Shouldn't we expect just a little bit more of the Duchess of Cambridge.

[sweetgrape]

Never turned up for one single memorial service for the armed forces, but there at Center Court, Wimbledon, rubbing shoulders with a load of celebs,and entertaining Brad and Angelina Pitt at Kensington Palace. Is this what her royal life boils down to.

Katherine Kent and the Queen were mature women with children at that age. No one could have said a lot about them. When they are more than 4 decades on you can say a lot about them- to the good.

And I wonder why so many rigorously lay into her too. It works both ways. Totally agree with Mehita - she's been written off by some, before she's started. She only got married in 2011, and then had two children, we barely know her, I find it weird that she's labelled as a waste of space after only four years!

I like her. I think she comes across as caring and warm from what I have seen, which isn't much and I think you can tell they are a couple in love which will help in the future.

People could have said exactly the same about Katharine Kent at that age- over privileged woman doing nothing- she didn't start any of the things that people are applauding her for until she was over 40yrs. She did like the tennis though and got the best seat at Wimbledon!

I can't imagine briefings and etiquette issues taking up much time to be honest. Certainly not as much as to justify 'maternity leave'. I don't mind the Royal Family and I'm not massively republican, but why try to justify them by making them just like ordinary people? They are not. They have enormous amounts of largely unearned wealth and priveledge, people like looking at them, people who marry the heir to the throne have to have babies, look pretty and not do anything controversial or paticularly interesting. Thas the deal. They are not just like us, they don't work particularly hard in comparison to most people with a job, but if you have a monarchy then this is largely what you get.

And eventually, once she is comfortable, she can be very useful- but not when she is new to the position and has 2 young children.

France doesn't need a royal family to rake in tourists, because it has:

* World famous wine growing regions
* Cannes film festival, and associated hot beaches for the rich and famous
* World famous food
* World famous ski resorts in the alps
* Much, much MUCH better weather in the south than anywhere in the UK.
* Is the home of many world famous designer brand
We don't need a royal family to bring in tourists either. We have.....
Stonehenge
British museum
Tower of London
National Gallery
Westminster Abbey
Houses of Parliament
Hadrians Wall
York Minster
and many many more. The UK is rich in heritage, and that's what visitors come for. If all the places were empty they'd be more accessible and profitable. The royals are a grotesque relic of a less civilised time, we don't need them.

Totally agree with Grape

The French royal family brings in a ton of money for France long after their demise. Just as the British royal family would generate a lot of tourist money even if they were dethroned.

I think some Monarchists need to ask why they are obsessed with this family. Why they need to know what she's wearing
I see this an an extension of our unhealthy infatuation with celebrity culture.

Blimey. I have no idea if I'm a 'monarchist' or not. I am not obsessed with them and don't need to touch their hand, pour over pictures of them, wait anywhere for hours to catch a glimpse etc etc but still I think the country would be a far poorer place without them. I don't obsess about them and my life isn't shallow and empty either. There are die hard royalists out there of course there are, but there are also a huge swathe of people out there too, who just like having a royal family.

OK a few facts and figures. The recent royal wedding cost £20M and generated £1bn for the economy. Anyone with half a brain can work out those figures. As for the jubilee before that, even more no doubt. Apparently, the german presidency costs about the same as the Queen but I don't imagine tourists (bringing income into the country) line the streets to see him, whoever he is, and France costs more. President Blair or President Cameron anyone? No thank you.

The monarchy is over 1200 years old and part of our heritage. Stonehenge and Highclere Castle costs millions a year to maintain but no one suggests we demolish them to save money or question their value as heritage sites and a living monarchy that is over a thousand years old with all that entails is worth preserving for its heritage as much as any castle. We have soldiers in busbies, changing of the guard, ceremonial soldiers, different traditions and the royal family is the biggest attraction of all. It's what makes us british, shall we just get rid of the lot and lose our identity? Because it is a family, and not a pile of stones or bricks, people can have a pop and suggest we get rid of them. President Obama's travel expenses alone, cost $100M a year, his living costs are probably five times that. We get off very lightly compared so some other countries. Other countries in Europe have their strong traditions, why can't we have ours?

I agree with the monarchy, at the moment, so no idea whether this makes me a monarchist.
It seems to be the anti monarchy ones that know so much about them! I hadn't a clue that she had been to the tennis or that she had missed a memorial service. I don't read about her, wouldn't go out of my way to see them. She seems perfectly pleasant and is doing a good job so far by keeping out of the way and being very ordinary!
You would think that they were highly unpopular - not that people would camp out to see them, that her picture sells newspapers, her dress or George's outfit are copied and sold out within hours or that their appearance at a dinner would raise thousands for charity.

The royal wedding actually cost £6 billion to the economy because of lost productivity.
I don't believe for one minute that the royal family are the biggest tourist attraction of all. More people flock to the Palace of Versailles than Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace combined, partly because it's open all year to the public. There are many things that make us British and of which we can be proud but not by having ceromonial soldiers, changing of the guards and all the other pomp that goes with it. The royal family are the epitome of a society divided by class, a family that get massive privilege just because of the accident of birth. In a society that promotes equality they are an embarrasment and a contradiction of everything that we should be.
The cost of a republic doesn't have to run on the same lines as the USA, Ireland gets by fine with a presidency and is actually two and a half times cheaper than the royal family. An elected president can be voted out, pity we can't do that with the royals.

You do seem amazingly selective in your figures.
the Guardian here

You could just admit that you hate the system of the monarchy and so D of C has lost- there is nothing in the world, absolutely nothing, that would please you -because the simple fact is that she exists and you don't like it.

I don't watch- not the way some of you appear to watch on here so that you notice what she is doing. I haven't a clue what she has been to, or not been to, recently and really couldn't care.

Well I manage it Ego- without any difficulty.

Thing is... those that are happy about a Royal Family don't feel the need to pick on individual members of it with personal criticisms, they just like it the way it is. And nothing is going to change so isn't it a bit of a waste of effort? Yes, it is just your opinion but others on here have a differing opinion. They may be an embarrasment to some people but something tells me you are in a minority.

It isn't even on my radar, Ego this is perhaps why everyone appears to know so much about them. You don't have to read it.

Thing is... those that are happy about a Royal Family don't feel the need to pick on individual members of it with personal criticisms, they just like it the way it is.

rousette the exact opposite is true in my experience, remember all the Diana obsessives and how they had it in for Camilla? Or those who've advocated that the crown should pass Charles and be handed to William.

Any Republican worth their salt is unconcerned with the personalities and objects to the institution itself. As it goes I think that Elizabeth Windsor has performed the role of a monarch not too badly, however that is sheer luck and she'd have remained queen if she's been useless at it.

That's what I object to. Our head of state being decided by an accident of birth and being unremovable. Not whether she or her extended family wear nice frocks or unveil enough plaques.