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.

Kate Middleton Kate Middleton Kate Middleton. You really have a problem with her don't you? All roads lead back to KM.

And knowing how much you love the Ireland model, I remember Charles Haughey - he was beset with scandal after scandal. I can't remember all the details but I know there was a lot of talk.

I prefer what we've got - a Head of State, the Queen. She's squeaky clean and I have no doubt KM will be too when or if William becomes King.

Ego - you've only got 4 pages to go to get me onside - don't think it's going to work somehow!

Haughey was Taoiseach (prime minister), not President. Ireland has had a couple of pretty impressive presidents in recent years in Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese.

@ Rousette :)

Ego/Sweetgrape you are like Duracell batteries - will go all the way to 1000 words no doubt.

Kate Middleton Kate Middleton Kate Middleton ...it's all Kate Middleton's fault!!

I am actually falling around laughing at your last paragraph. What on earth do you think I do all day? Pore over pictures of the RF? Copy her clothes? Drool over her hair? Wave my union jack at the telly? Dust my royal wedding crockery? I think you have lost the plot, really I do. I came on here to post because I didn't like the unpleasant and critical jibes.

As for this from you I don't have a problem with her. If you read my posts, I haven't got a problem with her. I feel sorry for her, now I know you are taking the proverbial p**s.

I stand corrected Stokes. Got it wrong, I just remember him, that's all.

I'm trapping KM into a gilded cage like a little bird. Naughty me.

She hasn't entered my brain space until this thread and before that when I looked at pictures of baby Charlotte on the 6 o'clock news (was it Charlotte? can't even remember that...) but I think I deserve some sort of honour in the New Years honours list for being such a loyal supporter

I was being facetious Ego. Did you honestly not get that?!

At the risk of repeating myself, I barely think of KM. Ever!

But I am now thinking I might order a nice Kate 'n Wills tea towel. You've inspired me! (warning - flippancy again from me with that silly joke )

I came on here to post because I didn't like the unpleasant and critical jibes
Why are you so concerned, KM is hardly in need of your fierce protection. I started a thread about my thoughts on KM and her reluctance to fulfil her duties. There isn't much asked of her but she is expected as the wife of the future head of state and the armed forces to attend the odd memorial service to honour our fallen heroes. Like it or not it is her duty, she is massively rewarded for it. It isn't an "unpleasant jibe" to mention this. It is a valid criticism. If she can manage to go to Wimbledon she could have managed to honour our war dead, without whom there wouldn't be a Wimbledon. Btw it is you who seems to be keeping the thread going because of your over invested concern for KM.

sweetgrape - in the nicest possible way, can we all start posting on this thread so that it gets to 1000 threads and we can all move on to Wells on Sea so that we can spy on DoC?

Do we actually know exactly what she does.

Locally Prince Charles visited an embroiderers group very recently. Princess Anne is always opening new clinics/libraries/ riding schools - it only appears in the local Squeak.

Of course we don't know what she does. The 'boring' parts, which largely make up the job, are only reported locally. On the occasions that royalty has visited anything locally it has never been in the National press so sweetgrape wouldn't be able to keep tabs on it, the way she likes to- unless of course she avidly reads the court circular (do they still do this in the Telegraph?)

With Ego I will say for the 3rd time- naive. Does she really believe the stuff she writes?

Consider the equivalent - the Head of State's wife. She would be above criticism? [ hmm]
I think the truth is that:
She was not voted for and therefore a lot of people would resent her position.
If she worked and said it was just her DH's job it would be wrong.
If she gave up her job it would wrong.
If she worked part time it would be the worst of both worlds, not putting enough into either role.
If she was overweight it would be wrong 'letting herself go' if she was thin it would be wrong 'unnatural'.
She had better not have children, although it will be criticised and speculated on if she doesn't. If she does you get the thorny position of schools - unless she sends them to the local London catchment area school ( however dire) there will be criticisms of unfairness of money for fees or influence in getting into a good state school. If she moves out of London for the children it will be wrong- not available for the demands of her non job/position. People in the north won't agree with the base being in London anyway.
Her family need to be squeaky clean and preferably invisible. The press will adore finding a brother with a 'dodgy' life style. She can never take her parents to an event that can be construed as a 'perk'.
People will be watching avidly to work out whether the perks outweigh the duties.
Never relax on holiday. Any photographer on the beach will love a bikini photo- either there will be criticisms of anorexia, far too fat for a bikini or she should never be wearing a bikini at her age.
Never be caught 'off duty' in old jeans and no make up. Equally watch out when on public duty because she will wear too much make up, or looks haggard or her skirt is too short/too long or she is wearing a dress by a foreign designer and she should be wearing British.
I could go on and on.

However rest assured this will never happen to a Head of State's wife because - to quote-' they wouldn't have a massive PR team'.
Or 'people don't have a massive appetite for it' - it is the wicked media. ( the media only report what the people have an appetite for)

But all in all this is perfectly OK because we voted for her- except we didn't - we voted for her husband.

Same problems occur even if she is the Head of State and we did vote for her.
Personally I can't see the difference - much if the population still gets a personality that didn't get their vote. Might as well go for continuity.

Many times positives have been talked about over 14 pages of this thread by many posters of which I am just one. Bringing in tourism (undeniable I'm afraid), stability, non partisanship, moral figurehead in the Queen, national pride etc etc. I like it the way it is. As does about 80% of the British public.

there are a lot of things positive about the monarchy. Nobody has claimed it is all bad.

Tourism doesn't justify the money they get, unless you are into welfare for the ultra wealthy.

The monarchy doesn't bring, or certainly isn't the only thing that can bring stability. Many other countries do it without it.

Incredibly damaging? Again, others think otherwise. I like the fact the Queen is a-political (if there is such a word.) She is the Head of state but her position is beyond political competition, I like that.

how do you morally defend a system of power inheritance? that's damaging.

it's her privileged position that allows her to be apolitical. she doesn't have to do anything or fight for her position, so of course she can be apolitical.

You can have apolitical people without having a monarchy.

But is it any better? And if so why?

Agreed if we could have a voting system that was better than first past the post. The Head of State could get in with a handful of votes. Unless you have compulsory voting up to 40% won't vote anyway.
Highly likely the Head of State is there with a minority of those eligible for a vote having voted.
Simpler to vote for the continuation of the monarchy and then we can forget about the expense and disruption of continual elections.