The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Family (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f269/)
-   -   My Pot-au-Feu with Prince William (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f269/my-pot-au-feu-with-prince-william-7648.html)

BeatrixFan 10-23-2005 07:46 PM

My Pot-au-Feu with Prince William
 
I've started this due to a question from another board member and comments from others. It's all my opinion and you don't have to agree with it.
I realise that I am going to become as hated as Stalin in certain camps for saying this but I know there are those who agree with the sentiment. Prince William. What a dull, boring, limp character. One is almost screaming at the screen when he flashes up, "Do something spontaneous!" - he is a 23 Year Old man behaving like a 65 year old statesman. He only needs the Pipe and slippers and he could be a Grandfather. I just see absolutely no promise in him at all. He's hailed in some camps as being the 'saviour of the Monarchy' - I do hope Kate Middleton has an ounce of personality and sparkle, because she will have to compensate for the lack of it in his camp. I've entitled this topic, 'My Pot-au-Feu with Prince William' because he has about as much character as the French stew which composes of boiled beef, vegetables and marrow bones. He lacks charm completely. I don't expect somersaults of firework displays but I do expect something that shows who he is. As young as he is, he has shown no reason as to why he'd make a good King in my opinion.

I don't see him as being good King material, indeed, I'd prefer Queen Beatrice to King William any day. William seems to be a walking clone - he needs to be programmed daily to ensure that he'll get through the long hours. Maybe I'm being far too critical, but unlike his brother, he doesn't seem to have formed a backbone or anything that shows he's an individual at all.

Zonk 10-23-2005 08:08 PM

Wow! You really did it.

Its certainly your opinion and you are entitled to it! Needless to say I disagree. Big surprise :) Not that I don't think you have valid concerns. I just think its unfair to write William off at the ripe old age of 23! I mean let's face it....until his recent graduation..what has been really said about him that wasn't sanctioned by the Palace? What does the public really know about him? Would you rather him drink and act obnoxious in public, do drugs and generally act silly. After his childhood, and the reaction of the public and press in regards to his brother's recent action..I would think he would applauded for not embarassing the monarchy. And in regards to his grandfatherly ways..I would say he is only emulating his grandparents (who I believe he highly respects) who preach DUTY DUTY DUTY.

Also, I find it rather ironic, that you quote Queen Mary in your foot note and yet criticize him because he acts (when in public) in manner of which she would be rather proud.

Again you are entitled to your opinion..I just think he might surprise you yet :)

Elspeth 10-23-2005 08:49 PM

BeatrixFan, if you want us old folk to read your posts, you're going to have to use normal-size type. This is age discrimination, you know.:)

Having said that, I think (having applied a magnifying glass to your post) that you're being a bit unfair with the comparison between William and Beatrice. He's grown up knowing that if he draws one breath slightly wrong he'll have the press down his throat and they'll never let him forget it. Beatrice has never had quite that sort of pressure. If she'd grown up as the Heir Presumptive, I think she'd have done some things a bit differently. For one thing, I'm fairly certain we'd never have seen that magazine cover and the glamour shots.

Ennyllorac 10-23-2005 08:59 PM

I think William has done a great job of not creating negative publicity for the family. It seems to me that he has had a pretty normal college life (as far as he is able to in his situation) and has turned out to be a fine young man.

Alexandria 10-23-2005 09:47 PM

I know that this phrase is tossed around a lot when a different opinon is posed, but I think it's apt this time: William is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

If he lived a more "active" live -- say like Harry's -- he would be deemed a bad future monarch because he parties, he drinks, he goes to clubs, etc.

And because he lives a more quiet, out of the shadows life, he is dubbed a boring, plain -- my friends and I call someone like that "granola," -- young man.

(Current) history has shown us that the heir to the throne usually lives a more steadfast (yes, boring if that's how you want to dub it) life than younger siblings, especially when it comes to two siblings of the same sex.

When the Queen was a young princess she lived a pretty quiet life devoted to country living and her horses while Princess Margaret was an in demand guest of all the hottest parties. While Charles was linked to many women in his youth, it was his brother Andrew who got the nickname "Randy Andy."

In Sweden, Victoria works tirelessly with all of her royal duties while younger sister Madeleine is the focus of much media attention and the style maven.

I don't think that partying a lot will make William a better king in the future. Staying the course as he has so far -- concentrating on school and receiving excellent grades, taking on some charity work and trips abroad and soon enrolling in Sandhurst, are all things that will strengthen him as a future monarch who would be head of the church, carry titles with the military, and to meet politicians, etc.

William may very well be a "boring" 23 year-old, but how many 23 year-olds have a destiny as he does to be king?

Harry's polo shirt 10-23-2005 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth
BeatrixFan, if you want us old folk to read your posts, you're going to have to use normal-size type. This is age discrimination, you know.:).

I agree, I am 19 have 20/20 vision and I hardly read your post!!

Harry's polo shirt 10-23-2005 09:53 PM

and what does Pot-au-Feu mean???

Elspeth 10-23-2005 09:57 PM

Google is your friend:

https://www.google.com/search?sourcei...n&q=pot+au+feu

tiaraprin 10-24-2005 01:49 AM

William is a future monarch of England. Full stop. He has been given time to grow up and have less of the media glare that his Father had and still has plenty of time before taking on a full round of duties. Her Majesty is still alive and may she remain so for quite a long time! Easing William into it makes more sense that just throwing him in at the deep end like his mother was. Perhaps some of his Father's difficulties stem from the constant press intrusion and the fact that Charles was the direct heir, while William has the benefit of being the heir to the heir.

William is strong, level-headed, with the best qualities of his Mother and Father. William will bring the monarchy much success in the 21st century, just wait and see. For those who support Charles, do you not think saying things about his eldest son would make him happy?

William didn't ask to be born, and born Royal at that. I would dearly love to see those who criticize him try to be and do what he does and live his life.

tiaraprin 10-24-2005 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harry's polo shirt
and what does Pot-au-Feu mean???

In BeatrixFan's interpretation it means a bland, boring French stew.

Je ne savais pas que BeatrixFan parle Francais.

Warren 10-24-2005 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harry's polo shirt
and what does Pot-au-Feu mean???

In the context of this thread it means "stirring the pot".

Just add a grain of salt.

Warren

BeatrixFan 10-24-2005 07:02 AM

Re;
 
Sorry about the font size! I'm afraid I'm having a few problems with that recently - sometimes the writing comes up huge and other times miniscule!

Anyway, back on track.

Quote:

William is a future monarch of England. Full stop.
But does that automatically make him worthy? I don't believe in an elected Monarchy or any of that republican rot, but just because he will be King, doesn't mean he'll be a good one.

Quote:

Her Majesty is still alive and may she remain so for quite a long time! Easing William into it makes more sense that just throwing him in at the deep end like his mother was.
Well let's not get into that one. If you believe she was thrown in at the deep end then I respect your opinion, even though I staunchly disagree.

Quote:

William is strong, level-headed, with the best qualities of his Mother and Father. William will bring the monarchy much success in the 21st century, just wait and see. For those who support Charles, do you not think saying things about his eldest son would make him happy?
Is he? How do we know he is strong and level headed? I have seen absolutely no evidence that he's strong at all. He appears as a pasty 23 year old in a suit. The comedienne Linda Smith said once, "The Royal Family - 20 people but only one face". How true it is in some cases. William is just a face (IMHO just like his mother and I'd question whether he's got any qualities of either parent).

I realise how hard it must be for him. The Press attention etc are all issues to deal with. But let's be under no illusion - if he doesn't want to be King, he doesn't have to be. He can marry a Catholic, marry a man or any other thing that would exclude him from succession.

Prince Harry - what an inspiration that boy is. He's actually made some mistakes instead of trying to be an angel. He's put the past to rest by being honestand open - William just doesn't have a public persona. He is Charles's son - not William the Heir.

Quote:

I would dearly love to see those who criticize him try to be and do what he does and live his life.
Is it that difficult? I'd have no problems in shaking hands with the sick and elderly, giving the press their photographs, taking the posies, attending the ceremonials, welcoming the foreign cousins etc - he's got it pretty easy at the moment - all the more reason he should be showing some individuality.

Quote:

If he lived a more "active" live -- say like Harry's -- he would be deemed a bad future monarch because he parties, he drinks, he goes to clubs, etc.
Would he? Harry's apologised and people have seen that he has his own style. Would an unplanned action kill William?

Quote:

When the Queen was a young princess she lived a pretty quiet life
And this is the problem. Instead of looing for other influences, he is following the Queen. She's done an amazing job but times have changed. She's still in the realms of Queen Mary - if she's teaching that style to William then the Monarchy is doomed.

Quote:

Her Majesty is still alive and may she remain so for quite a long time!
May she remain alive yes - the firm would seem empty without her but on the throne? Thats a different topic I feel.

tiaraprin 10-24-2005 08:35 AM

Well, if we take the route that one is going to be the next monarch no matter what, is Charles worthy?? I would question that much more than William at this point.

BeatrixFan 10-24-2005 08:44 AM

Re:
 
Again, thats another topic but in brief, Charles has a personality, we know what he thinks on most important topics, he has a wife with a personality and he's an individual. William isn't. Maybe he'll grow a personality in time but I can't see the seeds of a history-maker in him at all.

Warren 10-24-2005 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
. William... Maybe he'll grow a personality in time but I can't see the seeds of a history-maker in him at all.

So harsh! You don't by any chance moonlight for The Guardian as their Royal writer?

https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...ead.php?t=7194

W

BeatrixFan 10-24-2005 08:59 AM

Re;
 
Heavens above no. I'd only write for the Telegraph ;)

susan alicia 10-24-2005 09:12 AM

don't think he is supposed to be a history-maker in this time and age and

a bit boring and predictable future prince of wales is safe and reassuring,
just what perhaps is needed and liked by the big public.


Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
Again, thats another topic but in brief, Charles has a personality, we know what he thinks on most important topics, he has a wife with a personality and he's an individual. William isn't. Maybe he'll grow a personality in time but I can't see the seeds of a history-maker in him at all.


ysbel 10-24-2005 09:43 AM

I just feel sorry for Wills with everybody anointing him the savior of the monarchy. What pressure to put a 23 year old kid under!

I've always had affection for William - he seemed shy but a genuinely nice person. I think he had a hard time growing up with two high maintenance parents who needed a lot of parenting themselves. William seemed to be Diana's Father Confessor and when the child has to parent the parent, they lose part of their childhood in the process. Thank God the Queen was a steadying influence on all the Windsor grandchildren (William, Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie, Peter, Zara) because they would have had a tougher time otherwise.

I don't think William needs to have spark or personality to be King - what he does need is not to be so diffident about his status and his future. He has always disliked the press and the attention and that's understandable given the media circus around his mother.

But he is a Prince of England, a Royal Highness, and yes a step above the rest of us and needs to embrace the fact. Too much of the common touch doesn't work for the monarchy.

I hope people give him space to grow into his own person but I doubt that will happen.

BeatrixFan 10-24-2005 09:59 AM

Re:
 
Quote:

don't think he is supposed to be a history-maker in this time and age

a bit boring and predictable future prince of wales is safe and reassuring,
just what perhaps is needed and liked by the big public.
I don't think he needs to be making history now, but IMO he shows absolutely zero promise of making history in the future. He isn't just a bit boring, he's totally boring and it comes across as him being a bland rich kid - he''ll always have popularity because he's 'Di's Boy' and the ignorami of this country will wash his feet in honey for it.

Quote:

Thank God the Queen was a steadying influence on all the Windsor grandchildren (William, Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie, Peter, Zara) because they would have had a tougher time otherwise.
No. IMO this is the worst thing that could have happened. As I said previously, Edwardian advice in a 21st Century world doesn't work. The Queen is a darling but her time has gone. Now she is the white-haired old lady in the crown who never puts a foot wrong and you love her because you should. If she doesn't go to a registry office wedding we say, "Well, it's her generation". If William takes her choices, he'll be seen as old-fashioned and out of touch. And thats a very very thin patch of ice to be tap-dancing on.

Quote:

I don't think William needs to have spark or personality to be King
He does. He definately does. He can't be another face on a fiver - he's got to have some element that makes him different and makes him special. People won't give their loyalty to a pound note - they need a real life, all singing, all dancing model that sets us apart from the rest.

Quote:

He has always disliked the press and the attention and that's understandable given the media circus around his mother.
As I've said before, she encouraged most of that but it's no good him loathing the Press. If he tries to keep them out, they'll find new and more dangerous ways to get in. A photograph and a comment cost nothing - a snap of him in the nude however costs alot - and thats what will happen. Modern Technology means that you can't hide from the Press no-matter how well you think you've got them covered. The Danes, The Dutch - they all have mastered the Press. The Brits haven't because they try and lock them out.

Australian 10-24-2005 10:05 AM

BeatrixFan, you sound like one of those judges from Australian/ American Princess!
:)

BeatrixFan 10-24-2005 10:11 AM

Re:
 
Quote:

BeatrixFan, you sound like one of those judges from Australian/ American Princess!
I'm not sure what that is, but I'm guessing its like Pop Idol right? Maybe I should be totally Anne Robinson, "William, You are the Weakest Link - Now please go and get a personality". ;)

Zonk 10-24-2005 10:17 AM

Again..I think you are comparing things that are in no way alike.

Now you are making references to the Dutch and Danish press and comparing it to the British press????!!!! I am going to go out on a limb and say there is nothing in this world that is comparable to the British press! Good and Bad!

BeatrixFan 10-24-2005 10:20 AM

re:
 
Quote:

I am going to go out on a limb and say there is nothing in this world that is comparable to the British press!
But its the RFs fault they are as they are. If they had set reasonable boundaries years ago instead of trying to dodge them all the time they wouldn't have become the repressed desperate journos they are. There has to be a good level of give and take from the beginning. Other RFs have got the hang of it.

Harry's polo shirt 10-24-2005 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
Prince William. What a dull, boring, limp character. One is almost screaming at the screen when he flashes up, "Do something spontaneous!" - he is a 23 Year Old man behaving like a 65 year old statesman. He only needs the Pipe and slippers and he could be a Grandfather. I just see absolutely no promise in him at all.

hummm...I disagree with the 65 year old statesmen...he seems to me as a spoiled brat who needs to grow up. Besides statesmen know who they are; Will obviously doesn't. I think Will will be an admired King--because no one sees any wrong him.:rolleyes:

BeatrixFan 10-24-2005 10:28 AM

Quote:

I think Will will be an admired King--because no one sees any wrong him.:rolleyes:
He'll be admired in two camps. The Pro-Charles camp will admire him for being his fathers son. The Pro-Diana camp will admire him for being his mothers son. It's ridiculous.

Warren 10-24-2005 10:53 AM

Whoa! Time to settle down a bit I think.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
He's got to have some element that makes him different and makes him special.

Reduced to its basics you've answered your own question. The element that makes him different and special is that he is a Royal Prince, he will become Heir to the Throne, and eventually King. Simple. And that's all that most people require. A bit of decency, compassion, and, dare I say it, niceness, thrown in is just an added bonus. Most of us don't make too many demands.
.

ysbel 10-24-2005 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
As I said previously, Edwardian advice in a 21st Century world doesn't work. The Queen is a darling but her time has gone. Now she is the white-haired old lady in the crown who never puts a foot wrong and you love her because you should. If she doesn't go to a registry office wedding we say, "Well, it's her generation". If William takes her choices, he'll be seen as old-fashioned and out of touch. And thats a very very thin patch of ice to be tap-dancing on.

Well Beatrixfan, William is not THAT Edwardian if he's dating Kate ;)

The problem is that the monarchy is not a 21st century institution and I have doubts that it should be. Quite frankly, I'm tired of the cult of personality over real substance. Beatrix and Margrethe are women of substance as well as personality; the substance came first, the personality came later. Margrethe's personality didn't come to the fore until she had been Queen awhile.

BTW, I don't see the 65 year old statesman in William. Right now I see him as aimless as a lot of 24 year olds. Its a generational thing.

BeatrixFan 10-24-2005 11:01 AM

Quote:

The problem is that the monarchy is not a 21st century institution and I have doubts that it should be

Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about cutting chunks out of the Monarchy. But there has to be some form of bringing it into a realistic working order. There's a growing anti- sentiment growing and people are looking to William to save the Monarchy. Yes, it's unfair and I for one don't think he can do it at all - by the links to articles etc, I'm not the only one.

susan alicia 10-24-2005 11:10 AM

It is Edwardian untill he marries her :)
Quote:

Originally Posted by ysbel
Well Beatrixfan, William is not THAT Edwardian if he's dating Kate ;)


Elspeth 10-24-2005 12:11 PM

I think people are looking to William because they believe that Charles is more backward-looking than forward-looking. The Queen came to the throne when she was too young to really take the institution forward; instead she seemed to act as though it were still her father's reign and she just happened to be the one wearing the crown. She's also had her mother's strong influence in not wanting things to move with the times as fast as they should. Charles gives the impression of being another in that mould, although I think that's something of a false impression. People seem to think that Charles's reign will be George VI Mark 3, and that it isn't until we get to William that things have a hope of making any changes at all.

I really think that this blandness and apparent lack of confidence are good reasons why Diana and William partisans shouldn't be too keen to see him follow the Queen directly as monarch. If he takes over before he's really had time to have a life, it's going to be hard for him to break out out of the straitjacket the Household will want to put on him like they put it on his grandmother when she was too young to tell them where to stick it.

Idriel 10-24-2005 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
I've started this due to a question from another board member and comments from others. It's all my opinion and you don't have to agree with it.
I realise that I am going to become as hated as Stalin in certain camps for saying this but I know there are those who agree with the sentiment. Prince William. What a dull, boring, limp character. One is almost screaming at the screen when he flashes up, "Do something spontaneous!" - he is a 23 Year Old man behaving like a 65 year old statesman. He only needs the Pipe and slippers and he could be a Grandfather. I just see absolutely no promise in him at all. He's hailed in some camps as being the 'saviour of the Monarchy' - I do hope Kate Middleton has an ounce of personality and sparkle, because she will have to compensate for the lack of it in his camp. I've entitled this topic, 'My Pot-au-Feu with Prince William' because he has about as much character as the French stew which composes of boiled beef, vegetables and marrow bones. He lacks charm completely. I don't expect somersaults of firework displays but I do expect something that shows who he is. As young as he is, he has shown no reason as to why he'd make a good King in my opinion.

I don't see him as being good King material, indeed, I'd prefer Queen Beatrice to King William any day. William seems to be a walking clone - he needs to be programmed daily to ensure that he'll get through the long hours. Maybe I'm being far too critical, but unlike his brother, he doesn't seem to have formed a backbone or anything that shows he's an individual at all.

Woaw! Brilliant post!!
Just replace William by Charles and Kate by Camilla and you have my exact, perfectly expressed view on The Prince of Wales...:D

Now, I have to say I'm really impress by you stamina BeatrixFan. Making such a bold statement in the prince William tread... Respect.

However I have to disagree with you. I do think William has a personality, but he goes to incredible extend to show nothing of it. I see it as a defence mechanism. I agree with you that everything he does is quite boring (even his choice of companion does nothing to excite a hint of excitement, at least IMO); but I can't blame him for that. He plays it safe, and considering how the British Press treats Royals, he better do. Look at how Harry (who is also my favourite) has been trashed. Look at how his girlfriend is treated and defamed.
I also disagree with you 65 years old statement. Unlike his father, William has a natural charisma, which is what keeps me interested in him (plus his good looks, I won't deny).

Here are two pics to prove that William can let his hair down sometimes...

William wild 1
William wild 2

PS: Pôt-au-feu is very good!!! (an outraged Gallic poster)

pollyemma 10-24-2005 02:40 PM

ok....welll...i think i could have lived a happy life without ever having seen those 2 photos...

I have to agree with Beatrixfan about wills being dull.

rudy guiliani's used to say that he'd "rather be respected than loved." perhaps it'll turn out that way with william.

though, William's not married yet so everything can still change. willem alexander of holland was generally considered boring and not too bright ( i disagree, but a lot of people think that) and then he marries a sparkling lady like Maxima and immediately the royal family becomes a whole lot more interesting.

BeatrixFan 10-24-2005 02:42 PM

Re:
 
Lol! Thanks Idriel - and God Bless you for your opinion on Charles even though I am totally 100% in disagreement with you! Thats how a board should be.

I totally understand the press issue. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. But look at what we know of Harry - he likes to drink, he likes to smoke, he likes a good party and you can only push him too far. He's a little bit wild, dangerous but he has his strict army side and he knows when he's overstepped the mark. William won't even get within 10 feet of the mark let alone overstep it and as I said, I'm dying for him to do something wrong to prove his isn't the cherub Prince with no personality that I percieve him to be.

Princejohnny25 10-24-2005 03:12 PM

I do think William is over hyped. He is popular for his good looks and that people think he has inherited superhero saintly blood from Diana. He is young man in his 20's still trying to figure out who he is which takes longer cause he is a royal. He hides his fun side and personality because he is not ready to build up his image yet. Plus, I think the press would much rather pay attention to Harry than William when it comes to having fun. Even if William acted the same way as Harry, William looks like a pretty prep boy and wouldnt get much attention. Harry is the red haired sexy bad boy that would get the attention. William is not the savior of the monarchy. He is far from it. We have yet to see Charles reign. From what I hear Charles reign will be very different from QEII. So it will be Williams job to take the changes his father made and form them for the future monarchs to use as a guide line.

pollyemma 10-24-2005 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
Lol! Thanks Idriel - and God Bless you for your opinion on Charles even though I am totally 100% in disagreement with you! Thats how a board should be.

I totally understand the press issue. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. But look at what we know of Harry - he likes to drink, he likes to smoke, he likes a good party and you can only push him too far. He's a little bit wild, dangerous but he has his strict army side and he knows when he's overstepped the mark. William won't even get within 10 feet of the mark let alone overstep it and as I said, I'm dying for him to do something wrong to prove his isn't the cherub Prince with no personality that I percieve him to be.

it depends on what he does wrong. i mean, if he gets sloshed in public that'll just prove he's the same as so many other people his age. that would only make me find him more boring.

BeatrixFan 10-24-2005 03:30 PM

Re:
 
Quote:

it depends on what he does wrong. i mean, if he gets sloshed in public that'll just prove he's the same as so many other people his age
True. He doesn't need to be extreme - Harry isn't extreme - he needs to enjoy being young before he becomes an old bearded King with a paunch and gout.

Piewi 10-24-2005 05:10 PM

Quote:

However I have to disagree with you. I do think William has a personality, but he goes to incredible extend to show nothing of it. I see it as a defence mechanism. I agree with you that everything he does is quite boring (even his choice of companion does nothing to excite a hint of excitement, at least IMO); but I can't blame him for that. He plays it safe, and considering how the British Press treats Royals, he better do. Look at how Harry (who is also my favourite) has been trashed. Look at how his girlfriend is treated and defamed.
I also disagree with you 65 years old statement. Unlike his father, William has a natural charisma, which is what keeps me interested in him (plus his good looks, I won't deny).
I just coun´t agree more! you read my toughts:)
I also think that Wills has personality but he choose doesn´t show it. He wants the best for UK and his family, so he tries to behave well and take care of his acts. Personally i appreceate him for that: he´s doing a big effort for his people.
If I was in his feet i´d do the same becouse i think it may be my obligation

For me he has a natural charisma, i see it on his eyes:p

Beatrix fan, you are a brave girl!!
btw

BeatrixFan 10-24-2005 05:14 PM

Re:
 
Quote:

I also think that Wills has personality but he choose doesn´t show it. He wants the best for UK and his family, so he tries to behave well and take care of his acts. Personally i appreceate him for that: he´s doing a big effort for his people.
If I was in his feet i´d do the same becouse i think it may be my obligation
If this is the case, he better start showing it. This holier-than-thou babyfaced act is becoming very very boring. I don't think he could care less about the country at this stage. Its nothing to do with him - he strikes me as the sort who lets other people deal with his problems, as long as he's happy with whats happening to him at that moment.

I don't think he's put in any effort - The Princess Royal, The Prince of Wales ,The Duchess of Cornwall, Princess Alexandra, Princess Michael - they put in alot of effort and they make a difference - what does William do exactly? He's going to be a bank manager or a farmer - the two most boring jobs in the world (unless you happen to be a bank manager or a farmer I suppose).

Zonk 10-24-2005 05:23 PM

What does he do exactly?

He just graduated from college..thats what he just did...and like other recent college graduates..he is trying to find his place in life. To compare him to other royals who are in their 50's and have a chance to adapt to their life in the royal family..is just unfair.

BeatrixFan 10-24-2005 05:26 PM

Re:
 
Quote:

He just graduated from college..thats what he just did...and like other recent college graduates..he is trying to find his place in life. To compare him to other royals who are in their 50's and have a chance to adapt to their life in the royal family..is just unfair.
He's completed University. Well Done William. So have thousands of others. And what did William study for? Why bother? He's got the top job by birth. Teach him French, German, Geography and History and throw in a spell at Sunday School - that should handle public appearance. The rest we'll never see. Why train in a bank etc? What use is that to a King? He'll know how to fix the ATM at Buckingham Palace?

I'm not comparing him to those people to be cruel - but they have personalities and individual traits - William is just a face (and not that good looking IMHO) in the Royal Ranks - at least Harry has some history and some flair.

Piewi 10-24-2005 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
If this is the case, he better start showing it. This holier-than-thou babyfaced act is becoming very very boring. I don't think he could care less about the country at this stage. Its nothing to do with him - he strikes me as the sort who lets other people deal with his problems, as long as he's happy with whats happening to him at that moment.

I don't think he's put in any effort - The Princess Royal, The Prince of Wales ,The Duchess of Cornwall, Princess Alexandra, Princess Michael - they put in alot of effort and they make a difference - what does William do exactly? He's going to be a bank manager or a farmer - the two most boring jobs in the world (unless you happen to be a bank manager or a farmer I suppose).

Don´t you think that being a farmer or a bank manager isn´t a big effort?! Image it may be so boring!!!:p :p

Seriously, if you have a personality it´s quite difficult do things that you don´t like or try to don´t make mistakes when you have 23 years old!
And there are lots of ways to "make the difference": charles and camilla are a example of a bad one, however i don´t like them and i don´t want to discuss about them again. Talking about Wills he can be different having a nice and close relationship with his country, helping, and perhaps showing a bit of his personality, but why he has to be "wild" (sorry,i didn´t find another word) for that? Or why he has to show himself if he doesn´t want it?

We´ll definitly disagree with lots of things but i don´t see anything wrong with him, he´s just trying to be a good monarch:) may be a bored one but he might change and "open" more;)

grecka 10-25-2005 02:31 AM

It would be rather refreshing if he took up a mistress- sort of a modern day Madame Pompadour or Diane de Poitiers. I, personally, would like to see him out with, or, at the very least, sleeping with a woman in the mold of Princess Michael- beautiful, controversial, fashionable, excessive, and absolutely painfully dramatic. Women like that make for such interesting situations and such interesting history, and it might colorize William's world- which, at present, at best, seems to linger in shades of plaid and khaki.

Marengo 10-25-2005 03:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grecka
It would be rather refreshing if he took up a mistress- sort of a modern day Madame Pompadour or Diane de Poitiers.

I think his father tried that, and it is not generally considered as a succesfull experiment.
--
I agree with Beatrixfan that William must be one of the most boring young man in Great-Britain (and Kate one of the most boring girls). They seem like a middle-aged couple who are living on the countryside, devoting all their time on hunting, raising dogs and drinking sherry with their privelliged friends. I really do not see the charisma some people claim he has, and as far as the good looks go: he is not that goodlooking and misses a certain charm.

The interesting part is to see how he will develop further. He seems (I would like to stress the 'seems' part in this sentance) totally out of touch with nomal life and if he stays that way it could be a big problem for the british monarchy. I wonder why the guy has so little public duties, any other european heir (or even their siblings) of the throne had more by that age. It might be refreshing to send him abroad, looking how other monarchies are doing things for example. Queen Beatrix did a kind of internship at Queen Margarethe II court before she became queen and reorganised and professionalized the dutch court completely. It might be refreshing as well to get him awy from the set of priviliged conservative english people he mingles with and get him to meet more interesting people, to broaden his views on the world. Most (all?) heirs/ princes studied/lived abroad for example.

susan alicia 10-25-2005 04:18 AM

what did WA did when he was williams age, seems a more recent and logical comparison


Quote:

Originally Posted by Marengo
--

I wonder why the guy has so little public duties, any other european heir (or even their siblings) of the throne had more by that age. It might be refreshing to send him abroad, looking how other monarchies are doing things for example. Queen Beatrix did a kind of internship at Queen Margarethe II court before she became queen and reorganised and professionalized the dutch court completely. It might be refreshing as well to get him awy from the set of priviliged conservative english people he mingles with and get him to meet more interesting people, to broaden his views on the world. Most (all?) heirs/ princes studied/lived abroad for example.


Marengo 10-25-2005 04:38 AM

He studied in Leyden, but still he had an occassional public duty, more the William anyway. If you compare William to Carl-Phillip and Madelaine of Sweden, who are almost the same age but not heirs you will see they participate in much more public functions then William, as does Guillaume of Luxembourg.

segolen 10-25-2005 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marengo
I agree with Beatrixfan that William must be one of the most boring young man in Great-Britain (and Kate one of the most boring girls).

According to you, you must know all the young men and women of Great-Britain then !
Quote:

Originally Posted by Marengo
They seem like a middle-aged couple who are living on the countryside, devoting all their time on hunting, raising dogs and drinking sherry with their privelliged friends.

I don’t see how the hunting, rasing dogs and drinking sherry defines that a certain couple is middle – aged. I'm far way from middle age, but if I had the time, would do it too.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Marengo
I really do not see the charisma some people claim he has, and as far as the good looks go: he is not that goodlooking and misses a certain charm.

My simple research says that Prince William has TONS of Fans sites, which proves that he is goodloking and definitely has a charm, the oposite which your statement says.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Marengo
He seems (I would like to stress the 'seems' part in this sentence) totally out of touch with normal life and if he stays that way it could be a big problem for the British monarchy.

This term “ a normal” life is very indefinite. A normal life to me might not be a normal life to you and vs/vsa. Please explain yourself in here.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Marengo
I wonder why the guy has so little public duties, any other European heir (or even their siblings) of the throne had more by that age.

Any European country has its own rules; therefore Britain has the British rules. We don't have to compare Britain with other countries and the other countries with Britain. It is not a definition on what age a monarch should begin his/hers public duties. At his age, he doesn’t have to do any single royal duties yet.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Marengo
It might be refreshing to send him abroad, looking how other monarchies are doing things for example. Queen Beatrix did a kind of internship at Queen Margarethe II court before she became queen

h
e doesn’t have to .The Brithish Queen is the most popular of any other queens and kings right now, therefore the best advice comes from her.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Marengo
It might be refreshing as well to get him awy from the set of priviliged conservative english people he mingles with and get him to meet more interesting people, to broaden his views on the world. Most (all?) heirs/ princes studied/lived abroad for example.

We don’t know if they are all conservative. The other thing about ” living abroad” to “ broaden his views” is an old statement.To broaden you view , you need a good school ( he has), regular visits to other countries, but not living ( he does), and a good internet ( he does).
.

BeatrixFan 10-25-2005 06:49 AM

Re:
 
Quote:

It would be rather refreshing if he took up a mistress- sort of a modern day Madame Pompadour or Diane de Poitiers
Yes! Oh what a brilliant post that was. Can't he follow the lead of Charles II and take several mistresses?
Quote:

According to you, you must know all the young men and women of Great-Britain then
No, but there's a fair idea of the norm and most have a smattering of fun to them - not cold grey eyes which scream, 'Dull, Dull, Dull'.
Quote:

My simple research says that Prince William has TONS of Fans sites, which proves that he is goodloking and definitely has a charm, the oposite which your statement says.
No, it proves that he's Di's boy and he's the living incumbent of her popularity. I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder but personally I find him gawky and verging on the ugly. I do hope people find him goodlooking - if he's a pretty boy it'll cover up the zero-character.
Quote:

We don't have to compare Britain with other countries and the other countries with Britain
Yes we do. Sadly, the days when Britain really ruled the waves and we could afford not to care what other countries were doing are over.
Quote:

The Brithish Queen is the most popular of any other queens and kings right now, therefore the best advice comes from her.
Is she? I'd argue that point. And I don't think the best advice comes from her at all, as I've previously stated in this thread. Turning to a 79 year old lady for modern day advice isn't the best way for a 23 year old in my eyes.
Quote:

We don’t know if they are all conservative
Believe me - William's set will 99.9% be true blues. They wouldn't dare be anything else.

Mahoogie 10-25-2005 12:05 PM

I like the way Prince William carries himself and his royal status, for me he is ok and I think the Prince and Princess of Wales would be proud of having a son like him..What I dont like is his serious relationship with Kate. I know William is happy with Kate but I dont like the idea of Kate being the future Queen consort of England..I dont know,but I just dont find her appealing as a future royal,sorry for Kate fans out there,just stating my opinion here.. and I wish William would find an aristocrat or a royal lady that he truly loves and be love by the people..European royal heirs now marry commoners,at first, I find it interesting and really sweet but I kinda used to it now..For a change, I think its really more fascinating when a modern prince will fall in love and marry a royal princess or from nobility..I havent seen that kind of phenomena in this modern time and that really fascinates me more..

BeatrixFan 10-25-2005 12:12 PM

Re:
 
Quote:

I dont know,but I just dont find her appealing as a future royal,sorry for Kate fans out there,just stating my opinion here
Kate seems to be a bit harsh and cold to me. But I could be wrong having never met the filly. She doesn't seem to have much of a personality either - what a pair they'll be! I'd love William to marry Madeleine of Sweden but I don't think that'll happen.

pollyemma 10-25-2005 12:32 PM

Beatrix fan, I can't help but wonder why you started this vitriolic anti-william thread: Are you perhaps...secretly in love with william?

to me, this whole effort smacks of “the lady doth protest too much.”


If you love him, just admit it. We will none of us think less of you! Sure you’ll be one of the screaming legion of teenyboppers, but who knows maybe you’re the one who’s love is true.



Just look at Katie Holmes. she had posters of Tom Cruise on her wall and dreamed of marrying him. As she told a journalist recently, “ I’m glad I kept dreaming because dreams do come true.”


I say the same to you, Beatrix fan: “Keep dreaming” and perhaps someday your Prince (William) will come to you.

BeatrixFan 10-25-2005 12:41 PM

Re:
 
Lol - the Lady doesn't protest too much, the Lady being a man.

I started this thread because I was asked my opinion on William so it led to a bigger thread. I don't have any feelings of attraction to William preferring the Europeans. ;)

Elspeth 10-25-2005 12:53 PM

Let's please keep this thread on topic. Personal issues are best discussed by private message.

Thanks.

Elspeth

British Royals moderator

Idriel 10-25-2005 01:20 PM

Mmm, the whole comparison with other heirs at the same age than Will is irrelevant since he is not the heir to the throne (and won't be for another 10 years min., - sauf accident). The comparison with the Swede is nil also since contrary to the BRF, the SRF is very reduced. There are no Duke of York, Princess Royal, Princess of Kent, etc. available in Sweden to perform Royal duties, so Victoria's sibling don't have much of a choice, they have to work.
I really think it's unjust to criticize Will for not throwing himself in hospital visits, and inaugurations of factories (how exciting, I already hear BeatrixFan nasty quips :D -just kidding Beatrix, you know I adore you...) at such a young age and with no defined role yet.
About Kate: well, she definitely won't make me buy a Hello with her on the cover... but maybe after the Diana's madness, that's not a bad thing.
Segolen: The Queen is not the most popular Monarch. I would say the most popular Monarch with their people are the Danish or the Swede, something like that. And, as much as I respect and admire her, she is from another area.

BeatrixFan 10-25-2005 01:55 PM

Re:
 
Quote:

(how exciting, I already hear BeatrixFan nasty quips :D -just kidding Beatrix, you know I adore you...)
I don't see that as particularly exciting but it's part of the job for them so I'd prefer to see him doing things like that!

(I adore you too ;) )

ysbel 10-25-2005 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idriel
Mmm, the whole comparison with other heirs at the same age than Will is irrelevant since he is not the heir to the throne (and won't be for another 10 years min., - sauf accident).

That's a good point, Idriel. William is not heir to the throne; its a different position and responsibility. I don't think Haakon did all that much when his grandfather King Olav of Norway was alive.

Quite frankly, with all the comparison of William to Diana, right now I see more of Charles in William than his mother. Not all the qualities are necessarily good; his diffidence, his lack of direction, are all traits that have plagued Charles over the years. Maybe it comes with the role of heir (or heir of the heir) and not having a defined role.

I think though they'll both do fine; I just wish they weren't so wishy-washy. That's probably my own prejudices showing through :p Indecisive people drive me crazy!:rolleyes:

Marengo 10-25-2005 02:48 PM

He is an heir, he just isn't a crownprince (yet). I am not suggesting that he will participate full-time in the royal busines anyway, but just a bit more then he is going now, like for example Madelaine and Carl-Philip of Sweden or the spanish infantas at his age. It is not true that the swedish have to participate because the royal family is so small, the king of Sweden has 4 sisters who could help as well, so my comparisation remains fair.

Furthermore many people conveniantly pointed out, in the thread about the lack of participation of the Queen of GB in european royal events, that Britain and the Commonwealth is much bigger then for example Norway, so the royals will have more things to do anyway (maybe they can invest more time in Scotland and Wales).

segolen 10-25-2005 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
No, but there's a fair idea of the norm and most have a smattering of fun to them - not cold grey eyes which scream, 'Dull, Dull, Dull'.

Hmmm….William goes to clubs, loves sports, travels. Is this not normal to you? If it is not, you might have quiet strange ideas of the “norm” then.
Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
I do hope people find him good looking- if he's a pretty boy it'll cover up the zero-character.

if you hope that Wills is good looking, why are you trying to prove the opposite then? It locks a lot of sense to me.
Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
Yes we do. Sadly, the days when

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
Britain really ruled the waves and we could afford not to care what other countries were doing are over.

Seeing what the other countries do, it doesn’t mean copying them. Who says, what the other countries do is the RIGHT thing to do.
Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
Is she? I'd argue that point. And I don't think the best advice comes from her at all, as I've previously stated in this thread. Turning to a 79 year old lady for modern day advice isn't the best way for a 23 year old in my eyes.

The British Queen is in perfect health and state of mind, God Bless Her. I travel a lot and talk to many people from different nationalities, and when I ask them to name me some of the world’ monarchs they know, everyone starts with the Queen of Britain…..go figure.

The other thing, you said that she can’t give him “a modern day advice”. As I remember, The Queen had nothing against of William to live together with Kate , even unmarried…..tell me this is not a modern day advice.
Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
Believe me - William's set will 99.9% be true blues. They wouldn't dare be anything else.

How can I believe you, when you make your statement without anything to prove it with..

Princejohnny25 10-26-2005 03:45 PM

Im usually with you on things Beatrixfan but here im so so. I do think Willam is overhyped and I feel sorry for him because of that. People refuse to let Diana go and move on so they look to William to replace her. He knows that and understands the pressure. He does not want to start building his public image with everyone comparing him to Diana. He has shown a balance of both his parents in the past but that was only for a few moments. He is starting slow to show his intrests. He is smart. People are comparing him to Charles know. They are considering him more like charles now which is great. Dont get me wrong I love chuck and I think he is a great prince of wales and will be a great king but he is much eaisier to dismiss than Diana. People dont pay attention to his charity work. If william can come off more like his father than people wont expect him to be like his mother and then he will build his public image that is uniquly william and neither Diana or Charles. William is trying to lessen the burden of his mother on him and he is doing a great job of that. Hopefully camilla will take away the burden of consort to the heir so williams wife wont have to be compared to diana. He has done nothing special and there is only two reasons to like him; his looks and parents. In time though when he finds himself and the hype over him dies down he will comfortably build up his image as a Prince of the Realm.

grecka 10-26-2005 09:26 PM

There was a comment that Charles had tried what I suggested- taking up a truly interesting, Madame Pompadour-like mistress. That wasn't the case: Charles took up a non-fashionable mistress who was, let's say, not exactly stunning and over the top. I'm saying he should take up a sort of Diane de Poitiers-style mistress- a woman with natural instincts for power and drama and scandal. That Isabella Gough-Calthorpe (spelt wrong probably) girl looks suitable. She's certainly got the looks for the part. Now, all she needs is to wear only black and white, advocate the sale of the Shetland Islands in order to pay for a palace in the style of Chenonceau, and go fox hunting in defiance of British law. That love for those over-the-top, very haughty, very resourceful past royal women is part of the reason why I absolutely adore Princess Michael. She is Diane de Poitiers and and Madame Pompadour reincarnated. Now, if only Isabella could step into that role. That would make for truly interesting news!

maryshawn 10-29-2005 09:01 PM

I've read everyone's posts and basically have come to the conclusion this is a no-win situation. I am neither pro-William, nor anti-William. What I see is a young man who hasn't lived long enough to have anything to point to and say conclusively "He is ______" or "He is ________. What is he? 23 or 24? The 20's are a time for finding one's way and figuring things out for yourself. There is nothing that proves a meaningful case for or against William as man or prince either way. We don't know what he's going to be like when he finally comes into his own. I'm 40-something and still trying to figure things out.

We are stirring a pot that has about an inch of water in it right now. And, with all due respect, hats off to Shakespeare when he wrote: "Everyone can master a grief but he that has it".

Oppie 10-30-2005 09:37 AM

Quote:

What I see is a young man who hasn't lived long enough to have anything to point to and say conclusively "He is ______" or "He is ________. What is he? 23 or 24? The 20's are a time for finding one's way and figuring things out for yourself.
I agree, I am almost the same age as him and I have no idea what I want to do or what I want to be. It must be hard because I have alot of opportunites he in a lot of ways doesn't he has a "job" but not really. He can get a regular "job" but not really. You can compare him to all the other royals but really there isn't anyone in the same position as him. I think Haakon was the oldest when he became the heir and he was the same age as William. His father had a hard time figuring out what to do with his life as a King in waiting.

I think the army is good, although I wish in some ways they would just appoint him Commonwealth guy. Since he is young without a family and popular it might be a good idea to send him to the Commonwealths just to firm up links. Espically since the Queen is getting older.

But I think he will be fine. Everything he does seems so planned out. I remember before he graduated no one knew what he was going to do. Once he graduated he had what I think was the same as Crown Princess Victoria's "Queen School". He has two patronages right now.

As for the "do something wild". Again with the comparing it to my own life (which is a little weird) My sister is like Harry will go out drink a lot party a lot. That's fine that is her thing but I'm not like that. The doing something wild that I would did was moving to China when I was 20, or making my friends dinner drinking wine and talking politics or going to a play or a concert. It's not 'bad' it's just different not every 20'ish year old is going to want to spend every night at the bar.

Mahoogie 10-30-2005 11:15 AM

I think Prince William is ok..I think he is the person who likes to have fun but he carries it with style and more careful as he is second in line to the throne..You cant blame him for not being Harry as a happy-go-lucky prince, Harry is more relax coz he is the spare and not the heir..I get what others here want to point out, that Wills is so boring, not taking daredevil risks, not a tabloid newsmaker..Well we got enough from Charles and Diana's troubled marriage and messy divorce..Its now the time that we get some good news,atleast,to one of their sons..Wills is the future His Majesty, King William IV of England and not a Hollywood celebrity so we could forgive him for not seeking media attention or making bad publicity..but we cant tell for sure if he'll remain naive and boring all his life coz he is just 23..There's a still a long way to go..and we cannot tell if he is really serious as he seems to be..We dont know him personally,might be,in private, he's the coolest person you'll ever encounter..Its just that he is too nice and doesnt make any adventurous news thats why some here thinks that he is too boring..

ysbel 10-30-2005 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grecka
There was a comment that Charles had tried what I suggested- taking up a truly interesting, Madame Pompadour-like mistress. That wasn't the case: Charles took up a non-fashionable mistress who was, let's say, not exactly stunning and over the top. I'm saying he should take up a sort of Diane de Poitiers-style mistress- a woman with natural instincts for power and drama and scandal.

Sadly grecka, Charles is not that kind of guy and I don't think William is either.

Charles was always a bit of a fuddy-duddy; I say that with the ultimate affection because some guys in my family are the same way. He was never a great womanizer and it was a great shock to me that he had an affair at all. Going off to your old girlfriend who you should have married in the first place is simply not in the same league as Aristotle Onassis carrying on with Maria Callas (now there was a true diva and the type of mistress I think you meant!) or Donald Trump running off with Marla Maples.

William is like his father in that respect. He doesn't gain his self-esteem by having a beautiful, flashy dramatic grand dame at his side. He'd have to be a little egoistic and narcissistic for that.

Now Harry is another story! ;)

Idriel 10-30-2005 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ysbel
He was never a great womanizer and it was a great shock to me that he had an affair at all.

He was actually, but it was not his natural inclination. He was rather following the strange and highly questionable advices of Mountbatten.

ysbel 10-30-2005 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idriel
He was actually, but it was not his natural inclination. He was rather following the strange and highly questionable advices of Mountbatten.

Hi Idriel,

The papers in the 70s certainly made it seem that way, didn't they?

Most of his relationships with women that were supposedly wild flings were I believe mostly platonic. Charles did have an ability to have great friendships with women which is not what I'd call womanizing. He didn't collect women as trophies, so to speak.

Princejohnny25 10-30-2005 01:51 PM

I think charles was trying to be the bachelor prince and get a lot of women but he certaintly wasnt a player. Prince Charles does develope close friendships with women(Camilla amongst others). Diana was said to be flustered by his friendships. But, Charles does seem like a one real love women type of guy. If he has it good he is not giving it up or ruining it.

BeatrixFan 11-08-2007 06:38 PM

William laying a wreath on Remembrance Day 2007
 
William? Ugh. Why? Because he bayonets sacks in a uniform?

Iluvbertie 11-08-2007 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 690457)
William? Ugh. Why? Because he bayonets sacks in a uniform?


Probably because he is second in line to the throne... or are you suggesting that when he becomes king he shouldn't lay a wreath because he hasn't actually seen service. He is, after all, currently a serving officer. Just because the government won't let him go to a war zone doesn't mean that he isn't serving in the military.

BeatrixFan 11-08-2007 11:30 PM

Head of State is different. A Head of State can lay a wreath without doing any form of service but why have William there now? He hasn't done anything in the military apart from dress up as a soldier and run around a field a bit. I don't see how that warrants him laying a wreath in memorance of real soldiers. And that goes for Edward too. The only wreaths he should be laying are for his failed TV career.

wbenson 11-09-2007 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 690508)
Head of State is different. A Head of State can lay a wreath without doing any form of service but why have William there now? He hasn't done anything in the military apart from dress up as a soldier and run around a field a bit. I don't see how that warrants him laying a wreath in memorance of real soldiers. And that goes for Edward too. The only wreaths he should be laying are for his failed TV career.

So the only people who are valuable soldiers are the ones who fight in wars? William is currently a serving officer in the Army, and discrediting his service as "not doing anything" is an insult to every soldier who has done what he has. Without the ones who do things away from the battlefield, there may as well be no Army.

I sort of see your point about Edward, but not William.

Iluvbertie 11-09-2007 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 690508)
Head of State is different. A Head of State can lay a wreath without doing any form of service but why have William there now? He hasn't done anything in the military apart from dress up as a soldier and run around a field a bit. I don't see how that warrants him laying a wreath in memorance of real soldiers. And that goes for Edward too. The only wreaths he should be laying are for his failed TV career.

So according to you only those who have actually served should lay a wreath to acknowledge those who lay down their lives, or were prepared to lay down their lives, for us.

Fortunately here in Australia anyone can lay a wreath if they so choose and wish to acknowledge the sacrifice of those who have, and/or are currently serving, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice. At my last school all students whose parents were currently in the military (the school was next to an army base) always laid wreaths on ANZAC Day (the big remembrance day in Australia and NZ although we both will be acknowledging Remembrance Day this Sunday but the ceremonies will be smaller than those on ANZAC Day) and then any other student who wished to do so was able to do so. According to you none of them should have done so - what a pity that then the younger generation don't get a chance to acknowledge the sacrifices made.

The whole point of Remembrance Day is for everyone to remember those who served and died in the past wars (or are currently serving in present ones). Surely having a representative from the current military, who is also second in line to the throne is a good way to show the younger people that this day still has meaning.

CasiraghiTrio 11-09-2007 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marengo (Post 307659)
I agree with Beatrixfan that William must be one of the most boring young man in Great-Britain (and Kate one of the most boring girls). They seem like a middle-aged couple who are living on the countryside, devoting all their time on hunting, raising dogs and drinking sherry with their privelliged friends. I really do not see the charisma some people claim he has, and as far as the good looks go: he is not that goodlooking and misses a certain charm.

I have read through this thread almost entirely and find many posts about Prince William, from both sides of the coin, to be fascinating, even if (well, more like even though) I don't agree with each statement. Marengo's way of stating this point, while unoriginal (only because it was stated by others here in varying ways) strikes me in a particular way. I have had these kinds of thoughts about William and Kate many times.

Honestly, I am not one who takes a particular side in this discussion. I am neither a great "fan" nor a great critic of Prince William. I suppose one might say that I am just watching him (now it has been fifteen years since I have been an active British royal watcher) and waiting, watching, observing, taking things as they come, as they are. That is the best way to describe my thoughts on Prince William. They aren't unbending by any means. Because I realize he is 25 years old and there is nothing unbending about that age. So I just take him for what he is, as he is, and allow that each appearance brings a fresh aspect.

His dullness compared to Harry (undoubted, undisputed) does not bother me very much. I appreciate that some people are just born with a subdued manner. In William's case, it's not so bad when you consider that he brings a lot of joy to the people he meets. The joy arises from a kind of sycophantic feeling, yes, but joy is joy, no matter where it comes from. What is the difference between feeling happy because you think you like something and feeling happy because you like something? Think about it.
So someone who inspires joy in people, in anyone (maybe not me or you, but in the people he meets, when he finds time in his "hectic army schedule" :biggrin: to attend an engagement) is not altogether to be dismissed as a worthless human being.

I have more to say, and will say, on this topic. However, I must call it wrap, as we say, for the time being. Thank you, Sam/Beatrixfan, for this thread. As always, it was a pleasure to read the many passioned thoughts from the members, ironically so passionately decided about the so dispassionate Prince William. :lol:

Marengo 11-09-2007 10:13 AM

Good heavens, that posted by me some time ago, maybe two years or so? Anyway, I don't mind the 'boring' part that much, I can be pretty boring myself too at times ;). And at least he is not boozing like his younger brother. Still the group of friends he socialises with seem to be typical boarding school boys, with a privelidged upbringing and little connection to 'real' life. But I suppose most royals socialise with these kind of people (just take a look at the facebook networks of Amedeo of Belgium, Albert of Thurn und Taxis etc).

CasiraghiTrio 11-09-2007 10:21 AM

Yep, I have come to this thread late.... I'm always stumbling on old threads I never noticed before.... :rolleyes: About socializing with the upper class set, it is typical for his family. Harry does that too. The Queen, when she was Princess Elizabeth, was always accused of staying in one small set of privileged people. I think it just goes with the territory. Like many people, myself included, they flock to a safety net of social territory. :biggrin: Maybe the royals just don't do it more than most, or it's more apparent with them because they are so closely watched and analyzed, because of their position.... but even so, I guess it's just very, very normal to befriend a group that makes you feel safe.

I love your avatar, Marengo. Fab-u-lous. :flowers:

BeatrixFan 11-09-2007 01:12 PM

Ok. I'm now newly coiffed and ready to answer.

Quote:

So according to you only those who have actually served should lay a wreath to acknowledge those who lay down their lives, or were prepared to lay down their lives, for us.
No and I made that clear. The Head of State whether having seen active service or not, lays a wreath for the nation in the same way as Nicholas Sarkozy would lay a wreath on behalf of the French Republic. Queen Beatrix lays wreaths on behalf of the Dutch and that's acceptable. Until now, the Royals have laid their wreaths based on their military record and that's why Edward has never laid a wreath before. Suddenly he's laying one alongside William - why? William and Harry haven't seen active military service and they never will. Whilst their colleagues have been fighting, they've been parting - to have William (who can never fight we're told) laying a wreath is as much as insult to his colleagues as it is for Tony Blair to lay a wreath.

Quote:

The whole point of Remembrance Day is for everyone to remember those who served and died in the past wars (or are currently serving in present ones). Surely having a representative from the current military, who is also second in line to the throne is a good way to show the younger people that this day still has meaning.
I think younger people accept it has meaning anyway. Certainly my school always observed the 2 minute silence, we all wore poppies and in the latter years we went to the local memorial garden. If they want a representative of those killed in the Middle East, let the parents lay a wreath, not someone who's just been playing at soldiers to avoid getting a proper job. I wear bananas on my head, it doesn't make me Carmen Miranda. William laying a wreath in fancy dress doesn't make him a soldier.

selrahc4 11-09-2007 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 690709)
Until now, the Royals have laid their wreaths based on their military record and that's why Edward has never laid a wreath before. Suddenly he's laying one alongside William - why? William and Harry haven't seen active military service and they never will.

Do you think, then, that it was wrong of Princess Elizabeth to lay her wreath there in 1947?

Iluvbertie 11-09-2007 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 690709)
Ok. I'm now newly coiffed and ready to answer.

No and I made that clear. The Head of State whether having seen active service or not, lays a wreath for the nation in the same way as Nicholas Sarkozy would lay a wreath on behalf of the French Republic. Queen Beatrix lays wreaths on behalf of the Dutch and that's acceptable. Until now, the Royals have laid their wreaths based on their military record and that's why Edward has never laid a wreath before. Suddenly he's laying one alongside William - why? William and Harry haven't seen active military service and they never will. Whilst their colleagues have been fighting, they've been parting - to have William (who can never fight we're told) laying a wreath is as much as insult to his colleagues as it is for Tony Blair to lay a wreath.

Quote:

The whole point of Remembrance Day is for everyone to remember those who served and died in the past wars (or are currently serving in present ones). Surely having a representative from the current military, who is also second in line to the throne is a good way to show the younger people that this day still has meaning.
I think younger people accept it has meaning anyway. Certainly my school always observed the 2 minute silence, we all wore poppies and in the latter years we went to the local memorial garden. If they want a representative of those killed in the Middle East, let the parents lay a wreath, not someone who's just been playing at soldiers to avoid getting a proper job. I wear bananas on my head, it doesn't make me Carmen Miranda. William laying a wreath in fancy dress doesn't make him a soldier.


I find it interesting that according to you those people who have graduated from Britain's world famous military academy aren't soldiers.

What an interesting concept?

Of course, here in Australia, anyone who has the Queen's Commission from the military academy is regarded as serving military personnel but obviously in Britain that isn't the case, if you are to be believed (and I suspect in this case you are wrong).

I wonder what all those soldiers who graduated in times when Britain didn't have any wars to fight feel about the fact that they weren't really soldiers. As someone who did hold the Queen's Commission but never saw any sought of 'active' service I find the suggestion that I wasn't a 'soldier' a strange one to say the least.

Not everyone who graduates from a military academy (or gains the Queen's Commission some other way - mine was through the Australian Reserve Army Training Course and not a military academy) ever sees service in a war zone but they serve nonetheless.

Skydragon 11-09-2007 04:07 PM

If that were the case, then Charles should not lay a wreath either. Many soldiers have never seen a battlefield, nor have the majority of men, women and children who lay wreaths each year. I do have a problem with Edward laying a wreath, only because I feel they are using the 'cover' of William to make it more acceptable.

BeatrixFan 11-09-2007 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrissy57 (Post 690762)
I find it interesting that according to you those people who have graduated from Britain's world famous military academy aren't soldiers..

If you're a soldier, you fight in war zones. If you don't, you're a man in a costume. Simple as. I could do what William has done and it wouldn't make me a soldier would it?

CasiraghiTrio 11-09-2007 04:35 PM

That's not true, Sam. Being in the military is a profession as respectable as any other, regardless of war zone service. It's a job. Soldier is a job description. Just like sailor, just like airman.

BeatrixFan 11-09-2007 04:36 PM

I agree it's a respectable profession but how is William different to Edward? All that seperates me from William is a pretty uniform and a trip to Boujis. When he's fought in the field, he's a soldier. IMO.

CasiraghiTrio 11-09-2007 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 690789)
I agree it's a respectable profession but how is William different to Edward?

Edward did not complete training. William graduated from all his training, first the basic officers' training at Sandhurst, then occupational training with tanks and weapons. William is now a working soldier. Edward just did some officer program while at Oxford or something (was it Cambridge?) Anyway, he did not even finish that program..... so, it's different.

BeatrixFan 11-09-2007 04:42 PM

If he's a working soldier what is he doing? What makes him a working soldier? Getting arsey about photographers? Marching in a pretty line in front of Granny?

wbenson 11-09-2007 05:54 PM

If not for those who stay behind, those who go to war would never get there or come back if they managed to make it. They'd also never get paid and when they weren't there, they'd starve. Calling those who don't go into battle just a "man in a costume" is not just wrong, it's rude and insulting.

Soldiers do many things other than fight wars. Bases need to administrated. The whole army requires a very large support system.

He managed to get through the program at Sandhurst and gain a commission in the Army. That's something most people couldn't or wouldn't do. That does make him a working soldier.

There's an army job explorer here if you'd like to explore it more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 690784)
I could do what William has done and it wouldn't make me a soldier would it?

It would.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 690709)
to have William (who can never fight we're told) laying a wreath is as much as insult to his colleagues as it is for Tony Blair to lay a wreath.

People must have been insulted every year for a decade then, as Mr. Blair laid a wreath every year on behalf of the government. Gordon Brown will lay one this year, as will the Defence Minister and the Foreign Secretary, along with the Commonwealth high commissioners. The NAAFI will be marching in the parade, most likely as well.

BeatrixFan 11-09-2007 06:02 PM

Hmm. Sorry, I don't buy it. I see this as yet another excuse for a Royal who'll never see active service to wear a uniform and be showered with medals.

wbenson 11-09-2007 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 690811)
Hmm. Sorry, I don't buy it. I see this as yet another excuse for a Royal who'll never see active service to wear a uniform and be showered with medals.

Charles was never showered with medals for his military service (except for the Canadian Forces decoration, which is given to Colonels-in-Chief), so I don't see why William would be.

Royal Fan 11-09-2007 07:26 PM

William isnt showered with them hes only got one .

COUNTESS 11-09-2007 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 690811)
Hmm. Sorry, I don't buy it. I see this as yet another excuse for a Royal who'll never see active service to wear a uniform and be showered with medals.

It is an interesting conumdrum. If you stand in a garage are you a car? On the other hand, if you go into the "service", you are a soldier or sailor, etc. I see your question, Beatrix Fan. Others are right the army is a profession. You can be a soldier and not serve in a war zone, but you must actually have a real job. It is that these people in question are just parading around and getting titles and medals and such for nothing. Philip was a sailor and a darned good one. Andrew did serve in a conflict. Why is it important that any of the princes dress up like soldiers and yet can never serve in any capacity? Why does Princess Anne dress up in that uniform? Where has she ever served in the line of duty with "her troops". So, in that respect it is a costume party.

Chimene 11-10-2007 12:21 AM

I have this vivid image of a young boy who was dispatched to London to make his people feel better after loosing his mother. I can’t begin to imagine what that must have like for him and his brother, yet he put a smile on his face and accepted flowers and shook hands. I have to admit I actually feel sorry William. He not only has to assume the responsibility of a job he has not chosen, but he must also carry the heavy burden of being his mother’s legacy, not to mention the pressure to exceed everyone’s expectation. We wonder why he seems so timid?

Should he be king? The job is his by birthright; the fact that he’s not exciting matters very little as far as I understand it. There have been far worse than a few boring kings, besides I’m not sure William is boring, dull or anything else for that matter. As far as we call tell, he avoids the media like it’s the plague and keep close to people who won’t easily get bribed for an exclusive.

People who don’t make a lot noise are often misunderstood. I’m also not convinced that wearing your feelings on your sleeves constitute a personality. Wisdom comes with age and experience; he’s only twenty-five so I think I will cut him some slack.

I’m not a fan of Kate, and I actually think he’s probably more comfortable with her than anything. I’m willing to bet he has fear of commitment due to what he witnessed between his parents.

Keep stirring the pot, it sure makes for an interesting read, although next time perhaps you could be a little more gentle and kind to William!

Roslyn 11-10-2007 12:36 AM

I must be missing something. I don't understand why someone can't lay a wreath on the cenotaph if they are not/have not been a serving member of the armed forces.

And as for Edward, I think it must have taken courage to pull out of the course he did not want to be doing.

Royal Fan 11-10-2007 12:45 AM

I Hear Prince hilip was proud of him for it good on him for knowing his own mind.

Iluvbertie 11-10-2007 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 690784)
If you're a soldier, you fight in war zones. If you don't, you're a man in a costume. Simple as. I could do what William has done and it wouldn't make me a soldier would it?


In a word - YES.

The job of soldier (or other serviceman) is far more than serving in war zones.

The majority of the British army at the moment isn't serving in a war zone but they are still doing a necessary job - getting ready, regrouping from having been, training those who will go (a very very important job and one that both William and Harry will have been doing with their troops even though they themselves can't go), administering the pay and equipment and making sure that it gets there (all those jobs are done by soldiers).

The soldiers who stand guard at BP are serving soldiers and also have a duty to perform, as do those whose current job is to simply guard the military posts where decisions are being made or other troops are being trained to go and fight. Many of these troops have never seen 'active' service in a war zone but they are professional servicemen and are entitled to be regarded as such.

kpusa1981 11-10-2007 02:37 AM

Skydragon, what is this your opinon is as follows I feel they are using the 'cover' of William to make it more acceptable. Is it because he is doing such a short time in the miitary or navy?

CasiraghiTrio 11-10-2007 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roslyn (Post 690896)
I must be missing something. I don't understand why someone can't lay a wreath on the cenotaph if they are not/have not been a serving member of the armed forces.

And as for Edward, I think it must have taken courage to pull out of the course he did not want to be doing.

I don't mean to pass judgement. I respect Edward for the personal choices he made. He pulled out of it, probably because it wasn't suited for him and I respect him for pulling out before he got in more entangled, if that makes sense. I just meant that Edward and William's cases are distinct, because Sam/beatrixfan had implied they are similar.

Having said that, Sam is entitled to his opinion, and as always his "stirring the pot" keeps us on our toes. :biggrin: But I maintain my stance.... Working soldier is a working soldier, regardless of war zone service, just as working sailor or working airman regardless of sea time or flying planes. :smile:

BeatrixFan 11-10-2007 12:02 PM

I'm not stirring the pot, I'm just stating an opinion. One's that unpopular but I don't think I'm the only one who feels this way. Princess Anne wears a uniform when she really shouldn't but her work with the Armed Forces might just make it permissable in her case. As for William, he's done nothing in the Army. He has no job, he has no goal, he has no task - maybe they are using William as a cover for Edward. Which means Sophie's out of a job.

kpusa1981 11-10-2007 12:51 PM

BeatrixFan, it is not true that William has done nothing in the Army. He has done and passed all training courses. He has done all training that goes along his occupation in the Army.

BeatrixFan 11-10-2007 01:33 PM

Ok then he's a trainee. And a trainee shouldn't lay a wreath when more experienced veterans have a bigger cause to do so. He's a boy playing VIP - it's very sad to watch.

CasiraghiTrio 11-10-2007 01:37 PM

Well, every VIP is a trainee in the beginning. We all start out as boys and girls. William has to start somewhere.

But, honestly, Sam, I'm not trying to persist the argument. I get that you have your way of perceiving the situation. So I and many others don't agree exactly....

I will grant you that William has a long way to go before he will be taken seriously. That much I grant you. :cool:

kpusa1981 11-10-2007 04:00 PM

Trainee in what since. Is it that a 2nd Lt is considered to be a training rank even when you have finished your specialist training. Is that right? So is William still techically a trainee or not. Even if he is still trainee I do not see anything worng with him laying a wreath since he is in the Army.

Iluvbertie 11-10-2007 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 691099)
Ok then he's a trainee. And a trainee shouldn't lay a wreath when more experienced veterans have a bigger cause to do so. He's a boy playing VIP - it's very sad to watch.


I want to get this clear - in your opinion ALL the graduates from Sandhurst aren't soldiers until they have been in a war zone - right.

I think that you would be in the vast minority in that view.

ALL the graduates of Sandhurst get the same pay from the British government (public taxes) with only those actually serving getting a bit extra called 'danger money' but on return to Britian their pay returns to their pre-service rate (until they get promotion).

In short William is getting paid the same as any other graduate who graduated on the same day as him, who isn't currently serving in a war zone (and I doubt if all of them have served yet). Those who are currently serving will return to the same pay level as William when they return.

William has completed the initial training as a commissioned officer (something which the vast majority of soldiers in the field haven't done as they aren't commissioned officers and the training is harder for officers), and then, like most other officers done the next part of the training to serve in his chosen unit.

His job now is to train his men and to do other jobs on the base to assist and back up those who are serving in a war zone.

I would really like to know why you think that a trained officer who is being paid as an officer and doing officer's duties isn't a soldier when they are doing the job of a soldier? Soldiers actually spend the vast majority of their service time in non war zones and many never actually go to a war zone. As a British citizen you are paying a lot of soldiers to be soldiers who, in your opinion, aren't actually soldiers.

I think you need to write to your government with your definition of a soldier and insist that only those who are actually serving in war zones be paid like soldiers and referred to as soldiers while those who are training to go, arent' paid or called soldiers. William and Harry are training others to go because the government (the same one that is paying them as officers by the way) has said that they can't go.


You definition of a soldier is very, very, very, very narrow and excludes the majority of the army, by the way.

According to figures available in 2006 8,000 British soldiers were in Iraq and others serving elsewhere but that was the largest deployment but there were 109,000 soldiers. That would mean that quite a large percentage weren't in war zones and a reasonable percentage of that number wouldn't have seen any service in a war zone at that time due to the fact that since they joined their unit that unit hadn't been deployed to a war zone. As the numbers are reduced in Iraq the percentage not being deployed will increase but the size of the army and the work of the army will continue with all these non-soldiers getting paid as soldiers but...

William is a serving officer in the army - you do need to accept that fact and accept the fact that having that position makes him a soldier. Any other definition just defies logic and insults all those men and women who are in your country's army but who haven't seen service in a war zone and may never do so.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:11 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises