Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

772 replies

sweetgrape · 18/07/2015 20:18

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
SnowBells · 18/07/2015 23:39

YABVU.

FFS - she just had a kid. I'm also pretty sure there are a lot of SAHMs here on MN who have cleaners and even nannies... and just enjoy life. If they can do so, then why shouldn't they?

The duchess goes to a few events, and I'm sure it must take her ages to just get ready for one, because each time she goes out, she will be judged by the media and random people who complain about her, etc. Yes, she chose this life. But hey, which girl would want to forfeit the prince she loves?!?

I hate this royal-bashing that occurs time and time again. As someone who grew up outside of the UK, I can tell you this: UK tourism would be nothing without the royals. It would just be a rainy island with tiny houses. There are plenty of other countries on the continent with better castles and palaces, way better countryside, better weather, cheaper to visit and so forth. Yet, a lot of tourists still choose England over them, and many don't go much beyond the typical London and royal castles trail. Some may not admit it, but many of them wouldn't even come here if it hadn't been for the royals! They are Britain's PR machine. The Duchess of Cambridge adds the glamour that has been lacking after Princess Diana died.

To those who don't appreciate them because of some chip-on-their-shoulder syndrome: even if you got rid of them, they would still be rich and own some of the UK's finest properties. They would still be influential. They could all then just choose to have the multimillionaire lifestyle without all the obligations, and without people constantly judging them like some people do on the thread. It is to the royal's credit that they actually don't do that!!!

Original poster
sweetgrape · 18/07/2015 23:41

I think women attacking women is sad
So all women are above reproach, and should never be criticised regardless, simply because it is a woman? That is a very strong statement, have you thought it through fully?

OP posts:
TheHormonalHooker · 18/07/2015 23:49

Bees contribute more to the economy than the Royal Family.

SnowBells · 18/07/2015 23:53

TheHormonalHooker Doesn't matter. It doesn't change the fact that the Royal Family brings in tourism. Without them, Britain would be worse off - even with the bees.

lilacblossomtime · 18/07/2015 23:54

In Royal terms Prince Phillip is way more important than Kate and is a much more appropriate person to represent the Queen if she cannot be present. Kate would only appear as a minor Royal and if she was as representing the Royal family she would probably have William with her.

Original poster
sweetgrape · 18/07/2015 23:55

'Snowbelle
Good grief, I hardly know where to start.
"the duchess goes to a few events, and it must take her ages to get ready"?
Wow, that sounds arduous. You hate this Royal bashing? well I'm sorry but in the UK we have free speech and if we don't agree with royalty we are entitled to say so. I happen to hate all this royal fawning.
As for you comments about tourists.... rubbish, you give me the proof that the tourists come because of the royals. There's not a shred of evidence. Tourists would come with or without the royals. The castles and palaces would still be there. It's all about the history. There's more tourists go to France than anywhere else in the world. No royals there anymore.
She brings glamour to the family? Wow, what a fantastic contribution. What an absolute role model for young girls.....be pretty and glamorous, get yourself a prince, and idle the rest of your life away. Unbelievable.
As for saying anyone who doesn't love them must have a chip on their shoulder.... not worthy of an answer.

OP posts:
Silverdaisy · 18/07/2015 23:55

Just because she is part of the royals, that means invincible? I think there are threads active saying I'm about to give birth in 3 weeks so can visitors please F off. I think yabu.

lem73 · 18/07/2015 23:55

Fwiw I am an monarchist and I have enormous respect for the Queen who has devoted her life to public service. Kate to me just seems so much lazier than other royals. Lots of posters tonight have said she's on maternity leave. The Queen is 89 ffs, well into retirement age, and look how much she does.
As for the Royals being our main tourist attraction, I think we have a great deal to offer besides the royals. However I fear for the reputation of the monarchy on the world stage when William comes to the throne. He seems lovely and full credit to him for joining the Air Ambulance, but he really seems to resent his position and they really are both rather bland.

TheHormonalHooker · 18/07/2015 23:56

Not necessarily Snowbells. If all the palaces were empty they could be fully open to the public all year round. France brings in a lot of money from people visiting their empty palaces.

Meechimoo · 19/07/2015 00:00

She's prettier, kinder and much wealthier than most on this thread. I wonder why anyone would resent her? Oh wait....
(These threads always confirm how utterly unpleasant republicans are)

lem73 · 19/07/2015 00:05

Absolutely hormonalhooker

Original poster
sweetgrape · 19/07/2015 00:10

There are loads much prettier than her and wealthy in their own right Meech who nobody seems to resent. I wonder how that could be?
Ridiculous statement,the old jealousy chestnut.

OP posts:
Meechimoo · 19/07/2015 00:22

Carry on sucking lemons if that's how you roll Hmm

Original poster
sweetgrape · 19/07/2015 00:27

I like oranges better, but you keep on fawning and forelock tugging.

OP posts:
SnowBells · 19/07/2015 00:41

sweetgrape

You mentioned France. That's the whole point. The UK competes with other European countries for tourism. Without the royals, yes, the UK would still have castles and palaces... but have you actually seen British castles and palaces?!? Who would come to the UK for the castles and palaces alone?!? The ones on the continent are miles above the ones that have been built in Britain. Much more interesting architecturally, with just as good a 'history' if you're so interested in that.

There are only like... seven castles/palaces... that are state-owned and which are used by the royals. Windsor Castle could become a Game of Thrones attraction, I guess. And Buckingham Palace could be like the UK version of the White House. But without a monarch in place who would be interested in it? Would as many people go to the White House, if the US president didn't live there? Should we move David & Samantha Cameron in there instead then?

Most of the other palaces in London look like regular office buildings. They might converted into some or be rented out as embassies. But tourist attraction? No. We don't have state-owned palaces like the ones in the Loire valley. We don't have a castle like Neuschwanstein. If I were interested in castles and palaces, I'd probably head to other, more appropriate countries (like the above-mentioned places in France and Germany). See, even the townhall of the city I grew up in (not in the UK) looks way more majestic and fairy-tale like than most of the palaces we have in London. Fact.

The thing is... what makes Britain different from the likes of France and Germany is that the castles and palaces, the pomp and parades... are not resigned to history. It's actually all still there, still alive... a pulsing part of the present.

SnowBells · 19/07/2015 00:42

TheHormonalHooker

As mentioned above... there are only a few castles that are state-owned. Not all of them are tourist material. Believe me that!

theblairbitchproject · 19/07/2015 00:56

It boiled my blood that the Queen couldnt even turn up for the 10th Anniversary of the 7/7 bombings. Sure, she is 88- but really. I think its a disgrace if im honest.

Original poster
sweetgrape · 19/07/2015 00:58

Well actually Legoland is the most visited place in the UK, but that aside, the tourists wouldn't be coming just because of the castles and palaces because as you say there are far better ones elsewhere, it would be because royals used to live there, after all the tourists who come now don't get to see the royals anyway. Tourists love the history of the place, I really don't think the majority give a damn about the royals. It's a myth that justifies their existence.

OP posts:
saffronwblue · 19/07/2015 01:18

As Kate has just had a baby I don't think she needs to be doing much at all at the moment. Long term, she does not seem to do a lot, especially in comparison with some of the older Royals. Hanging out with celebs is not a good look as I think the Royals will only survive if they clearly differentiate themselves from celebrity.
I guess it boils down to what they are all for. Are they there to present some sort of role model of how to live, in which case I don't think Kate offers much. Or are they like glossy zoo animals? I thought, based on the Queen, that their point was to be of service to the community. When Kate has a break between babies, it would be good to see a bit more of this and a bit less of fancy holidays.

EscapePea · 19/07/2015 01:43

Who is Angelina Pitt, anyway? Not a name with which I'm familiar...

LapsedPacifist · 19/07/2015 01:50

This entire thread is bonkers. Do you actually know Ms Middleton? Are we to assume you actually have some sort of personal realtionship with this woman? Or are you the sort of person who reads selective politically motivated garbage in the press and feels entitled to dictate how complete strangers should conduct their lives?

FixItUpChappie · 19/07/2015 03:12

Re: maternity leave....

lots of women don't have a job....they are not lambasted as lazy a feckless for doing not much but child-rearing 3 months after giving birth.

mimishimmi · 19/07/2015 04:13

I'd never tug a forelock (if I had one) and I detest people who fawn over the more powerful. That said, with your 'reaping massive dividends' comment I'd daresay you've got more than a chip on your shoulder, more like a bloody log. We have no idea how much access they have to royal funds. Your username should be sourgrape.

MythicalKings · 19/07/2015 05:41

Firstly, I am a republican.

OP, if you want to have a go at the royal family there are many. many more and better reasons than having a pop at the wife of the second in line to the throne not going to a memorial service which merited about 2 minutes in the news broadcasts.

Her baby is only a few months old. I stopped work altogether after I gave birth to my oldest DS and didn't work again until my youngest was 8 months old and then only worked part time until they were both at junior school. My DH earned enough to make that possible. Perhaps she's in the same position.

If I had free tickets to Wimbledon when the DCs were little I'd have booked a baby sitter and been there.

PosterEh · 19/07/2015 05:56

People only go to Legoland for the view of Windsor Castle Wink