The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #741  
Old 01-26-2012, 12:36 PM
Susanna Wynne's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jackson Hole, United States
Posts: 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post

A side note: as for the Diana excuse, that doesn't wash as Diana and Catherine are two completely different people and had/have two very different roles to fulfill.


My point, Lumutqueen, is that it doesn't matter how different Diana and Catherine are to me or to you, it is what the Queen and her advisors think. THEY are the ones who are determined that Catherine will have a slower and better introduction to the activities of being a royal than Diana did. So I do not blame Catherine nor think any of us should.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #742  
Old 01-26-2012, 12:38 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Susanna Wynne View Post
it is what the Queen and her advisors think.
And you know this to be 100% true, how exactly?
__________________

__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #743  
Old 01-26-2012, 12:41 PM
miche's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: N/A, United States
Posts: 556
Her parents are millionaire, he get money from his trust fund (mother) and the duchy of Cornwall estate along with his RAF salary, he can pay for first class trip without using tax-payer money. Which he don't, only members of the Royal family who is tax-payer funded is the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh.

Duchy of Cornwall - Home Page - The Official Website for the Duchy of Cornwall
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #744  
Old 01-26-2012, 12:44 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by miche View Post
Her parents are millionaire, he get money from his trust fund (mother) and the duchy of Cornwall estate along with his RAF salary, he can pay for first class trip without using tax-payer money. Which he don't, only members of the Royal family who is tax-payer funded is the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh.

Duchy of Cornwall - Home Page - The Official Website for the Duchy of Cornwall
The security that's with them on their first class holiday is paid for by the tax payer. You're right that the only people on the Civil List are HM and Prince Philip.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #745  
Old 01-26-2012, 12:51 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,324
William and Kate are not paid by the nation to do anything (except that he's paid to work in the material).

See, I believe that the failure of some here to do their own basic (home)work is just so glaringly obvious that it's hard for me to understand imposing their own work ethic on someone else.

Look to your own house first, and when you've stepped up your own work (in this case fact-finding), post in a more opinionated manner.

And yes, I used to think the same thing and was reeducated within one week of joining this forum. Only two people are on the list for payment from the British People. If William and Kate are living on anything more than his salary, it's because their parents or grandparents are helping them out. I help out my kids. I am not a socialist and believe that being able to spend money preferentially on my children (while paying taxes to help other people's children of course) is the right thing. So, when I hear this bossiness toward Kate and William as if they are owned by the British people for X number of hours a week, I think: either poorly informed or socialist (and politics are not the subject of this board).

LumutQueen, you don't have to change your opinion whatsoever, but of course, we can all have our opinions on your posts, as well. Susannah, myself and others are as entitled to call what you're saying "criticism" as you are to say what you're saying.

If you want to continue being critical, we could all be as critical of every other human as we wish. Would you really want that? Indirectly, for example, doesn't have a hyphen in it, yet you put one. Now I'm being critical of you (in order for a principle of mine, reciprocity) to be illustrated (as opposed to your principle of criticizing).

We don't know who paid for Mustique, but it wasn't the British taxpayers. And again, unless you are a socialist (and you appear to be), it isn't anyone else's business how families spend their money (although one may criticize anyone in this world). So I totally understand how you might feel critical and want to criticize (and in America, it's your right; I believe it's a right in Great Britain too), but if you do, you are putting it out there to hear what others think. There's a saying, "live by the sword, etc." So some of the people who have disagreed with you will probably continue to do so. I find your tone indicative of a very entrenched position, which will almost certainly have the effect of causing some other people here to adopt a similarly entrenched position (it usually does, in human discourse).

We could spend all our time criticizing royals if we wished. It would be easy enough to do. We could then criticize the criticizers (who then could criticize the non-criticizers).

I continue to like the fact that Kate is doing things differently, I think a lot of the so-called "work" done by some Royals in the past isn't really "work" (in the sense that it generates something of value for an economic unit) but is in fact P.R. for the royal franchise. If the newlyweds' stance indicates a general denouement in a chapter of British royal behavior, given that there are only 2 people on the list - perhaps they are "working to contract," so to speak (I would), I think that's a good thing.

As for the security payments while on holiday, if the British people really feel that security should be withdrawn from their royals when they're on holiday, that should be a matter for Parliament. There, the debate would be meaningful and interesting.

The way it stands here, I'm left with the few that some of you think Will and Kate should have security withdrawn from them when they're on their private time. That, it seems, is a more appropriate criticism (it's taxpayer money) than constantly criticizing the character of one young woman.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #746  
Old 01-26-2012, 12:59 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,201
This might just be one of those conversations that will continue to go round in circles. Nothing new can really be added to the conversation, as our opinions are likely to stay the same. Interesting really.

My last point though, I would like to know how Susannah knows what the Queen and her advisers think?
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #747  
Old 01-26-2012, 01:02 PM
Al_bina's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 5,886

You are absolutely right. It is quite futile trying to speculate about Duchess' of Cambridge duties and roles and determine whether or not the couple in question wastes taxpayers' funds. Furthermore, it would be fair to note that the public opinion carries little or no weight in this case.
__________________
"I never did mind about the little things"
Amanda, "Point of No Return"
Reply With Quote
  #748  
Old 01-26-2012, 01:20 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 2,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathl29 View Post
Have to agree with LumutQueen...


By being constantly photographed going shopping and going on holiday she is at risk of looking like she does not take her role seriously.

And I agree with both of you.

Kate's been married long enough for things to have settled down in her life, and I do feel she should start taking on more appearances.

Nor do I feel this is the best time to take off to Mustique, given the current economic situation.
(If she needed a break, why not a few days at Windsor or Balmoral, like the Queen? But rushing off to a place known as a playground for the rich simply looks cold, imo).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #749  
Old 01-26-2012, 01:40 PM
Sherlock221B's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 171
Reading these posts is awesome! Some of the "Theories of Laziness" of the Duchess of Cambridge and counter arguments are just fascinating. I wonder if I would be allowed to contribute to such an engaging discussion. Keep in mind the are JMHO.

The theory:
It is the duty of a senior member of the royal family to either serve or become an honorary officer in HM armed forces, lack there of is a tell-tale sign of laziness. By the Duchess of Cambridge, a senior member of the royal family, neither serving nor a honorary officer she is lazy.

Why hasn't she accepted any honorary military appointments? That would keep her busy right? Structures already in place...just hit the tailor for a uniform and there you are! Been almost a year now right...she's a military wife, she should know the drills. Does she have to learn how to ride a horse? She can be a commodore in the Royal Navy or the RAF. Recommendations? Quite simply not having so by this time, it's obvious she is just plain lazy. (according to the theory)

I'll be back with a counter...give me a minute.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #750  
Old 01-26-2012, 01:42 PM
HRHHermione's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Boston, United States
Posts: 2,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel

And I agree with both of you.

Kate's been married long enough for things to have settled down in her life, and I do feel she should start taking on more appearances.

Nor do I feel this is the best time to take off to Mustique, given the current economic situation.
(If she needed a break, why not a few days at Windsor or Balmoral, like the Queen? But rushing off to a place known as a playground for the rich simply looks cold, imo).
She doesn't get to make decisions about either Windsor OR Balmoral. She's on a family vacation, and it's nice that she's getting some real time with her parents and siblings.

And I predict that several engagements in support of her new charities will be announced when she returns and William departs for the falklands
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #751  
Old 01-26-2012, 01:49 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Durham, United States
Posts: 789
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
And I agree with both of you.

Kate's been married long enough for things to have settled down in her life, and I do feel she should start taking on more appearances.

Nor do I feel this is the best time to take off to Mustique, given the current economic situation.
(If she needed a break, why not a few days at Windsor or Balmoral, like the Queen? But rushing off to a place known as a playground for the rich simply looks cold, imo).

Possibly every wealthy person in the world should no longer take a vacation???? No one is "better" than another, however some are richer, some more talented, more beautiful and just plain luckier. It is beyond me why some people think that others who have been more fortunate OR worked harder should not take a vacation just because others cannot. I cannot go to Mustique. It makes no difference to me who goes there. I find it interesting that some of the very people who are criticize Catherine for going are the same ones who resent the fact that other wealthy people may have been inconvenienced by their being there. It's a conundrum
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #752  
Old 01-26-2012, 01:53 PM
Sherlock221B's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 171
OK, here's a counter:

It is the duty of a senior member of the royal family to continue the family legacy which is done by "legitimate additions" to the family. As the Duchess of Cambridge is a senior member of the royal family it her duty to make "legitimate additions" to the royal family in an effort to continue the family legacy. Not only is her excursion to Mustique an attempt to embrace her family but to also begin the process of "legitimate additions" to the royal family legacy before her husband deploys on operations for the Falklands.

How's that?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #753  
Old 01-26-2012, 02:03 PM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 3,025
I think it's rubbish. I don't think she will have children until she is forced by either age or external pressures. It will surprise me if she has a child in the next five years.

I hope I am wrong.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #754  
Old 01-26-2012, 02:03 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 1,005
Hey, HM! Time to tell Catherine what to do!

Does anyone here believe that Kate and/or William would deny a request, or even a hint, from HM or the PoW, that she/they should be doing more?

Being young and glamourous, the couple excites near-hysteria when they make an appearance. It would be quite easy for HM to be outshone during the year of her Jubilee, and no one wants that to happen.

I tend to believe what we were told early on, that the settling into a secure and happy marriage is the most important thing for them to do for now. One more unhappy marriage and divorce would likely lead to a republic. I'm sure that if HM and 'her people' thought that Kate should be spending much time away from William in order to tour hospitals or primary schools, she would be.

And those who would dismiss the difficulties of having a high profile royal for a parent, just take a look of the sad pictures of tiny Prince Charles shaking his mother's hand when she returned from a long 'business trip'.
The head of a corporation may require a 'mommy' to travel and work long hours, and the mommy may comply or resign. I personally could never have left my baby son for more than a few hours.

Preservation of the Monarchy has to be at the forefront of any management of family affairs, and no matter how many people call her lazy or say she should be doing more, I would suggest that Catherine is doing precisely what HM and the grey men want her to.

Very easy for those of us hunched over our computers to criticize every gown, hairdo, make-up style, and work decision. They're not my royal family, they don't cost me a nickel, and I prefer that they achieve stability and happiness rather than entertaining me.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #755  
Old 01-26-2012, 02:07 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 1,005
Quote:
Originally Posted by KittyAtlanta View Post
I think it's rubbish. I don't think she will have children until she is forced by either age or external pressures. It will surprise me if she has a child in the next five years.

I hope I am wrong.
What makes you think this? We don't know if they're trying, or postponing to avoid Jubilee distraction, or if they never intend to have kids. That last part I definitely doubt. I had children on my own schedule, but there was no dynasty to extend, nor anyone to criticize my timing.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #756  
Old 01-26-2012, 02:11 PM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 3,025
What makes me think this? It's just a gut feeling.

I'm glad you had no pressure to produce.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #757  
Old 01-26-2012, 02:16 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 1,005
I am unable to have 'gut feelings' about totally strange people and situations. Right now I have a gut feeling that it's lunchtime!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #758  
Old 01-26-2012, 02:17 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,379
Since we don't know when or if Kate and/or William will have/won't have children, let's not speculate. Any and all additional posts will be deleted.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #759  
Old 01-26-2012, 02:18 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladongas View Post
Does anyone here believe that Kate and/or William would deny a request, or even a hint, from HM or the PoW, that she/they should be doing more?
I don't. I suspect they are following a plan the Queen agrees is in the long-term best interest of William and Kate, as well as, the monarchy. I certainly don't think they've been making unilateral decisions about what they will and won't do.

Based on what I read William say in a book on his grandmother, I think he is acutely aware that he is fortunate that he was not put in the positions of his grandmother and father.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #760  
Old 01-26-2012, 02:22 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 2,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess of Durham View Post
Possibly every wealthy person in the world should no longer take a vacation???? No one is "better" than another, however some are richer, some more talented, more beautiful and just plain luckier. It is beyond me why some people think that others who have been more fortunate OR worked harder should not take a vacation just because others cannot. I cannot go to Mustique. It makes no difference to me who goes there. I find it interesting that some of the very people who are criticize Catherine for going are the same ones who resent the fact that other wealthy people may have been inconvenienced by their being there. It's a conundrum

Other wealthy people are not national symbols, are they?

They should consider the people they represent, or they may not represent them much longer!
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
charities, charity, duchess of cambridge, duties, kate, kate middleton, roles


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Duties and Roles of Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie HighGoalHighDreams The Duke of York, Sarah Duchess of York, and Family 1606 06-24-2014 12:59 PM




Popular Tags
abdication belgium birth carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion germany grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman pregnancy president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince daniel prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit stockholm sweden the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:22 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]