On child care
Sir: Your recent editorial deplores, among other things, the cost of child care, to which you attribute the loss of female skills to the workplace (11 January). I would agree that pursuing a career is easier if one has no children. I also agree that the cost of child care is a significant drain on the income of young families. I am less convinced by the implicit suggestion that cheaper child care is the solution. I speak from experience and with hindsight.
My son was born in 2000. For women of my age and education, at that time it was almost imperative to shove your baby into an expensive nursery and get back to work as quickly as possible. This is what I did — and I can’t say it was a good investment, for me, for his father or for him. There is much to be said for the view that a mother’s role is nurturing; the time will come when the child is ready for independence, but that time is not at three months of age, six months of age or even five years. It is another instance of feminism having got it all wrong (with the added disadvantage that two incomes are now needed to sustain decent accommodation, with what is left over from the child-care fees).
Jane Smith
Edinburgh
Desperate Harry?
Sir: Last summer, The Spectator kindly published a letter from me where I defended Prince Harry against his torrid controversies (31 August). I wrote that he was doing his best in difficult circumstances and was ‘deserving of our sympathy, understanding and encouragement’. This latest episode has forced me into some reflection. I am deeply disappointed in the Duke and Duchess of Sussex for the way that they have gone about announcing their retreat from public life. It’s hard to maintain, as I did then, that they seek ‘to do good for the royal family and the British people’.

Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in