The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Family

Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #781  
Old 07-22-2014, 09:42 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
When you really boil everything down to basics, what is there is that in reality, none of the royal family has to "work" at anything at all. It is my understanding that it is the royals, themselves, that have chosen to sponsor, visit, support and become patrons of various charitable organizations because they wish to aid and bring attention to causes that affect their people. Their main roles in life are the preservation and support of the monarch as the head of state in a non political role. The traditions and the pomp and circumstance of a very long history is preserved and honored and kept alive. The Queen is a living, breathing connection to everything that is British that has far reaching roots in its past as well as she holds the continuity of a nation into the future with her family.



There is no pay scale. There are no set hours to report to work. There are no real perks. Instead there is the sacrifice of personal privacy, constant scrutiny of what they do and what they don't do and a need to have personal security around them at all times due to being a high target for any crazed idiot out there. This entire family could live very well into the future on their own private means and go on a permanent vacation for the rest of their lives if they chose to. Charles wasn't required to carve out the role he did as the Prince of Wales. He chose to and started the Prince's Trust with his pension from the Navy. William and Harry could very well have decided that the hot spots of the Med or the slopes and the finest eateries in the world were to be their prime focus in life. They didn't.



Perhaps instead of focusing on "work ethics" which to me is trying to fit the royal family into the mold of the everyday man that earns his living at a career or employment, it would be wiser to focus on what the royal family is accomplishing and giving to the people by the various things that they do. Think of it this way. Should the UK decide to go republic and deem the royal family no longer a necessity, the royal family itself will not be hurting but there will be a huge gap where the contributions made by the family used to be.



Sometimes we really don't know how good something is until its gone. Its my opinion that the British Royal Family gives to the nation far more than what it receives from them.



(jumps down off her soapbox and heads for the donut and coffee table)

That's true what you say, but with this logic they are nobody's who have money and we wouldn't bother talking about them on such a thread.
__________________

  #782  
Old 07-23-2014, 05:43 AM
Queen Camilla's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Hathaway View Post
Princess Anne was not always the work horse she is now. In 1980, she was doing few public engagements, and after she was given an allowance raise, the public turned on her, saying she was grumpy when she did bother to turn up. Diana marrying in caused Anne to kick it in gear and thus was born "Anne the Work Horse".

The Montreal Gazette - Google News Archive Search
You statement is not true and your link does not support your statement. Diana's numbers were so low in 1981 that O'Donovan didn't bother to list them. It is unfortunate that some Americans on this forum have a misconception about Diana, her influence and the number of her royal engagements.

In May 1981 Princess Anne gave birth to Zara. In 1980 she would have been pregnant.

In 1981 Princess Anne had 4 overseas tours.
In 1982 Princess Anne had 11 overseas tours.

1976 Princess Anne competed in the Olympics.
1977 Princess Anne was pregnant & gave birth to her 1st child on November 15, 1977.
1977 Gatcombe was purchased.
1978 Princess Anne and her family moved into Gatcombe.

She and her husband went about transforming Gatcombe into a business. The first horse trials were held in 1983.
__________________

  #783  
Old 07-23-2014, 07:41 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eden View Post
That's true what you say, but with this logic they are nobody's who have money and we wouldn't bother talking about them on such a thread.
Should the UK become a republic, I'm sure the British Royal Family would be moved to the Non-Reigning Houses area of TRF. Actually what they would become is British citizens with money.
__________________
“When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down ‘happy’. They told me I didn’t understand the assignment, and I told them they didn’t understand life.”
― John Lennon
  #784  
Old 07-23-2014, 03:15 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 2,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Should the UK become a republic, I'm sure the British Royal Family would be moved to the Non-Reigning Houses area of TRF. Actually what they would become is British citizens with money.
My British friends, who (curiously enough - given my exposure now to royal chat) all seem to have fairly non-passionate views about the individual members of the BRF, yet all seem to be of a mind that it is exceedingly unlikely that the UK will ever vote out the monarchy. Reason given? The massive amounts of money that the BRF pulls into the British economy per annum, just by existing, just by actually living in the palaces and castles, just by participating in the various and few royal 'pomps-and-circumstances' that happen yearly. The June events mean a brisk business for every shop-keeper and roadside hawker. The BRF are worth the money paid to support them - in their collective view - precisely because they are such a money-maker. The BRF are a good investment as it turns out - the economic returns are manifold.
  #785  
Old 07-23-2014, 03:44 PM
Miss Hathaway's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: In the South, United States
Posts: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Hathaway View Post
Princess Anne was not always the work horse she is now. In 1980, she was doing few public engagements, and after she was given an allowance raise, the public turned on her, saying she was grumpy when she did bother to turn up. Diana marrying in caused Anne to kick it in gear and thus was born "Anne the Work Horse".

The Montreal Gazette - Google News Archive Search
Quote:
Your statement is not true and your link does not support your statement. Diana's numbers were so low in 1981 that O'Donovan didn't bother to list them. It is unfortunate that some Americans on this forum have a misconception about Diana, her influence and the number of her royal engagements.
Well, the 1985 article states:

" . . . Five years ago, Princess Anne came in for heavy criticism . . . She was then performing about two public engagements a month and the complaint was that she was lazy and even when she turned up, she was ill-tempered and grumpy. . . ."

When the wildly popular Princess of Wales came on the scene, drawing crowds that had not been drawn in years, Anne revamped herself. By revamping herself. she has become a respected member of the BRF -- not popular in the sense that Diana was -- but solid and respected and an asset to the monarchy.
  #786  
Old 07-30-2014, 04:34 AM
Queen Camilla's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Hathaway View Post
Well, the 1985 article states:

" . . . Five years ago, Princess Anne came in for heavy criticism . . . She was then performing about two public engagements a month and the complaint was that she was lazy and even when she turned up, she was ill-tempered and grumpy. . . ."

When the wildly popular Princess of Wales came on the scene, drawing crowds that had not been drawn in years, Anne revamped herself. By revamping herself. she has become a respected member of the BRF -- not popular in the sense that Diana was -- but solid and respected and an asset to the monarchy.
Your entire second paragraph is not in the article. It is wrong to make up things and attribute them to others.
  #787  
Old 07-30-2014, 04:46 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Camilla View Post
Your entire second paragraph is not in the article. It is wrong to make up things and attribute them to others.


Miss Hathaway didn't say that the second paragraph was in the article.

She quoted the first paragraph from the article - hence the quotation marks but the second paragraph doesn't have quotation marks and hence is an opinion and not from the article at all.
  #788  
Old 07-30-2014, 04:57 AM
Queen Camilla's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,861
Miss Hathaway is claiming Diana caused Princess Anne to increased her royal duties. She used the article as her source in the above post and her previous post.
  #789  
Old 07-30-2014, 07:52 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Balmoral, United Kingdom
Posts: 392
Now that William will have a proper role again, I think people will start to respect the fact that he is working again. The main reason people saw him as workshy was his transitional year. It would be good if Kate actually got a permanent role, perhaps within a specific charity which she could be heavily involved in. She must be bored being a housewife when her husband returns to work.
__________________
Virtually Royalty
  #790  
Old 07-30-2014, 09:11 AM
muriel's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal-blue View Post
Now that William will have a proper role again, I think people will start to respect the fact that he is working again. The main reason people saw him as workshy was his transitional year. It would be good if Kate actually got a permanent role, perhaps within a specific charity which she could be heavily involved in. She must be bored being a housewife when her husband returns to work.
What "proper" role for William are you talking about? Have there been any announcements?
  #791  
Old 07-30-2014, 11:11 AM
Miss Hathaway's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: In the South, United States
Posts: 65
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Camilla View Post
Your entire second paragraph is not in the article. It is wrong to make up things and attribute them to others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Miss Hathaway didn't say that the second paragraph was in the article.

She quoted the first paragraph from the article - hence the quotation marks but the second paragraph doesn't have quotation marks and hence is an opinion and not from the article at all.
Yes, exactly. Thank you, Iluvbertie.
  #792  
Old 07-30-2014, 11:36 AM
Miss Hathaway's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: In the South, United States
Posts: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Camilla View Post
Miss Hathaway is claiming Diana caused Princess Anne to increased her royal duties. She used the article as her source in the above post and her previous post.
It is an oft-repeated myth that Anne has always been a royal workhorse. But, as the Montreal Gazette article states, that was not the case. She was very unpopular and considered disengaged until the mid-1980s when she did revamp herself and became an engaged and hard-working royal.

The entire British monarchy underwent a huge change when Diana came on the scene. The interest in her was unprecedented. Anne, who was the only young princess at the time, suddenly found herself constantly compared to the young and charming Diana. Anne didn't like it. She made the remark that she was no fairytale princess. When she came to America in 1982, she was not happy that some gave her a stuffed animal for the baby, meaning William, when Anne had her own baby, Zara. I couldn't find a link to that story, but she certainly wasn't happy about being asked about William:

Princess Anne Silent On Birth of a Nephew - NYTimes.com

And here is an example from a 1982 People article of how the media was complimentary toward Diana while calling Anne "dour" at that point in time:

Rumors of a Marital Chill Create a Grim Fairy Tale for Princess Anne and Captain Mark Phillips : People.com

By 1987, however, it was Diana who was coming under attack from the media as the cracks in the Wales marriage began to show, and Anne, having undertaken a heavy load of engagements, who was now being given good press.

Anne, the Princess Who Pulls Her Own Weight, Comes to Nashville for a Little Horseplay and Charity : People.com

The phenomenon of Diana, kicked the pants of the royals and changed the way they did things. The timing of Anne's decision to change the way she conducted herself certainly suggests to me that she saw the necessity of changing her ways to survive as a royal.

To bring this back into line with the topic of What Now for William, well, things are always in motion behind the scenes of the royals. Anne and Sophie -- both of whom got off to rocky starts -- are now respected, working royals. William and Kate will do the same, I think.
  #793  
Old 07-30-2014, 11:51 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Hathaway View Post
Well, the 1985 article states:

" . . . Five years ago, Princess Anne came in for heavy criticism . . . She was then performing about two public engagements a month and the complaint was that she was lazy and even when she turned up, she was ill-tempered and grumpy. . . ."

When the wildly popular Princess of Wales came on the scene, drawing crowds that had not been drawn in years, Anne revamped herself. By revamping herself. she has become a respected member of the BRF -- not popular in the sense that Diana was -- but solid and respected and an asset to the monarchy.
I understand that the second paragraph is your conclusion rather than the conclusion from the article, but I disagree with you. Anne had young children in 1980. Peter was born in 1977 and Zara in 1981--I think that is why she had few public engagements in the late 70s and 80s but gradually started to ramp it up. Diana, too, made fewer public appearances while her children were toddlers.

I know it is an assumption on my part, but I just don't believe that William and Catherine spend the day playing video games while the servants look after George and clean their home. William had a full-time job up until last year and there has never been an indication that he didn't work hard at it.

At this point, William seems to be concentrating on his family--which is work. My impression, and I could be wrong, is that he is also doing things behind the scenes to prepare for taking over the Duchy of Cornwall. We know that he took the agricultural management training but it could be that there are hundreds of online courses we would never hear about.

We don't know how involved he is in the management of the Royal Foundation. Prince Charles was sometimes criticized for not making as many public appearances as Diana did, but he was very involved in the behind-the-scenes work of the Prince's Trust.
  #794  
Old 07-30-2014, 08:39 PM
Queen Camilla's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,861
It is William and Kate's words that are fueling the debate over his lack of
commitment to his royal duties.

In 2012 William told Katie Couric that he was fighting off the pressures of royal duties.

During the Australia/NZ tour, Kate is supposedly have said, William was not involved with George during the first 5 months.

William left the search & rescue in September. He began the agricultural classes in January. George was born July 22nd.

Where was William for 3 months? What was he doing?
  #795  
Old 07-30-2014, 09:12 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 2,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Camilla View Post
It is William and Kate's words that are fueling the debate over his lack of
commitment to his royal duties.

In 2012 William told Katie Couric that he was fighting off the pressures of royal duties.

During the Australia/NZ tour, Kate is supposedly have said, William was not involved with George during the first 5 months.

William left the search & rescue in September. He began the agricultural classes in January. George was born July 22nd.

Where was William for 3 months? What was he doing?
My word what a thing to say to strangers. Do we know for a fact that Kate said this? It's hard to believe.

I agree, though, if true, where was William? Very odd.

I think something has gotten scrambled. It doesn't make sense, either as a fact or as something Kate (or any one in her position) would actually make public, if true. I'm going to say I don't believe it. Do we have proof she said it?
  #796  
Old 07-30-2014, 10:03 PM
MichelleQ2's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 1,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Camilla View Post
It is William and Kate's words that are fueling the debate over his lack of
commitment to his royal duties.

....

During the Australia/NZ tour, Kate is supposedly have said, William was not involved with George during the first 5 months.
that sounds like an out of context quote; possibly having to do with breast feeding 'William was not involved much' - perhaps said to one of the other moms with tots the same age as George
  #797  
Old 07-30-2014, 10:10 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,370
The Duke of Cambridge: What Now for William? Future Duties, Roles & Responsib...

I believe Kate said that William was often gone during George's early days (my paraphrasing). This is totally true because he only had 2 weeks of paternity leave so he had to go back to Wales for SAR shifts. However, he was done with the RAF by early September.

She said it during the visit to NZ Air Force base. I think it was Wellington and the same day of the yatch race if someone wants to troll thru the NZ tour thread for her exact words.

Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
  #798  
Old 07-30-2014, 11:11 PM
soapstar's Avatar
Super Moderator
Picture of the Week Coordinator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hermosa Beach, United States
Posts: 3,304
Kate never said William wasn't involved with George during the first 5 months of his life. Here's the quote:

Quote:
When the royals met families at RNZAF Whenuapai just outside Auckland, the Duchess happily opened up about life as a new mum with a busy working husband.

Melissa Tilbury, 28, who held baby five month old Madeleine said: "She said when George was much younger William was away a lot in the beginning -- but that you get by.

"She spoke to us about the balance, about having the time as a couple and with the baby.
  #799  
Old 07-30-2014, 11:15 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 2,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by soapstar View Post
Kate never said William wasn't involved with George during the first 5 months of his life. Here's the quote:"Melissa Tilbury, 28, who held baby five month old Madeleine said: "She said when George was much younger William was away a lot in the beginning -- but that you get by."
Makes more sense. Thank you for the clarification. Unless some other moment is being referenced. Thank you.
  #800  
Old 07-30-2014, 11:49 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: central valley, United States
Posts: 677
I read almost every article relating to that tour and none reported that William was an absentee father/husband for 5 months - I'll stand corrected if some one posts a link, but I doubt that there's a link. The Cambridges opted to not have a maternity nurse or nanny when George was born - probably because there wasn't room for one in Wales or Not Cott (KP wasn't ready yet.) William was working shifts in Wales. Rather than have Catherine alone while William worked they opted for Catherine to stay with her parents and for William to travel to her on days off. I believe Catherine's mom stayed in Wales w/ Catherine a time or two as well- including to watch George when William and Catherine attended the event in Anglesy. There were, at most, two months of William commuting.
The comments referenced above were Catherine empathizing w/ a mother of a 5 month old about being a new mother and the wife of a serviceman. How that is translated into William 'disappeared' for 5 months is a mystery to me.
__________________

Closed Thread


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





Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch state visit e-mail elisabeth fashion poll free hosting grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction member watch monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess beatrice hats princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats prince sverre magnus queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania royal fashion september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden swedish royal family summer portraits 2016 the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:44 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises