Today they must be eating their words.
In public, platitudes are essential, so we've heard gushing congratulatory noises from her paymasters. But in private they, like me, may be wondering why she couldn't have had the good grace to wait a year or two to respond to her ticking biological clock.
Like most women in their early 30s, motherhood was on Natasha's agenda - no surprise there. All very acceptable and entirely natural. It should not have been an obligation on her part to discuss her maternal aspirations at interview - although it is reported she did. But her employers could and should have expected her to wait a while before fulfilling her desires. And now they, like legions of hard-working responsible women who want to be taken seriously, have every right to feel let down by the star presenter.
There's a time and a place for everything and the time to announce your intention to take maternity leave is not six weeks into a new job.
However, these days, there can be no greater infringement of office etiquette than to question a woman's timing, even though an intelligent and savvy go-getter like Natasha would know all about birth control.
And let's not forget in this the modern have-it-all age the desire to have children, like the desire to earn a seven figure salary, is a matter of choice. It is no longer a requirement of women of child-bearing age.
Natasha must know she's dropping her employers right in it but does she care a jot?
It's strange because up to now, she has displayed impeccable timing, both with her news delivery and choice of other TV gigs (the Strictly Come Dancing turn was a masterstroke).
Suddenly timing appears to have deserted her. Yet despite demonstrating an irresponsible attitude, the very hint of a raised eyebrow would be a faux pas of the highest order.
Our rigid employment laws and fear of upsetting the "mummyzilla" brigade demand that those left in the workplace put up and shut up. The burden on them to make provision for a woman's unexpected decision to take maternity leave is irrelevant. And to question her behaviour is to be booed with howls of derision. That is why Five bosses are so outwardly supportive. Behind closed doors, though, there must have been a pregnant pause or, at the very least, a sigh of frustration.
Kaplinsky's champions argue forcefully - and with more than a hint of hysteria - that it is a woman's right to take maternity leave whenever she wants.
They will probably point to the fact that Natasha could lose more than £100,000 because she's a freelancer as opposed to a staffer.
Natasha won't lose much sleep over that one as she's sure to rake in magazine deals, while the rest of us are distracted by the sight of yet another newsreader's growing bump.
I'm just glad it's not my licence fee funding Ms Kaplinsky's maternity leave as sure is eggs is eggs Five will have to dig deep to find a replacement.
To read Karen Connolly's opposing view click on the related article link on the right... Tweet
Comments
Login or Register to comment
Unbelievable article!..Just because someone is on tv should not exclude them from having a baby or maternity leave..she is a freelance journo'
C5 Will have to deal with it like any other employer.
I read the papers everyday, I can do it out loud if the money is right, shall we say 50 grand for the time she is off!?...it's gotta be a good deal, that's saving you 50k and also you won't have to alter the height of the desk to accommodate a bump.
I must admit to finding your article highly insensitive - not to Kaplinsky - but to young women all over the UK trying to have a child.
Having a child is no longer the guarantee it might have been years and years ago. Male and female fertlity issues are becoming more and more common - even the most healthy of people can have fertility issues.
To "have the good grace to wait a year or two" is an outrageous statement.
It doesn't matter is she earns £100 a week or £1 million a year - fair play to her is all I can say - and how silly are you is all I can say to you, and to the likes of Eva Longoria, who is "postponing" having children for another few years .... it just shouldn't be taken for granted.
Karen Connolly poses the question "would a prospective employer ask a man if he were planning to start a family ?" as though this were some erudite and argument-clinching observation. The answer, since it clearly needs spelling out, is; "No, Karen, because having a child doesn't necessitate a man taking time off work. No-one else has to be paid to do his job, no-one else has to be be moved sideways to accommodate his eventual return and he doesn't miss out on years of valuable experience. In short, if you can afford to be away from your place of work for months at a time, your workplace doesn't need you !"
Has it occurred to anyone that this might no have been planned to happen just yet? Accidents can happen - as millions of women all over the world can testify.