The Duchess of Cambridge: Will she become more popular than Diana?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
05215319.jpg picture by kinga777 - Photobucket

The guys are not looking or interested in checking Kate out, simple as that!

haha. I think that picture sums Kate up perfectly. Sensible, boring, not worth checking out.

Honestly, if I were Kate and looking at the "supportive" comments here (hypothetically obviously), I'd still feel insulted lol. So far the nicest comments have been "drab and boring is what William wants" or "William doesn't want someone really attractive and stylish". Ouch.

Diana was one in a million. I agree with what others have already said--the idea that Kate would become more popular is unrealistic and... almost insulting. Not everyone is born with grace and charisma :) I know I'm not haha.
the problem is... if Prince Charles wants to keep the public engaged with the royal family after the Queen passes, Kate had better gain some charisma and grace. tax payer money isn't given to boring royals. I feel sorry for them. So much pressure :ermm:
 
You know most countries use taxpayer money to pay for their boring Heads of State so the British will simply have to pay someone - whether they get rid of the royals because they are boring they will still have to pay someone.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
... Kate had better gain some charisma and grace. tax payer money isn't given to boring royals. I feel sorry for them. So much pressure :ermm:

charisma and grace are qualities you can't "gain"...you either have them or you don't. she may not have charisma but i think she has grace....she hasn't put a foot wrong since their relationship started....no interviews, she hasn't said anything to the press that was worth printing....very discreet and respectful.:)
 
charisma and grace are qualities you can't "gain"...you either have them or you don't. she may not have charisma but i think she has grace....she hasn't put a foot wrong since their relationship started....no interviews, she hasn't said anything to the press that was worth printing....very discreet and respectful.:)

I think we canhold judgement on the charisma part, but I agree that she has certainly demontrated grace by not putting a foot wrong in the last few years.
 
true enough, we don't yet know if she has charisma.
 
You know most countries use taxpayer money to pay for their boring Heads of State so the British will simply have to pay someone - whether they get rid of the royals because they are boring they will still have to pay someone.

Well, usually in recession history, the family in the big castle with the gold carriages don't get much sympathy in regards to taking citizen money. It doesn't matter if someone else will get the money anyway. It's more of a class symbol/statement thing.

The public may decide that the extravagance of estates/castles/servants is unnecessary in the (recession) modern world. Especially if they are shut out, or suddenly find the fantasy of a monarch to be boring.
I know Canada and Australia are getting dangerously close to separating recently.

Very few young people today applaud discreetness. Not that I mean the royals should be vulgar celebrity famewhores, haha. However, they do need to "connect" with people and not be so aloof and private.
Even though that is such an unfair life to be born into, the real reason why the British royals have stayed in for so long was because they were relevant and loved/respected by the people (Queen Victoria/Elizabeth/Diana ect). All I'm saying is, since this isn't the Queens generation where quiet discreetness is admired, Kate and William might have to work a little bit on the glamour and openness to stick around. We all know the ship has sailed on Charles and Camilla :sleeping: lol

I'm sorry if this has gone off topic :whistling::flowers:
 
Excellent post!

All I'm saying is, since this isn't the Queens generation where quiet discreetness is admired, Kate and William might have to work a little bit on the glamour and openness to stick around. We all know the ship has sailed on Charles and Camilla :sleeping: lol

You've got a very good point here. Let's hope Kate or William will read this.:D
 
This might be moved to the Royal Finances topic, but anyway.
1. The people in the UK, haven't made that much of a fuss about the royals and the recession, yes the Civil List has been cut but we aren't shouting and screaming from the rooftops about how much money we put towards the royal family.
2. The commonwealth countries on the other hand from what I have read, are getting as you say very close to calling it quits, and I believe they will when Charles ascends the throne.
3. The whole point about being royal is to have a sense of mystery about you, if Kate and William opened up about their relationship they would be letting everyone in to grab what they wanted.
4. I don't know how you think the public is shut out from the monarchy, one member or another of the family can be seen every day around the country or on a foreign tour like the one to Canada recently.
5. Lots of people here still admire discreetness as you put it, young people have "fame whores" to look to, but the Royal Family is still needed, and IMO especially at this time. This country needs something it can depend upon, and at this time that's the royal family.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Personally I don't see where there can or will be any way to compare popularity between Kate and Diana. I think to be honest, we'd have to look at different definitions of "popular" because its a widely used term. You have Diana from the 1980s and 1990s that was a media blitz for a relatively short time. Kate who keeps out of the limelight and is considered practically boring, just might
be in the limelight and history books for decades to come... we don't know. Until Diana became engaged to Charles, she was unknown just about. It was after her marriage that she was taught the charisma and fashion sense and whatnot. Kate's NOT engaged to William and perhaps wants to be herself before being put into the goldfish bowl.

I'd like to stretch your imaginations. The year is 3823 and yes, Charles did save the planet. :whistling: The monarchy has survived all these years and of course TRF is still here. Recent digs in TN also point to a fact that at one time the US DID have a king.. his name was Elvis.

What threads do you see pertaining to Diana and Kate under British Royal History?
 
I can't speak for Australia, but I don't think that Canada's "dangerously close to separating." Do you mean ditching the monarchy and leaving the Commonwealth, or just ditching the monarchy? There's no great move afoot here to get rid of the Queen. There's nothing like an organized republican movement, just malcontents who speak up when there's a royal visit.

 
I can't speak for Australia, but I don't think that Canada's "dangerously close to separating." Do you mean ditching the monarchy and leaving the Commonwealth, or just ditching the monarchy? There's no great move afoot here to get rid of the Queen. There's nothing like an organized republican movement, just malcontents who speak up when there's a royal visit.

I was just going to ask if Canada was actually that close to seperating? When The Queen toured Canada recently, I didn't think there was much animosty against the monarchy.

Also can anybody answer if Australian is really that close? I can think it's closer than Canada?
 
This might be moved to the Royal Finances topic, but anyway.
1. The people in the UK, haven't made that much of a fuss about the royals and the recession, yes the Civil List has been cut but we aren't shouting and screaming from the rooftops about how much money we put towards the royal family.

the mention of civil list always gets me. I think a lot of people think this civil list thing is the citizens paying out this huge amount of money to keep the blood in castles and diamonds and tiaras. I used to be one of them. The Queen's pay off the list has been frozen and I would presume the DoE's is too. What is NOT normally known to folks from other lands is how the Queen repays on the civil list. As I see it. the civil list pays for the normal head of state kind of things... just as the US pays top dollar for Obama or any president. It irks me to hear that they all wave and nod and drink champagne and cut ribbons on the list. Lumut... tell me where I'm wrong here.... I'm back and following you once more.
 
I was just going to ask if Canada was actually that close to seperating? When The Queen toured Canada recently, I didn't think there was much animosty against the monarchy.

Also can anybody answer if Australian is really that close? I can think it's closer than Canada?


If we hadn't had a change of PM three weeks ago I think we would be hearing a bit more about it during this election campaign (although I also don't think we would be going to the polls just yet either). Mr Rudd had said that he would ask the people directly 'Do you want Australia to be a republic?' in the second term of a Labor government. If Labor wins the election on 21st August it will be interesting see if the party does force at least that plebiscite through to the people.

Until we get a clear answer to that question we really don't know how close we are but I suspect that if that question was put to the Australian public then there would be a clear majority for Yes although the details might still take a few years to work out. In 1999 I vote No but now would be voting Yes - and nothing against the Queen or the rest of the royal family but they are British and really have no connection here so let them stay the British royal family and let Australia Advance without them is now my viewpoint (which I came to largely from being on this forum so thanks for turning an avowed monarchist into a republican).
 
Diana was the first princess of the modern media age, for the good and the bad, the mother of those princesses who are around today so to say, the figure who created the interest in the privacy of royals that is regulary being exposed to the media these days.

No other female royal will ever be so popular with the people like Diana since she has shown all facettes in her short life, from fairy tale to drama. Thanks to her, today the other princesses have to life with the comparisons, stigmas, stereotypes etc. Somehow it all goes back to or originates from Diana.

Kate is not popular today and I dont think she will ever be, at least with the people. In case of a wedding the media will hype her but only because she is a lifelong guarantee to earn them money.
 
the mention of civil list always gets me. I think a lot of people think this civil list thing is the citizens paying out this huge amount of money to keep the blood in castles and diamonds and tiaras. I used to be one of them. The Queen's pay off the list has been frozen and I would presume the DoE's is too. What is NOT normally known to folks from other lands is how the Queen repays on the civil list. As I see it. the civil list pays for the normal head of state kind of things... just as the US pays top dollar for Obama or any president. It irks me to hear that they all wave and nod and drink champagne and cut ribbons on the list. Lumut... tell me where I'm wrong here.... I'm back and following you once more.

How was your sons wedding? :)
DoE's pay will have been frozen as well and last time I can remember that was something like £395,000.
That's what always gets me too, people don't understand that The Queen does pay money back from the Privy Purse, which income is usually from the Duchy of Lancaster. All private royal expenditure like parties etc are funded for by the family, not us.
The civil list was £7,900,000 as it has been since 1990, however I don't know or can't work out, what it's going to be cut down to.

(which I came to largely from being on this forum so thanks for turning an avowed monarchist into a republican).

I hope I personally did nothing to contribute to your change, if so, anyway I can change you back? I would hate for Australia not to be in the Commonwealth.
 
You've got a very good point here. Let's hope Kate or William will read this.:D

Haha!
I know. I'm sure they take every post on The Royal Forums veeery seriously ;)

I was probably more dramatic than I meant to be about the separation of Canada/Australia haha. I didn't mean exactly that there was a kind of revolutionary uprising feeling against the monarchy going on right now. I feel like (in Canada at least) people like the Queen enough, but for the most part they really just don't care about the British monarchy. I'd hope if there was a vote tomorrow that people would vote for them to stay but... I don't know if the majority of the public care as much as they used to.

I agree that royals should have a mystery about them. At the same time, going out more in public -smiling- to see people, like Diana did, (in a more media controlled environment of course) might be more engaging/exciting.

Diana gave a new modern life and popularity to the British royal image. Perhaps they could: visit the commonwealth more. Give more (non-personal) interviews. Have a few glamorous charity balls...
I just wish they could be cool and relevant again :)
 
And that was Diana, but Diana is not around anymore.
Harry is a lot like his mother, and likes to engage with the public IMO he does it more than William and I think when he finishes his military career he will be like his mother and go out and see the people of his country.
But at the moment, the ones who can bring a "modern view" to the royal family, are either at university in the case of Bea and Eugenie, or doing military service (William and Harry), too young (Louise and James) or not involved (Peter and Zara.
 
I hope I personally did nothing to contribute to your change, if so, anyway I can change you back? I would hate for Australia not to be in the Commonwealth.

Australia would probably stay in the Commonwealth as a republic.
 
The civil list was £7,900,000 as it has been since 1990, however I don't know or can't work out, what it's going to be cut down to.

The Civil List will not be cut, but will be frozen for another year. The Palace has agreed that they will be making cuts to their expenses but have not highlighted by how much or in what areas. As expenses of running the monarchy have exceeded the civil list payments for the last few years, they have been met through accumulated reserves. These reserves are now running low, hence the importance of agreeing new arrangements with the Treasury as soon as the political and economic climate allows it.
 
^^^^^^
Is it just going to be frozen? I swear I saw an article saying it was going to be cut, but that might have something to do with Charles' money. Well it was frozen from 2000-2010, so they're just freezing it again?

This might be going slightly of topic here, and if so please move the post but if Australia became a republic and stayed in the Commonwealth, would the Queen or other members of the RF still visit?
 
^^^^^^
Is it just going to be frozen? I swear I saw an article saying it was going to be cut, but that might have something to do with Charles' money. Well it was frozen from 2000-2010, so they're just freezing it again?

It was announced in the emergency Budget presented by the Chancellor in June this year that the Civil List would be frozen for another year, the level it has been since 1990.

These payments are usually negotiated for a 10 year period, which is why they have been at the same level from 1990 -2000, and it was then agreed in 2000 to hold them at the same level for another decade.

Prince Charles receives no public funding, he is funded entirely from the Duchy of Cornwall.
 
Oh yes I know he doesn't recieve any funding, but they have been talking about his money.
And they made such a big fuss over it just being frozen.
 
This might be going slightly of topic here, and if so please move the post but if Australia became a republic and stayed in the Commonwealth, would the Queen or other members of the RF still visit?

Like Iluvbertie, I was a monarchist when I came to this forum, and am now a republican, and for the same reason. When the inevitable happens, I am sure we will remain in the Commonwealth though.

On the subject of visits, they haven't actually been beating a path to our shores for some time. When we are a republic, we can invite them here for State visits. And if Kate does marry William, we will then be able to find out whether she is more popular than Diana. (phew! managed to get it back on topic.:D)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I hope I personally did nothing to contribute to your change, if so, anyway I can change you back? I would hate for Australia not to be in the Commonwealth.


No individual did anything but the entire board made me realise the irrelevancy of the monarchy for Australia.

As the majority of members of the Commonwealth are republics or have monarchs other that Elizabeth I don't see that Australia will be asked to leave the Commonwealth on becoming a republic (although membership won't remain automatic - the other member nations will get a vote on whether or not we remain a member but no one has been kicked out for simply becoming a republic e.g. India has been a member since 1947 and has been a republic since then).

As for whether or not they would still visit - probably as they visit other Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth countries. They still will have to be invited - just as they need to be invited now. That side of things won't change. We will still see the monarch about once every 8 or so years.
 
The monarchy isn't something that people would vote on directly. For there to be change to the Canadian constitution, all 10 provinces have to agree to the change. I honestly can't see any PM opening this can of worms. It would be more trouble than its worth, especially considering that there are other things that are much more urgent.

Haha!
I'd hope if there was a vote tomorrow that people would vote for them to stay but... I don't know if the majority of the public care as much as they used to.
 
No, I really don't think so. Even if Prince Charles doesn't have the personal popularity that his mother did when he becomes King, I can't see legions of Canadians rising up in revolt against the monarchy. I can see a Member of Parliament trying to put forward a private member's bill about it, possibly; but I can't see it going through.


I was just going to ask if Canada was actually that close to seperating?
 
No, I really don't think so. Even if Prince Charles doesn't have the personal popularity that his mother did when he becomes King, I can't see legions of Canadians rising up in revolt against the monarchy. I can see a Member of Parliament trying to put forward a private member's bill about it, possibly; but I can't see it going through.

I also think that the popularity of Charles and Camilla will rise, as they engage with Canada a bi tmore than they recently have. Perhaps another trip in a few years, in better weather, might be helpful.
 
I also think that the popularity of Charles and Camilla will rise, as they engage with Canada a bi tmore than they recently have. Perhaps another trip in a few years, in better weather, might be helpful.

I think their popularity will rise also as they take on more and more duties for the Queen. I think its going to be a gradual thing over the next couple of decades as the Queen takes things much easier and Charles gets more "hands on" into his role as King.
 
I think their popularity will rise also as they take on more and more duties for the Queen. I think its going to be a gradual thing over the next couple of decades as the Queen takes things much easier and Charles gets more "hands on" into his role as King.

I agree with you, it will be a gradual process.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom