To find Prince William a bit smug

[strawberriesandpecans]

I'm sure he means well, it's just that he seems to be lecturing everyone on the environment while he travels by helicopter a lot and has a mansion. Also I just find them quite twee and irritating, particularly at the moment when so many people are struggling. AIBU?

Agree on the being lectured.
I like to listen to intelligent people who are experts but non of them are even educated properly.
It's not like willam is a proff or anything.
They have all the money to do a masters or PhD, non of them are academic or interested.

Of all of them, Megan is the only go getter. In hope she also goes back to acting, raises lots of money and profiles of many charities and keeps her mouth closed on other issues.
I hope Harry finds himself freedom and a job he likes.

Yes, it would be much better if we had a president representing the country.

YANBU. Insufferably smug

William over-reacting so massively by threatening legal action and claiming his human rights had been violated over a seemingly innocuous "Kate fell out with a neighbour" story. Why was William so threatened by that unless "neighbour falling out" was a code for and hinting at something deeper, like with that Downton actor? Why would a story about Kate violate HIS human rights? Them threatening legal action against the hatchet job Tatler piece but the only paragraph of the Tatler story they got removed was the paragraph about Rose, not any of the negative things about Kate. The heavy handed approach to journalists (what ever happened to "never explain never complain?"). Sooooo many celebs and journalists and aristos claiming it's common knowledge.

I'm not one of those who believe there's no smoke without fire but in this case there's an awful lot of smoke.

I feel a bit sorry for William and Harry as if the new book is even half true, it sounds like Charles was a really shit dad.

@chillicheesebuns

William over-reacting so massively by threatening legal action and claiming his human rights had been violated over a seemingly innocuous "Kate fell out with a neighbour" story. Why was William so threatened by that unless "neighbour falling out" was a code for and hinting at something deeper, like with that Downton actor? Why would a story about Kate violate HIS human rights? Them threatening legal action against the hatchet job Tatler piece but the only paragraph of the Tatler story they got removed was the paragraph about Rose, not any of the negative things about Kate. The heavy handed approach to journalists (what ever happened to "never explain never complain?"). Sooooo many celebs and journalists and aristos claiming it's common knowledge.

I'm not one of those who believe there's no smoke without fire but in this case there's an awful lot of smoke.

Yes, and apparently his media people started a campaign about Meghan to deflect the spotlight away from his philandering which is also what Prince Andrew's media people did to her as well.

@Straven123

Yes, it would be much better if we had a president representing the country.

I think if the monarchy is to continue, the best way forward is to reduce the 'working' royal family to the monarch, their spouse and direct heir. That would mean that both Louis and Charlotte would be expected to find jobs and would not receive any public money. Most other European monarchies have done something along these lines, and that's supposedly what Charles has in mind too.

Also in the old days pre Internet and fast information, there was some mystique about the royals but now!! Cringing seeing Kate and will talking to these people on lock down video and Kate always makes that same face!!

Ice totally agree and that's fair enough.

Part of the royals' contract with the nation is that in return for a very luxurious lifestyle subsidised by taxpayers, they refrain from public discussion of politics or other controversial topics. Sounds fair enough to me. I'm tired of people who think that just because they're famous, we all need to hear their banal opinions.

I agree. I did used to think the royals served a purpose, in terms of keeping parliament in check should that occasion ever arise, but after the proroguing of parliament it was evident that they don't/can't. It did make me see them differently. Her Maj is rightly popular, but as for the rest of them, I think it's much harder to see how the monarchy will go forwards.

I do appreciate the royals need police protection
Renting the mansion was just an example, off the top of my head, of doing an actual action to back up his campaign.

And I would like our national a them changed to Jerusalem

I'm sure she does but why do you think we need to hear them? Just because she married a prince it doesn't mean her opinions are any more valuable than yours or mine.

But she has a very loud voice. You and I don’t.

I'm tired of people who think that just because they're famous, we all need to hear their banal opinions.

Yes I suppose you’re right and I do sometimes feel the same way. I guess that’s the tricky bit - I love to heart their opinions when I agree with them. Although I’m open minded enough to listen to their opinions even when I don’t think I agree. So perhaps she can’t win. I just don’t think I’m willing to accept silence from such a huge female public figure on some of the feminist issues that other women have been bold enough to speak out about.

I think what I’m saying is - silence isn’t value for money for me. If I’m going to pay for her lifestyle, I’d like a little more back for my money. But I can see why others would prefer the silence.

I agree IcedPurple they need to look to the European royals, and modernise. I wouldn't like a president. But would rather the royals just stayed fairly quietly in the background, doing diplomacy, and any good deeds they were truly passionate about.

I think Kate is right to just keep her opinions to herself, and is more like the Queen.

PW seems to be following in Prince Charles footsteps, but when PC went on about Tescos architecture, for example, he did get criticised, and seemed to learn to keep his opinions to himself a bit more.

Yes, it would be much better if we had a president representing the country.

Or maybe Simon Cowell needs to organise a show called The Rex Factor so the public can choose a new Royal Family each year - and vote out people showing signs of smuggery.

I think what I’m saying is - silence isn’t value for money for me. If I’m going to pay for her lifestyle, I’d like a little more back for my money. But I can see why others would prefer the silence.

It's not about what people 'prefer'. It's about the constitutional role played by the royals, in particular a future queen. They get public funding for a life of leisure and luxury, and in return they serve as figureheads and represent Britain abroad. They are not elected, or even appointed. If they believe their opinions are of value, they're free to give up all titles and public money, and put themselves up for election. Otherwise, their role is one of strict neutrality.

I just don’t think I’m willing to accept silence from such a huge female public figure on some of the feminist issues that other women have been bold enough to speak out about.

But what background or expertise does she have in this subject? I'd prefer to hear actual feminists speak about feminism, not a woman whose (no offence) main achievement is marrying one future king and birthing another.

Plus, what if she used her 'voice' to campaign against abortion, for example? Would you consider that 'good value'? Or do you want her only to offer opinions you yourself agree with? Surely you see the problem here?

I feel sure that he will make a great king but he needs to deal with his hypocrisies.
(And he needs to end the protocol of royal children being dressed from five decades ago.)

Surely you see the problem here?
I do.

But what background or expertise does she have in this subject?
....being female.

They get public funding for a life of leisure and luxury, and in return they serve as figureheads and represent Britain abroad.
I think I’m saying they shouldn’t. If you’re going to be the third most powerful woman in the country (by definition, but some could successfully argue she is more powerful than Camilla I’d have thought) then I want you to stand up for women’s rights. I have nothing against the monarchy in theory, but in practice if their only role is to look pretty and shake hands then I’m out. William campaigns quite loudly for environmental issues so to say they’re not allowed opinions on anything is disingenuous. Kate is choosing to remain quiet on feminist issues - some are happy with that, I am personally not.

He doesn't lecture anyone, he makes suggestions.

Prince William comes across as fairly ordinary, pleasant and sincere; nothing 'smug' in his attitude.

The lot of them need to go once the Queen Isn’t Queen anymore. As for the palaces, jewels, pomp etc that people say the tourists love and bring in money - they’ll belong to the nation. We can keep them. The Royals have enough money to keep them going for generations

I'd actually like to know what they are interested in. What music do they enjoy? What books have they read? Kate did a History of Art degree; does she go to the National Gallery or the Tate? Do they go to the theatre or to concerts or do they prefer Midsomer Murders?

....being female.

There are tens of millions of females in Britain. You still haven't said why this one is so qualified to speak about feminism.

If you’re going to be the third most powerful woman in the country (by definition, but some could successfully argue she is more powerful than Camilla I’d have thought) then I want you to stand up for women’s rights.

But she's not the 3rd most powerful woman in the country! She has no power at all. Even when her husband is king she will just be queen consort. You are confusing rank with power.

Kate is choosing to remain quiet on feminist issues - some are happy with that, I am personally not.

So basically, you're demanding that she support the same issues you support? What about the other British people - whose taxes are also paying for Kate - who might not support those issues? And to repeat - how would you feel if she chose to support very conservative issues such as wanting to outlaw abortion?

The royals are supposed to be a unifying force in the nation. Whether they are worth the money is a very valid question, but I don't see the point in demanding that they be 'activisits' for your preferred causes. There are so many better qualified people out there for that.

The whole idea of hereditary monarchy is just so stupid it boggles my brain that anyone can think otherwise. How can you be born to some sort of special status? It's a ridiculous concept in the present day. Why is this man someone to listen to? He got his job by existing. That's a poor excuse for a qualification.

but I don't see the point in demanding that they be 'activisits' for your preferred causes
I’m not demanding anything. I’m saying her silence makes me thing she’s pointless. I am disappointed that she isn’t the feminist icon that she could be. She could easily be very qualified in the issue if she chose to be (just as anyone else could). This is my opinion. I’m just trying to talk about it. I’m not trying to change anyone else’s opinion if they think she’s doing a good job!

I’m not demanding anything. I’m saying her silence makes me thing she’s pointless.

You can certainly argue that the royals are pointless in a modern democratic age. However, if there is a point to them, it is that they represent national unity and continuity, not latching onto fashionable causes which will attract some but could alienate others among the British people, all of whom, whether progressive or conservative, are subsidising the royals' lavish lifestyles.

I am disappointed that she isn’t the feminist icon that she could be

You're going to have to explain to me how a woman who is famous mainly because of the males she married and gave birth to could ever be a 'feminist icon'.