The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #81  
Old 12-06-2010, 05:04 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marie of The Sea View Post
Since during the Queen's last Jubilee, the Golden Jubilee , Camilla did nothing at all.
The Golden Jubilee was in 2002, why would Camilla have done anything when she wasn't married to Charles?
__________________

__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 12-06-2010, 08:11 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,446
I remember hearing the Queen make a comment like that - someone swore in her hearing and was shushed. The Queen said something like 'I am the wife of a sailor, the mother of a sailor, the daughter of a sailor, the granddaughter of a sailor - let them say what they like I have heard it all before.'
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 12-07-2010, 01:44 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I remember hearing the Queen make a comment like that - someone swore in her hearing and was shushed. The Queen said something like 'I am the wife of a sailo, the mother of a sailor, the daughter of a sailor, the granddaughter of a sailor - let them say what they like I have heard it all before.'
I love this quote.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 12-07-2010, 11:50 AM
prsgoddess's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Orlando, United States
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I remember hearing the Queen make a comment like that - someone swore in her hearing and was shushed. The Queen said something like 'I am the wife of a sailor, the mother of a sailor, the daughter of a sailor, the granddaughter of a sailor - let them say what they like I have heard it all before.'
Love this! And for some reason, I have no trouble imagining QEII saying this...
__________________
It's all to do with the training: you can do a lot if you're properly trained.
Queen Elizabeth II

Annamarie
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 12-07-2010, 04:10 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,188
Please note that off topic comments about Camilla's role (or lack of role) at the last Jubilee have been deleted as off topic.

This thread is about the duties and roles of Catherine Middleton, not the Duchess of Cornwall.

Zonk
British Forums Moderator
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 12-25-2010, 08:24 PM
Britters's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: DC, United States
Posts: 878
I don't necessarily agree that people are jealous, although with some, perhaps, this is the reality, who knows.

I think people are put off by the fact that Kate, seemingly, did nothing with herself once she graduated college as far as a career. I don't know, I work for a family business, and I work hard. I also have the state of mind that if you work hard there is absolutely nothing wrong with playing hard and furthermore there is nothing wrong with time away when you can take it. Kate made the comment that she knew, and those important to her knew, how hard she worked and what she was doing, and for her, that's all that mattered. Who are we to judge at this point? When she's married and being supported by the taxpayers I can see where the judgements might be more "called for" but for now, let the girl breath.
__________________
Have you ever wished on a star? It's a magic everyone needs to experience!
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 12-25-2010, 09:48 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,446
If she waits until she is supported by the taxpayers she probably has 30 or more years to do what she has appeared to be doing in the minds of many - nothing - as only the monarch and the spouse of the monarch (and surviving spouses) are supported by the taxpayers. The rest are supported from the monarch's private income (no different to any other family supporting its members from their sources of income).

She will be expected to start working from April 29th next year for the good of Britain and not wait until William becomes King and gets support from the taxpayers (only the Queen and Philip are supported now). I hope that she starts doing charity work and other duties next summer and by the time she is 40 would expect her to be doing close on 1000 - 1500 engagements a year (that high as I expect the only people doing royal duties by then will be Charles and Camilla and William and Kate - Harry will still be in the military and I wouldn't be surprised if he isn't married as he seems too flighty. I don't think the York girls will be doing royal duties at all as Charles wants to reduce the size of the royal family and that to me would suggest monarch + spouse + children + spouses and no one else).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 12-26-2010, 03:54 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 802
Catherine won't be supported by the taxpayers at all, either as wife of the heir or Queen. As of 2013, the Civil List is being abolished and the monarch will receive 15% of the income of the Crown Estate, to be capped and also it will have a minimum figure. The Crown Estate money doesn't come from taxes but rather from the rent of tenants on the Crown Estate.

The figure of 1000 to 1500 royal duties a year is just ridiculous. Especially since at their very peak, Prince Philip and Princess Anne carried out around 670 royal engagements a year and both have reduced, Philip due to age (he's down to the 300s) and Anne probably seeing that it wasn't sustainable, she's down to the 500s. Even the Emperor of Japan who is the Head of State of a country of 127million people at his peak carried out 1000 engagements a year, in his case his workload has been reduced as well. Catherine as wife of the heir of a country of around 60 million won't be expected nor able to carry out engagements into the 1000s!

Catherine will be 40 in 11 years time, (she turns 29 in 2 weeks) so by the time she is 40, Andrew will be 60 and carrying out his full load (500) engagements a year, Edward and Sophie will be in their mid 50s so their load of around 300 and 200 engagements will carry on. Anne will be 70 and probably be down to about 400 engagements. The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester in their mid 70s and so carry out the 200 and 100 engagements they do now. Assuming good health the Kent siblings will be in their 80s and probably still doing a handful. This not not even counting Harry (perhaps wife) Beatrice and Eugenie, Charles and Camilla.

Fewer royals, just means fewer organisations will have royal patrons, not that the remaining ones drastically increase the amount of engagements they have. An example of a royal patronage going, Diana was patron of Barnados, she gave it up, and Cheri Blair as wife of the PM became patron. Now Barnados has a royal patron again with Camilla. The older royals such as Prince Philip and the Queen also have numerous patronages that are not UK based, Charles has a few, the younger royals' patronages are all UK based. I don't think it's as likely as it was in the past for organisations outside the UK to ask a British royal to be their patron.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 12-26-2010, 04:47 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlotte1 View Post
Catherine won't be supported by the taxpayers at all, either as wife of the heir or Queen. As of 2013, the Civil List is being abolished and the monarch will receive 15% of the income of the Crown Estate, to be capped and also it will have a minimum figure. The Crown Estate money doesn't come from taxes but rather from the rent of tenants on the Crown Estate.
This is really just an accouting change and not a real one as currently the money from the Crown Estates goes to the government, along with taxes etc. From that income the government pays the Civil List. All it is doing is proposing setting up set rate based on a certain income source that it has now. To compensate the government will have to use taxpayers money to make up the shortfall in the income from the Crown Estates - no change to what anyone is currently paying but the accouting will be different and that is all.

Quote:
The figure of 1000 to 1500 royal duties a year is just ridiculous. Especially since at their very peak, Prince Philip and Princess Anne carried out around 670 royal engagements a year and both have reduced, Philip due to age (he's down to the 300s) and Anne probably seeing that it wasn't sustainable, she's down to the 500s. Even the Emperor of Japan who is the Head of State of a country of 127million people at his peak carried out 1000 engagements a year, in his case his workload has been reduced as well. Catherine as wife of the heir of a country of around 60 million won't be expected nor able to carry out engagements into the 1000s!

Catherine will be 40 in 11 years time, (she turns 29 in 2 weeks) so by the time she is 40, Andrew will be 60 and carrying out his full load (500) engagements a year, Edward and Sophie will be in their mid 50s so their load of around 300 and 200 engagements will carry on. Anne will be 70 and probably be down to about 400 engagements. The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester in their mid 70s and so carry out the 200 and 100 engagements they do now. Assuming good health the Kent siblings will be in their 80s and probably still doing a handful. This not not even counting Harry (perhaps wife) Beatrice and Eugenie, Charles and Camilla.

Fewer royals, just means fewer organisations will have royal patrons, not that the remaining ones drastically increase the amount of engagements they have. An example of a royal patronage going, Diana was patron of Barnados, she gave it up, and Cheri Blair as wife of the PM became patron. Now Barnados has a royal patron again with Camilla. The older royals such as Prince Philip and the Queen also have numerous patronages that are not UK based, Charles has a few, the younger royals' patronages are all UK based. I don't think it's as likely as it was in the past for organisations outside the UK to ask a British royal to be their patron.
Had you actually read my reasoning you would have realised that I am making the point that Charles wants to cut down the number of royals and that would rule out the majority of the people currently doing duties. I did name the ones that I would see doing them - Charles, Camilla, William, Kate and Harry. The rest of the family would be outside the Royal Family as such and won't be doing royal duties - particularly Beatrice and Eugenie. Andrew won't ever do anymore than he is now doing and in 11 years I would see him doing none. Edward and Sophie might be doing a handful as the sibling of the monarch but only if they really want to and as for the Queen's cousins - they are cutting back to almost nothing now and that will simply continue. In 11 years I would see maybe the Duke of Kent still doing Wimbledon but nothing else at all from the Gloucesters or other Kents (considering Alexandra has been cutting back for the last decade or so and the Duchess has done none for closer to 20 years) that isn't much of a stretch.

Charles is the one who really wants to bring down the size of the Royal Family and this will be the consequence - the others will have to do all the work.

1000 is not unreasonable for a fit healthy woman - it is 3 a day - allowing for about a month of holidays a year.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 12-26-2010, 05:43 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Had you actually read my reasoning....
Charles wanting to bring down the size of the Royal Family is something that was promoted back in the 1990s, nothing has been said, either by Charles or any other member of the Royal Family since then to give any idea that it's a certainty that will happen. At the same time the idea that Beatrice and Eugenie would become Lady.... was also promoted, stripped of their HRHs and nothing came of that. Now they are over 18 it's their choice.

In 11 years there is no indication that the current group of working royals (barring the Queen and DoE) won't be around to carry out duties. Why would Andrew who currently does over 500 engagements a year reduce to nothing in 11 years!? The Queen's cousins aren't cutting back drastically at all, the Duke of Kent has remained static at around 200 engagements a year for the past decade or so, as has his sister. Alexandra hasn't cut back (except for the year her husband died) and her duties have remained static at around 100 a year. The Duke of Gloucester is holding at 300, therefore it's plausible that they will continue with their royal duties with some reductions in 11 years, the Kents with larger reductions than the Gloucesters. (The Duchess of Kent retired from official duties in 2002, so not exactly 20 years! (During the 1990s she had recovered from her period of ill health and carried out a full set of engagements, including overseas ones) She still carries out an occasional duty based on local charities, a month ago she opened her local library. In the past 2 years she has carried out engagements for a Lightboat Trust she was patron of and she's a regular at the Trooping of the Colour and this year attended Remembrance Sunday. So while she's officially retired she does still do a handful of engagements)

1000 engagements a year is a ridiculous amount, no royal carries that amount out. There's no way Kate with or without a reduction in the amount of active royals, and in 11 years there won't be a huge reduction, will be expected to carry that many engagements.

Fewer royals will just mean few royal patrons for organisations.

With money for the monarchy coming from the Crown Estate, tax payers aren't directly having to have their tax increased. Also the money going into the Crown Estate varies which is why a cap is being placed so more than a certain amount in a good year goes into the government's fund, not to the royals themselves. Since the Crown Estate money comes from rents not directly from tax payers (regardless of whether Crown Estate money goes into government funds or not) Brits are not having the money they individually pay in tax go to fund the royal family. Whether or not they consider they're entitled to all the Crown Estate money to fund the government is a different matter.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 12-26-2010, 12:20 PM
texankitcat's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
.
1000 is not unreasonable for a fit healthy woman - it is 3 a day - allowing for about a month of holidays a year.
That is absolutely unreasonable and unattainable. I don't know how your calcuations are working, but obviously something is off. There are 365 days in a year. In order to meet your figure of 1000 - 1500 a year for Kate she wouldn't be able to take one month off, much less one DAY. Not to mention the engagements are not just popping in for a few minutes. They may consist of meet & greets, speeches, tours, activities, performances, etc.. They take considerable coordination from all involved, and even so the timing doesn't always go according to plan. It's completely unrealistic.

IF Charles does cut back on Royal household, then the consequence is that patronages will also be cut drastically back and no new ones added.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 12-26-2010, 04:06 PM
Duchess of Durham's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Durham, United States
Posts: 588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
1000 is not unreasonable for a fit healthy woman - it is 3 a day - allowing for about a month of holidays a year.
1000 duties a year, doing 3 a day, means Kate would be "working" 333.3 days/year, thus at a minimum Kate would get 31.7 days off/year. That's 2 days/month and less than a week's vacation. Plus, she'll be a mother, so she'd have very little time with her children, even though they'd likely have a nanny.

I'm not sure anyone would want to work that schedule.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 12-26-2010, 05:31 PM
Sherlock221B's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 171
William and Catherine's first wedding anniversary occurs during the Diamond Jubilee and the London Olympics. With that in mind she should postpone becoming patron to any charity until both events have concluded. Catherine should immediately begin to develop a familiarity with royal ceremonies and events that occur during the year. As she has admitted, she does not know "the ropes" of being a royal, by that one can assume royal etiquette. Catherine also expressed her dedication to become familiar with royal etiquette right away; much practice can be gained from a consistent appearance at royal events, as many as possible. She will actually be doing her job in a visible manner and yet under way more controlled circumstances than with charities.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 12-26-2010, 07:25 PM
texankitcat's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duchess of Durham View Post
1000 duties a year, doing 3 a day, means Kate would be "working" 333.3 days/year, thus at a minimum Kate would get 31.7 days off/year. That's 2 days/month and less than a week's vacation. Plus, she'll be a mother, so she'd have very little time with her children, even though they'd likely have a nanny.

I'm not sure anyone would want to work that schedule.
Exactly! It's completely unreasonable.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 12-26-2010, 10:55 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Salem, United States
Posts: 1
The whole discussion about whatever Catherine chose to do and not to do is silly, in my opinion. It is something the media introduced to create conflict and tension, to make whatever they write about her seem like less of a puff piece. I have yet to meet or correspond personally with anyone who deeply and seriously *cared* about what Catherine did after her university graduation, once they thought about it.

In many ways, she's representative of her current generation in many parts of the world. How many young people know exactly what they want or what they want to do with the rest of their lives when they graduate from college? Many have an initial idea, put to them by parents or mentors, but it winds up not working out for them; they go on to try other things and do something else. *Most adults have more than one career in their working lives any more.( Catherine tried a number of different things as work after graduation - she didn't just immediately dive into the family business as the first bolthole she came across. Who's to say, if William weren't in the picture, that she would have done things one bit differently?

As for holding out waiting for William: seriously, folks, it winds up that our primary relationship is the single biggest long-term indicator of our health and well-being. If they started out as slow as it seems, and grew in love, trust, and respect...they're doing far, far better than many other couples in their mid-20s who marry just for looks. And how much more faux controversy would be stimulated if Catherine was a highly-driven career person with a gripping professional career she'd have to "give up" to be a royal? If she were dating another British blue-blood whose father was CEO of a bank or something like that, I don't think folks would find a thing "wrong" with her.

I'm sure Catherine Middleton is just as human as the next person and has her share of foibles like the rest of us. She is, however, delightfully free of scandal - she didn't leave school and spend all her time drugging up - and I, for one, would like to see the Brits appreciate the good royals they have more. I admire Prince William a lot for taking the route he has; as one very astute writer once pointed out, he had the example of his mom trying to play the field during her lifetime, and probably some discussion - who can say how frank or how convoluted - on how his father's choices worked out backfiring on him in many ways. Lord Mountbatten gave Charles bad advice: contrary to the belief that one "owes it to oneself" to date around as much as possible, it really ends up forming bad habits, especially among the entitled.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 12-27-2010, 02:07 AM
candi8305's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Austin, United States
Posts: 27
Bera, such an excellent post. I never really understood the press over in the UK. If Catherine was a working lawyer or open heart surgeon then the headlines would read: "Kate giving up her careeer for a man....setting back working women everywhere." She'll never win. lol

I've said this in another post (as I dated my husband for 9 years before marriage as well) but the "about time's" and "finally's" are rather annyoing and quite trite. William did kinda see first hand how HORRIBLE a mismatched marriage can be. Can you blame the poor guy for having a bit of cold feet and wanting to make completely sure their differences didn't out weigh their compatibility? His choice was obvious. As he said it worked out for the better.

The whole "waity" thing is ridiculous. You have a boyfriend you love and care for, and yet since the press and public have decided he hasn't met the proposing deadline of 3-4 years time your branded a stupid nickname and are now suppose to abandon the relationship altogether, and if not your a fame hungry clinger on? Spare me! This is real life not a disney fairytale. Sometimes I wonder if the people writing these stories have ever been in a seriously true relationship at all. I mean we all actually know it's not so cut and dry and simple right? They take work. True Story, lol
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 12-27-2010, 09:16 AM
LadyNemesis's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Knoxville, United States
Posts: 17
While I do think it is important for Kate to do her share of royal duties, IMO her most important job will be raising their children, and I personally hope that she is a very hands on Mother, and not one to let the nannies do all the work. Being a mom is the most important job she will ever have, and there are no "do overs" as a parent. Your time is the most important gift you can give a child.
__________________
~~The Lady Nemesis~~
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 12-27-2010, 10:06 AM
Lenora's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 2,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyNemesis View Post
While I do think it is important for Kate to do her share of royal duties, IMO her most important job will be raising their children, and I personally hope that she is a very hands on Mother, and not one to let the nannies do all the work. Being a mom is the most important job she will ever have, and there are no "do overs" as a parent. Your time is the most important gift you can give a child.
After all,it seems to me that she and William won't have a child or two,but three or even four(though four is doubtful)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 12-27-2010, 01:13 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by candi8305 View Post
Bera, such an excellent post. I never really understood the press over in the UK...
Indeed, I agree with both you & Bera. It really is/was a no-win situation with Kate. Firstly we really have no actual idea what she did or did not do, just what appeared in the press, maybe she did do a lot of work in ehr various jobs & eventually with her parents, maybe she didn't, but we'd never know unless we were actually there with her. If she had embarked on a "proper" career as a lawyer, doctor, teacher, something in retail etc, she'd have either got attacked for being seen to give it up as & when her boyfriend proposed thus setting off a whole feminist argument. Or she'd have been liable to be set up by the media rather like Sophie was when she had her job, the media would have done their upmost to find some way of saying Kate was using her Royal boyfriend as a means to boost her career, fame, sales for wherever she worked etc. I highly doubt the media would ever have just "let her" go quietly off to work everyday & not try something to uindermine her, the relationship with William or create a story that brought controversy/embarrassment to the RF.

And likewise I always found it rather harsh how everyone wanted them to jump into marriage at the earliest opportunity, my brother & his girlfriend have dated since Uni, lived together since then which is now over 10 years & are perfectly happy with no marriage. Yes William's situation is different as he needs to be married at some point in order to have legitmate heirs & what have you but I really never saw any big deal in them not being engaged or having dated for so long, it was sensible if you ask me!

I think the media just likes to create controversy & a talking point any way they can, they can't just report things as they are or appear to be without giving it a negative or dramatic twist.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 12-27-2010, 05:43 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,446
In this day and age any more than 2 children is environmentally bad. The world is overpopulated as it is.

That being said Kate will have nannies to do the hard work and the children will be at boarding school from about 8 years of age so her role in raising them on a day to day basis is rather limited (as it was with William's parents and Charles' as well).

I am sure that they will spend as much time with them as they can and be good parents but they part of the royal family and her new role is one where she will be expected to be a working Mum within weeks of the child's birth and therefore nannies will be essential.
__________________

__________________
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




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth bourbon-parma charlene chris o'neill crown prince felipe crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta elena infanta sofia jewellery jordan kate middleton king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg ottoman picture of the month pieter van vollenhoven pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:44 AM.

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]