From Handshakes Instead of Hugs to Prince Louis’s Adorable Antics: The Peculiar History of Royal Parenting.” I thought it was just going to be praise for Prince William and Kate for not being sh-tty parents like so many of William’s ancestors, because the bar is (as always) in hell for the Windsors. Much of the article is just that, but there are some interesting stories about how royals all around the world, throughout history, have always been awful parents. King Charles is even criticized, not for being a dogsh-t father (it’s true) but for having the kind of childish arrested development typical of people sent off to boarding school. Some highlights:

The royal absentee parent: “Royal parents traditionally had nothing to do with their children’s day-to-day care when they were very young—George V, the late Queen’s grandfather, once saw a maid pushing a pram along a corridor at Buckingham Palace,” Tom Quinn, author of Gilded Youth: A History of Growing Up in the Royal Family, tells Vanity Fair. “He said to the maid: ‘Whose baby is that?’ The maid replied, ‘It’s yours, sir.’”

Royal children were sent off to become mini-adults: “In medieval times, royal princes and princesses were sent away aged just eight or nine to live in other aristocratic households—the idea was to make the child into an adult as soon as possible,” Quinn says. “The modern version of this is the royal obsession with boarding schools: sending princes and princesses to schools where they live and work 24/7 and only return home every couple of months. The royal obsession with making princes and princesses as mature as possible as early as possible actually has the opposite effect and many royal children (especially boys) never really grow up. They behave like children when they grow up because they were not allowed to be children when they were young. This applies to Edward VII, George V and VI, Edward VIII, and especially King Charles.”

QEII was a cold & distant mother: “Elizabeth…inherited the idea that the young Charles and Anne must be looked after by nannies and governesses—they had nothing to do with Charles’s and Anne’s daily routine when they were babies,” Quinn writes. “All the work was done by paid staff and Elizabeth and Philip saw their children just once each day for a very formal meeting. One member of staff told me that, ‘Queen Elizabeth would no more visit the nursery than fly—instead we took the children to see her each day.’”

Princess Diana shook things up: In many ways, she started a royal parenting revolution that was adopted by many European ruling houses. She was demonstratively affectionate in private and public, took them to McDonald’s and amusement parks, and made sure many harsher aspects of royal life were not imposed on “her boys.” It is a legacy of involvement her sons are attempting to follow, expand, and refine (no McDonald’s for Kate’s children Prince George, Princess Charlotte, and Prince Louis).

Middle-class Kate: “William and Kate—but especially Kate—are determined to do things differently,” Quinn says. “William was brought up partly by Charles (who was embarrassed by physical affection) but also by Diana who loved to hug her children. But despite their slightly more modern outlook, both Charles and Diana still relied on paid staff—nannies—to do most of the work. Old habits die hard!”

Will & Kate are still restricted in how much control they have over their children’s lives. According to Quinn, when William and Kate discussed sending their children to state schools, there was pushback from “The Firm.” And the family still has a huge staff, including super nanny Maria Teresa Turrion Borrallo. “When [Kate] demurred and suggested she would like to do a little more the nitty-gritty part of the childcare,” Quinn writes in Gilded Youth, “it was made very clear to her that this was best left to the professionals, and Kate is nothing if not obedient to the rules of life in the royal family.”

Prince Louis’s antics. “Old school royal parents would have felt Louis’s behaviour was undignified for a royal child of any age,” says Quinn, “because elements of the old obsession with royal princes behaving like adults even when they are still children still persists, but Kate and William are acutely aware of how much good publicity comes from having a charming child!”

[From Vanity Fair]

“It was made very clear to her that this was best left to the professionals, and Kate is nothing if not obedient to the rules of life in the royal family…” LOL. You guys, Kate HAS to employ a big household staff, because the Windsors dictated that to her! Please. While I agree that Kate changed up the royal-parenting rules (much like Diana), let’s also be clear – Kate wishes she could have even more staff. And a bigger house. And a husband who viewed her as something more than his children’s main childcare provider. “Kate and William are acutely aware of how much good publicity comes from having a charming child.” More like Kate and William use the children as buffers and distractions from their own bullsh-t.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images, Instar.