To be edging towards an anti-Monarchy position purely because of the Cambridges?

[Buxhoeveden]

As a couple they are starting to grate.

Is it too early to focus on them?

Why she wouldn't want to make the world a better place in some permanent measure is beyond me.

It's because she's essentially a dull person who appears to have no interest in anything outside her family, appearance and holidays. Which is why being married into a family of noted bone heads hasn't driven her crazy.

I suspect they have more to fear from irritation or indifference than hatred or people 'sticking the knife in' TBH.

YANBU

They seem to want to Kardashianise the monarchy. Kate Kardash...But, tbf, it was bad enough to begin with.

Citizen not subject!

Whether or not the mother of a three month old baby should be carrying out 100 yearly engagements of inconsequential chatter and bouquet holding has absolutely nothing to do with that debate

It absolutely does. It's also about whether or not they contribute much/anything to society and earn their way. The 2 are not mutually exclusive.

The Windsors do seem to be some sort of sacred cow, which I find very odd in this day and age. They are not beyond criticism and we should be able to criticise them and debate the very existence of the monarchy without being accused to jealousy every time we do.

The "jealousy" accusation is very strange and juvenile (and tired now).

I wonder if it's a form of projection?

"You can if you like - I did say you could stick the knife in however you want"

But why is pointing out that they do very little for their money "sticking the knife in"?

Yeah, the "jealous" thing is very tedious- it's used for all sorts of things.

I have a theory. I think it's something we often say to children if another child is being disobliging - "Ignore her, she's only doing it because she's jealous". And some people take that on board and carry it on to adult life. It has a silent "and I'm not going to invite you to my party" immediately after it.

Bert

(I wonder if anyone ever called Mr Russell "Bert"?)

Snooze - ''She didn't ask to be part of the media circus ...''

Ay? She married into the royal family. If that's not asking to be part of a media circus i don't know what is!

About the 'oh how hurt she'll be to read this thread' comments:

When a person is born or marries into the RF one of the main parts of being prepared for the 'job' is that they are made fully aware of the security risk to their life. Their LIFE. They will be warned about nutters trying to get close to them, shoot them, touch them, bomb them, get into their homes and sit on their beds at night in the dark (remember that?!). They know that when they are on official engagements there will be body guards looking out for people who may try to do them physical harm. Rush at them with a knife, or a gun.

On a lesser level they'll will be given counsel about dealing with heckling, anti monarchy demonstrations, hate mail, the paparazzi. They know there is a percentage of the population who believe the monarchy should be dissolved. They know there are people who think the french got it right in the 1700s.

I really really don't think a thread on MN would give Kate any sleepless nights.

He was sometimes called Bertie. There's a letter somewhere when someone calls him Dirty Bertie after he slept with TS Elliot's wife. Also Mephisto- he was supposed to have had pointy ears.

You may call me Mephy if you like.........

You may call me Mephy if you like........

Noted

Epona quite - Kate and her family know all about the media and PR side - they will have been briefed, even Pippa will have been 'had words with' after some of her plans (wasn't one a planned TV interview in USA which she didn't do in the end?).

Di was briefed albeit not very well or wisely - you only have to see her emergence from her chrysalis.

I think the monarchy will trot on in it's current format for at least Will's and Kate's lifetime but judging how they're perceived (and right now not great still) over time more and more of the general public may or may not fall out of favour with them. I still think it's despicable how little charity work Kate does. What is also galling is seeing the Middleton's presence everywhere - I don't recall Fergie/Di's families (Spencers/Fergusons) being quite so 'in yer face' as the Middletons are. That is what irks me. Seeing Pippa's et als smug mugs leering out (though less lately) at most opportunities when it really is not needed at all.

The other thing that has pissed off some people is how the Middleton's business deliberately profiteered from their royal connections (no sign of this now on their website) and what's royal themed now is:-

www.partypieces.co.uk/catalogsearch/result/?q=queen

I can buy that Diana wasn't prepared for the media circus. She was 19, wasn't with Charles for very long before they got engaged, and the paparazzi wasn't what it is today. Yes she did manipulate the media later in life but I'm not sure she had much of a choice - it was probably the best way to beat them at their own game to a certain extent.

Kate, on the other hand, was with William for several years before they got engaged and she was in her late twenties by then - a mature woman with experience of the world, unlike her sheltered mother-in-law. There is no way she didn't know what she was getting into.

Superfly, Diana and Fergie's families didn't have businesses to tout!

I've never liked the royals but that's just been a view I've always held and isn't because of William and Kate.

In one way I approve of the Middletons' high profile. They are involved in their daughter and SIL's lives and those of their grandchildren - like in normal families.

In what family would it be acceptable to visit your husband's granny every Christmas or other important occasion and for your own family to be airbrushed from view? That's what happened to the families of Diana, Fergie and Sophie.

Up until now, the Royal Family has seen this as a perfectly acceptable way to behave and have had no real criticism in the media for doing so. In fact they've been praised for their 'tradition' by lickspittle royal correspondents.

Well, it is tradition - the Royal Family's one. But there is a new family now and they do things differently and they appear to be getting their own way.

It must be a bit of a shock and possibly what drives stories about how pushy and vulgar Carole Middleton and the junior Middletons are with the long-suffering dad wringing his hands in the background desperate to keep to his place.

Charles and his chums waged a popularity war in the papers with Diana in the '90s. She left them standing.

Sansarya UGH they're all there like leeches... James with his hipster/beard of his inlaws ancestors. Pippa with her pert posterior in cream/ivory looking the same almost as Kate in the christening pics.

I want to get rid of the monarchy because I think the institution is harmful to our society. Whether or not the mother of a three month old baby should be carrying out 100 yearly engagements of inconsequential chatter and bouquet holding has absolutely nothing to do with that debate.

I fully agree; republicanism isn't about a specific monarch. The trouble is that the population and monarchists don't seem to accept this. Thus, the support from the public for the institution is in fact dependent on the popularity of a particular monarch.

But I think the RF are as much the victims of the situation as anyone. Yes, they may benefit a great deal financially, but it's at an unimaginable personal cost.

Oh puhleeze. Sign me if it's such a hardship.

The royals do earn their own wealth even if they stopped being royal they wpuld still be the wealthiest family in the world. The cost on the tax payer is covered by the queen nd her income tax as a country we would be worse off if we got rid of them and she decided to take her wealth overseas.

I am pretty sure this entire paragraph is fictional. The Queen pays tax voluntarily on money she makes from public assets, which are renovated by public money.

You're right of course, Simple.

Personally, I think I've just given the whole issue more thought since the point at which these two individuals first struck me as mildly annoying.

Possibly there's also something about the fact that KM isn't aristocratic - is from the same background as the most of us - that throws the absurdity of the whole institution into stark relief (?)

In what family would it be acceptable to visit your husband's granny every Christmas or other important occasion and for your own family to be airbrushed from view? That's what happened to the families of Diana, Fergie and Sophie.

Were they airbrushed out though? Or it could be that they still visited their own families but it wasn't accompanied by a blaze of publicity. Sophie Wessex has father and a brother (who I assume has a family) who are never in the public eye but I assume she still has a good relationship with them. Fergie's father was a little more visible as he was friends with the Queen and Prince Phillip (IIRC there was some sort of scandal about his visits to a massage parlour?) and Diana's family were occasionally in the news as they were aristocrats and her step-grandmother was none other than Barbara Cartland!

The irony is, if you British lose your monarchy and your class obsession and become a republic you will have to admire people like the middletons. Where I am from a family that has in three generations gone from miner to private school and top university, that family would be admired.

I do have admiration for kate that she successfully avoids saying anything that could later be held against her. But she has not airbrushed her family out! They may get second billing on Christmas day but in their real lives, day to day, her family are not airbrushed out.

superhighfly well, you can hardly call James and Pippa leeches! They're not leeching from the state! Heavily depending on The Bank Of Mum&Dad mind you..........