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?

Of course people go to France "specifically for Versailles" and other places of historic interest. Tourism is driven by multiple interests and multiple forms of entertainment have been developed to cater for different tastes and according to the specific resources of regions/countries.

Agree also with the poster that said William is spoilt m, he undoubtedly is. He is also petulant and needs to grow up, he doesnt have to do this job if he doesn't want to.

Why can't posters see that Kate works fantastically hard at the role she has taken on?

Just because she isn't doing data entry/teaching English/filing accounts/another boring routine job MNers have doesn't mean she is doing nothing.

I think that Fergie has done more than anyone to harm the monarchy.
Princess Margaret may have lived hedonistic ally but not in public.

And the younger members of the rf started to become regulars in showbiz pages.

It must be by design that DoC has such a bland image.

Is there anyone in charge of the Yorks' pr? Could the pr be a republican?

"Kate in particular comes across as so bloody smug from the way she dresses her kids in the old fashioned way to just the way she acts with children in charity. UGH"

Ye Gods, give the girl a break. I never realised that the way you dress your kids was a sign of smugness .

I cannot believe some of the nastiness on this thread. Fine, if you are a republican, but be it for the right constitutional reasons, not because you think the Duchess of C is smug! The comments about Wills picking his job and dearie me enjoying it leave me a bit aghast. If they were full time royals people would say " why doesn't he get a proper job". Because of course he can't. It would be impossible for him to work in a commercial environment for all sorts of reasons. They just can't win.

Yes they are privileged, but it is pretty clear that Wills and Kate are soppy about one another. Why shouldn't she sunbathe topless in a private villa without some papparazi spying on her. In the future, she will need to take on more public engagements, but for now she is a mum with 2 kids including a small baby.

Children can be taken into care there is moral code underpinning it and child abuse is horrendous but if you really owned your children and they were truly yours you could do what you want with them even things such as taking children out of school in term time are illegal but they were your children you could do it without question. If they were your children you could punish how you see fit feed thwm what you like and not be regulated by laws nd schools

Sorry pineapple you've really lost me now. What the heck are you talking about. Please can you use some more punctuation. It would make you posts clearer.

sorry - "your" posts

pineapple I think you might've posted that comment on the wrong thread. But I second the plea for punctuation.

Pineapple that isn't because the state 'owns' your children but because they have rights that prevent such treatment.

They do the but that isnt relevant to this thread in context it was related to the queen owning the land. Im sorry but im not bothering with punctuation im on my phone and it takes too long :)

It is never unreasonable to be edging towards an anti-Monarchy position, whatever the reason.

It is because if we got rid of them we would lise one of our largest sources of tax income and then actually have to pay to protect someone and for someone to be head of state at least the monarchy fund themselves

Lose not lise sorry

pineapple your rally are talking nonsense about children! Nobody 'owns' a person, neither parents nor state. Both children and parents have rights, enforced by the state, it doesn't mean the state owns your children and you have just agreed to raise them!

Im not we live with an illusion of freedom

Posted too soon sorry its an illusion we have chosen by giving up parts of our freedom in return for rights and laws and for our protection but noone is truly free

"Royal duty is a job like any other. There are loads of jobs one might not approve of - but they are still jobs."

Brilliant - could you forward me the job description and interview scoring matrix? And when are applications taken, do they require a covering letter? Is it a group interview or individual? I wonder what the ongoing assessment criteria is, how does one get fired from such a job? I'll pop over to the job centre website and see if it's listed.

The definition of a job does not require it to be open to all and sundry. You need to move out of your working class perspective

Jobs dont have to be listed or available to all like bobo said royal duty is more like a family business its a job but only open to family members

"Well, being a filthy foreigner who has visited the UK myself, I can't say that royalty was any pull factor or formed any part of the trip."

Ditto.

Obviously there are historical sites in the UK that are really interesting (largely from when European royalty had actual political power) but I hardly see those as "royal tourism" - it's their historical significance, not their "royal"-ness that's the appeal, and plenty of countries without a current monarchy have historic tourism (Rome, anyone?). It's like arguing "people love to visit the Tower of London now so we can't get rid of the royal family in case tourists in 500 years time want to visit whatever nightclub Prince Harry used to drink in".

An excellent example of the kind of elitism having a royal family encourages. It's symbolic of a rot that goes deep to the core.

x-posted, my post was in response to bobo & pineapple, obviously.

It goes against all normal democratic principles to have a royal family - in the usual course of events, it would have been abolished as most other European countries have done. What has delayed republicanism in this country, I think, is the unusually hard-working and conscientious performance of our present Queen, who is still on very active public duty in her late eighties. She has always been discreet, self-effacing and utterly non "celebrity" in her lifestyle, summed up by her holidaying every year in rainy Balmoral rather than Mustique.

In short, the royal family have been given a reprieve due to the present incumbent. When her heir takes over, I think the process of republicanism will speed up as most people do not have the respect or liking for Charles and Camilla to blind them to the inherent unfairness of their role. The "celebrity" tastes and lifestyle of the Cambridges, coupled with their obvious lack of interest in a life of public service, are already playing a part in this.

I think that they are at the age when we would expect them to be doing regular high profile Royal duties.

Th Queen was the Queen by this age, Charles & Diana certainly seemed to both be doing stuff when William & Harry were young.

But we've moved on a generation & the Queen is still Queen & Charles still the heir.

Perhaps they are happy for W&K to be able to be with their young children.