To think seeing an older lady curtesy to KM is sad to see

[Julia2016]

Just saw a photo of an older lady curtesying to Kate Middleton, I felt so sad to see it. Sad as to why anyone would feel the need to bow down to another human being.

Every day I shake my head with who people admire in this world and how the general public swallow all these pr machines. 😒

can anyone really, in this day and age justify spending a whole decade doing nothing worthwhile.

you are making very good points.

For me, it's not even about being a role model, I simply cannot comprehend how can someone be happy to do absolutely NOTHING but shopping and partying for 10 years (and only 10 years to give her the benefit of the doubt). Nothing, no job, no career, no sport,art, involvement in charities, travelling - apart from a few luxury beach trip including posing for the paps in wet white bikinis. I am not sure I am jealous of her wealth if that means having so little interests in anything.

Rania of Jordan: has a degree, worked for Citibank and Apple and is extremely busy and involved nowadays.
Letizia of Spain: has a degree, was a journalist and is not work-shy nowadays.
Mary of Denmark: has a degree, and had a career in marketing and advertising, and not exactly work-shy today either.

I could go on. I have nothing against Catherine but I can't agree that she is representing anything. I am also bored of the media keeping the "Middleton" name to ensure the brand is still going strong. They are not better than the Kardashian, they just started with a better background and more money.

Derxa you would be proud of someone who:

Wasted an expensive education
Showed no sign of wanting to support themselves in a job
Whose sole aim in life was to marry a rich man
Continues to duck out of the few responsibilities she has now

She is no better than a common little social climber and gold digger.

If either of my daughters ended up like that I would not be proud of them and I would be ashamed of myself, as their mother, for bringing them up to think that is acceptable.

If either of my daughters ended up like that I would not be proud of them and I would be ashamed of myself, as their mother, for bringing them up to think that is acceptable.

And the joy of living in a free society is that other mothers feel very differently to you.

If you had personally attacked another MNer and her mother in the way you have KM, you would have been banned.
Her choices do not give you any right to abuse her.

Sleep not all criticism of women can be decried as misogyny. I used the term "brood mare" to describe ALL Royal brides, because they are expected to cough up 2 kids in return for their life of privilege. This has been the case for hundreds of years. Charles was appalled at the expectation that he be faithful to his wife as the heir to the throne! He couldn't understand why he was expected to be "the only prince of Wales without a mistress" if Diana is to be believed. But yes there is no feminist angle here at all...

And if it's "slut shaming" to believe that women in the public eye representing the UK internationally (although God knows the very idea of it being someone so seemingly dim makes me cringe) should exercise a bit of humility and dignity and not deliberately flash their legs and boobs - then yes I do - especially with all the fake "oops - there I go again! Getting out of an aeroplane for the nth time - who KNEW there would be a breeze??" nonsense. If there is a better explanation than simply a rabid and pretty revolting desire for publicity, I would be interested to hear it.

young you're beginning to sound less like a republican and more like a scorned woman.
Did HRH The Duke of Cambridge reject you when you were younger?

Time - as a taxpayer I have every right to comment about how my money is spent.

I am also entitled to an opinion on someone who is in the public eye.

Frankly, if any member of the Royal family don't like what people say about them, then the solution is simple - stop taking our money and become private citizens

No - I eschewed the affections of Anglo-Saxon men and married a forriner - luckily he finds the Brits equally impossible to understand when it comes to royalty (and his country is a republic, so there is always that option if her Maj decides to behead me)

Don't get me started on Andrew....

Seriosly? Is this still going on? Curtsying is wrong. Doesn't matter who the person is, it's wrong. It's even worse when someone believes a person should be curtsied because they are a descendant of a family which resulted from centuries of inbreeding among a narrow group of privileged families or they married into one. It is wrong to curtsy because someone claims to be a representative of a fairy tale being on Earth. Curtsying is about acknowledging you are a lower class human being. Nobody is like that, not even the Queen. I wouldn't bow to a president of my state, why should I bow to another representative of a state?

Oh do please get started on Andrew YoungGirl, you're doing a completely wonderful job.

Still loving 'path that fell before her' .

Gold digging social climber = harsh but true.

When I was at primary school in the 70s we had to curtsey to the teacher every morning and the boys had to salute! It was an ordinary state primary school in Scotland.

The teacher would come into the class in the morning and say Good morning boys and girls and we would say Good morning Mr/Mrs X while we curtsied and saluted.

I've just read this back and it makes it sound as if I was born in the19th century! I don't know whether my school was particularly old fashioned but I don't think this was common practice.

Maybe tomorrow goodbye - all this republican rage is exhausting and I need to do some work!

Also I've met a couple of them and never curtsied and I have to say no-one batted an eyelid but goodness what a lot of fawning was going on - embarrassing (but quite entertaining) to watch.

Spoilsport!

You are not curtseying to the person but to the position they hold and rightly or wrongly the Queen believes she is appointed by God to do the job.

Doesn't make it any better, and of course you're curtseying to the person. You can dress it up all you like, but you're abasing yourself because of the presence of another human being. As for believing God has chosen you, she can believe whatever batship crap she likes. It's hardly something worthy of respect, let alone of being entertained by anyone else.

Hell would freeze over before I curtseyed to anyone. And actually, I agree with the thrust of the OP says. I saw a pic of someone curtseying to KM and it just seemed so utterly pointless, demeaning and bizarre.

I very much doubt the queen believes that at all she's probably just happy to be on a nice little earner.

Oh yeah. Curtsying. Got taught how to do that properly at school as we gals were expected to do the whole finishing school, debs ball malarkey.

Unfortunately due to an encounter with a nasty form of cancer I am stuck with one and a half legs only and find it a bit difficult.

despite my disability not bothering me in every other area of my life

Common little gold digger is a horrible way to describe anybody. I wouldn't want my daughters to judge and describe someone as common.

If there is a better explanation than simply a rabid and pretty revolting desire for publicity, I would be interested to hear it.

Oh I dunno, wind perhaps?

I am always confused why people call the Queen and the Royals scroungers. The Queen and the Royals receive a small percentage of the proceeds of the Crown Estate - properties they surrendered control over under George III and agreed to by each monarch (previously, there proceeds were administered by the monarch and the proceeds were used to fund the government). This estate is worth 8.1 BILLION and the proceeds principally go to the government. If the monarchy were to be abolished, they could rightly claim back their properties and would be much, much better off than they currently are. So no, the taxpayer does not fund the monarchy in reality. The government actually earns quite a pretty penny off of the Royals.

Mominatrix I think that for many, many people it is rather the principle of the thing. There is absolutely no place, point or need for a 'royal family.' In my opinion, of course.

You are not curtseying to the person but to the position they hold and rightly or wrongly the Queen believes she is appointed by God to do the job.

I think you missed here a bit. A millennium, even. It's 2016, not 1016.

The fact that they own substantial assets doesn't mean they aren't also handsomely renumerated by the taxpayer. They're hardly mutually exclusive. Thus, the scrounger view. Additionally, some people have a bit of a problem with the way said assets were originally acquired. The idea that a few individuals are entitled to such a large slice of our country's land because of invasion, colonisation and oppression a millennium ago and various injustices that followed is a touch, um, eccentric.

If the monarchy were to be abolished, they could rightly claim back their properties

I reckon someone might be able to figure out a workaround for this 'problem'.