To think the Duchess of Cambridge has no place in sports personality of the year

[Nishky]

Martina Navratilova made a moving speech about female role models so who do they roll out to present it?

Hit post too soon.

I meant to say, as far as I can tell, what people think Kate has done wrong is to marry a prince, rather than doing something else. Presumably that means that anyone who married William would automatically be in the wrong.

So should William simply live alone all his life because anyone who marries him is wrong to do so?

Or is it that people think that Kate simply isn't "worthy" enough to have married a prince? Does she just not deserve the life of privilege (and severe restriction, but that's a whole other discussion) that has come her way? Should wealthy, privileged men only marry high-achieving, brilliant women?

People always say "oh but the royals are just like this - why should they get all the money and kowtowing?" If they are just like us, then they should be free to fall in love and marry whoever they choose, without their spouses being criticised simply for becoming their spouses.

William chose to marry someone who appears to be a quite nice, quite clever, quite attractive woman. She isn't a novel-prize winner. She isn't a brilliant scientist or politician. She isn't a great orator. She's just a fairly ordinary woman who is now in a fairly extraordinary role.

Yes, she could have done something else. But perhaps she actually wanted to marry the man she fell in love with and be happy, or as happy as she can be. How very dare she!

Kung,

Role model for a girl:
(a) woman who through hard work and talent accomplishes something in the world of political, business, sports, music, public service or any other field
(b) admired for what she does, not whom she married
(c) can be as quirky and unconventional as she likes, because she is valued for her achievements, not for playing to a stereotype

Antithesis of a role model:
(a) a woman who is famous only because she marries a wealthy man
(b) her ability to bear children is seen as one of her biggest contributions
(c) only focus is on her hair, body, clothes. Because there is nothing else worthy of attention

I despise the Royal Family as an institution, so I do not think Kate should have been there.

That does not mean I wish her any ill will.

I just don't think royalty should have any involvement in SPOTY, I don't think they should have any involvement in anything, because I don't think they should exist.

I wish her well in her pregnancy. But I agree with the person who said she has achieved very little in life on a personal level. This is someone who spent best part of the first year of marriage choosing which charities she would like to support ffs.

However, on the flip side she has been well brought up and has good manners. And the death of the nurse must have been upsetting.

Kung, if they are not meant to be public role models, why are they part of head of the state?

I have no issues with Kate, Will or their ilk as individuals...as long as they bugger away. We NEED an elected head of state to stop all this madness. It would benefit us hugely as tax payers and in terms of our national psyche. This royal deference is no good for anybody in a modern society.

Oh and let's be honest, we've all seen her fall out of nightclubs. Remember her brief split with wills? She was photographed the worse for wear coming out of clubs, and flat on her hot pant wearing arse in roller blades. And let's not forget the topless photos on her uncles yatch. I don't mind Kate but we shouldn't glorify her or make her sound as pure as snow. She's just a normal lass like the rest of us.

I think I've said above, I'm not a Royalist.
But Flatbread your hatred for them is just so [anger].
Life's too short, maybe one day they will disappear into oblivion.
But they are here and Kate's having a baby and feeling pretty crap at the moment.
Get angry at the Institution, but don't get angry at a pregnant mum who's having the same difficulties as many people here on MN.
I think that's what everybody is trying to point out.

According to the dictionary an Apologist is someone who defends something controversial. So the Royal Family are controversial are they?

But Flatbread, you've just said that there is 'nothing worthy of attention' - so nothing controversial?

Are you confused?

(oh and Toughasoldboots, this is what I was talking about )

Oh, I support the Royal Family, yes. I swore an oath of allegiance when I joined the Army, so it would be rather two-faced and dishonourable of me not to.

If that makes me an 'Apologist' (rather distasteful use of the word IMO as it is more commonly used for the evil amongst ie Rape Apologists), so be it.

Well, if she's a "normal lass", then perhaps she should be treated as such and not greeted with howls of derision every time she dares to show her face in public.

She'll never be treated as normal, or as just the same as the rest of us. People are just not capable of separating their views on the monarchy as an institution from their views on the royal family as individuals. She has a lifetime of this sort of criticism ahead of her. I hope she has a happy marriage and a lovely child as compensation.

I am finding myself agreeing with kungfupannda (in practice) and with Flatbread (in theory) - I clearly am spineless !

I know I would wither and die under the kind of scrutiny anybody William married would have had for the rest of their lives...

Horrible thread. What kungfupannda said. All of it.

Well if she's a role model for anything it's to be who you are.

Not everyone wants or is able 'to accomplish something in the world of political, business, sports, music, public service or any other field.' Some of us, many of us in fact, just muddle through being fairly unmeteoric and do the best with what we are. So what?

Cant she just live her life the way she wants to? She's not doing anything awful or illegal. She's only been married 5 minutes too; give her a chance to settle into it.

If the press want to focus on her hair or her shoes there's not much she can do about it. Blame them not her for the exposure she gets.

I can't see Kate wants to be 'admired' for who she's married. She just loved the bloke and they got married, like lots of people do. And now they're having a baby, like lots of people do. There was no agenda to it

And she presents SPOTY their award because now she's part of a bigger institution some agree with and others do not now she's married. She can't help who her inlaws are any more than I can help mine.

Should William have been instructed only to marry someone who qualifies as a,b or c on the role model list? She was his choice and he was hers.

I don't think Kate should have been handing out the awards either in a personal capacity (because she has achieved nothing) nor as a representative of the monarchy (as it promotes privilege based on birth, not achievement)

If we want to celebrate sports and achievement, let's get appropriate people who are inspiring role models to hand out the awards.

Simple.

She does what she is asked out of duty to her country and love for her husband.

hahahahahahahahaha - this is so funny

Hyperemisis Gavidarum: my arse

Pacific dog

Well if she's a role model for anything it's to be who you are.

Oh Bendy, that is brilliant! Completely bollocks but ever so funny

I never understand how these threads re Royals go.

The essence of monarchy is that the family in question provides heirs to take the throne, irrespective of their personal attributes. The royal family also occupy a place in public life, simply by virtue of being royals again. I'm a Republican. I don't want a Royal family. It's not personal (I know nothing about them as people), it just isn't a system any functioning democracy should entertain.

So the DofC is an Olympic ambassador. She went to the Olympics, and doles out prizes on SPOTY. Nothing to do with whether she is an appropriate person, understands sport, etc. And I think that's why people are reacting to the personal criticism of her in this context: it seems gratuitous, because it is beside the point.

None of the Royals is really a suitable role model (that tired old argument) for anybody. Whatever they achieve, what they really represent above all is inherited privilege. If you don't like that, become a republican. If you actually believe in monarchy, accept that what it means is you have no choice in who your Head of State is, and that the royal family will do all sorts of things in public life whether they 'deserve' to or not, then stop caviling about their individual talents, or lack of them.

We supposedly have a choice about who our Prime Minister is but I didn't (and wouldn't) vote for David Cameron and I don't think any of the other candidates is the best person to run this country either (wish I knew who was though). So to pity the UK because the Royal Family are not elected Heads of State seems to be missing the point a bit in my opinion.

Vile post curlypoo.
I don't like your horrible nn either.
Why would anyone want to call themselves that?

This thread is horrible.

I imagine the absolute last thing that poor woman wanted to do was have to dress up and look good on telly. Particularly as it was her first public appearance since her pregnancy announcement and all the things that went with that, and she knew people would be judging what she was wearing, whether she looked 'ill enough' etc.

But because she married the bloke she loved, she is fair game to be utterly slagged off by a bunch of bitches on the internet who actually, know fuck all about her (and I am sorry, but there are some real bitches on this particular thread).

Cambridge, It seems you don't understand or value the role of elected leaders. Would you prefer to live in a dictatorship then?

Eldridge, I am a Republican. I think that neither Monarchy as a system, nor the current occupants of that family are of a sufficient caliber to be in public office.

And the royals benefit greatly from the position. William will get to the tune of £10 million a year from us when he takes over his father's position. It is facetious to pretend they are poor victims.

I think when people depict the royals as victims or feel protective towards them, it is an attempt to hide their sycophancy and submissiveness to a class society. They don't want to face up to the fact that they are royalists.

I thought the Prince of Wales was financed from the Duchy of Cornwall?

Flatbread - I understand the system perfectly well thanks so no need to offer me alternatives. I certainly value the freedom of choice - it's just the choices I'm not that keen on.

I also think it's possible to be against the Royal Family as an institution without singling anyone out individually for downright nasty comments but that seems to be beyond the capabilities of a lot of people on this thread. I'd save your rolling eyes for them if I were you.

I think vile is a bit strong and you don't like my nickname.... oh dear, I feel bad now.