Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

Post your unpopular royal family opinions?

1000 replies

DreamyPombear · 24/07/2024 17:24

I will start
I prefer Harry to william

OP posts:
Thread gallery
14
CarmelaBrunella · 25/07/2024 11:56

I don't think Diana "fought constantly". She was an aristocrat to her fingertips and supported the monarchy absolutely. However, she had mental health problems and she was exploited by men like Al Fayed and Martin Bashir.

AliceOlive · 25/07/2024 11:57

Meghan didn’t want out though. She never said she did and it’s proven continually. Most recently with the Nigerian faux Royal tour.

The Oprah interview was payback for the Queen refusing to “collaborate” with Harry and Meghan.

ginasevern · 25/07/2024 11:59

SecretWitch · 25/07/2024 06:58

Oh one more thing

I think Sarah Ferguson was naturally more beautiful than Diana.

Coincidentally I was looking at photos of Fergie in her youth the other day and she was really pretty. Her hair was beautiful and she had (still has) a very open and warm face. I was in my 20's in the 1980's and was appalled at all the unkind press about her weight and freckles. I still think Diana was beautiful but so was Fergie and, as you say, more natural.

AliceOlive · 25/07/2024 12:02

CarmelaBrunella · 25/07/2024 11:56

I don't think Diana "fought constantly". She was an aristocrat to her fingertips and supported the monarchy absolutely. However, she had mental health problems and she was exploited by men like Al Fayed and Martin Bashir.

I think Diana was deeply hurt and lonely in her marriage. It can do terrible things inside to feel like that. I don’t think there was anything mentally wrong with her, but that the pain of having her needs unmet caused any unstable behavior.

SpidersAreShitheads · 25/07/2024 12:06

DramaLlamaBangBang · 25/07/2024 08:21

Becsuse she's not 'raising 3 kids and working' in any meaningful way, yet both William and Kates narrative since they married is that they are just an ordinary working couple juggling work and childcare. I think their PR does them no favours. Everyone knows they are not an ordinary working couple holed up in a 4 bedroom house yet we get fed this nonsense about William juggling the kids single handedly, Kate being unable to do more than a mornings ' work' a month because she's a mum of 3 kids etc etc etc. If they didn't persist in the irritating ' just like you' act and just either did something more effective or did more traditional Royal stuff ( shaking hands and asking inane questions) then they wouldnt need to feed as many stupid and insulting puff pieces to the press about how busy and ordinary they are . They also seem to suddenly find enthusiasm and energy to do ' work' that involves going to film premieres and sporting events.

But I don’t think they do try and pretend they’re just like us? I think that’s something certain people have projected and it’s stuck.

I think they’ve tried to combat the accusation that they’re lazy by disclosing a bit more about their lives. And somehow that’s been twisted to be “oh look at them, pretending to be just like us.”

Take this oft-repeated thing about Catherine and William being lazy. To start with, she’s had three periods of maternity leave, including one with hyperemesis gravidarum. She has three children at home. While they do of course have extra home help - she’s not there scrubbing the loo in her Marigolds! - they do their own parenting and don’t fob them off to an army of nannies. And she works - more than this accusation of one afternoon a week.

I looked at the pre-COVID figures just now to compare figures. Because if I’m wrong, fair enough. Catherine had an engagement every three days in 2019. In 2018 she gave birth. And while she certainly has researchers, she clearly does work in between those engagements too. She always knows her stuff and is well-informed - she’d have been torn to pieces if that wasn’t the case.

And also, if you look at the figures for Meghan and Catherine they’re not vastly different. And Catherine had three small children. Lots of very unpleasant things have been said about Meghan - but she hasn’t had the same accusation of being lazy. When she was in the RF, no one described her as being lazy and workshy. It’s a tag that’s stuck on Catherine and it’s not borne out by the facts.

Catherine does other types of engagements too but the ones that hit the news are the glamorous ones. And that adds to this idea that she’s sat at home painting her nails and just wafting in to film premieres.

But there are just people out there determined to slate her. Take this Wimbledon, for example. She took Charlotte to the Women’s Final, one of her patronages. And got absolutely slaughtered for it. The woman is having chemo, still recovering from cancer and attended an event where she could sit down for most of it. She wasn’t on her feet, she wasn’t having to constantly interact. There are few events that are less demanding. It’s also outdoors, so fewer germs etc.

If anyone has cancer and having chemo and has to work because of financial reasons then I’m truly sorry. It must been really shitty. My dad had cancer and I know he was just permanently exhausted - whereas normally you couldn’t keep him in his seat! Ideally no one should have to work when recovering from cancer. But if a mother has the money not to work while she’s still having treatment and recovering then absolutely good for her. It’s just yet another unfathomable stick to beat Catherine with.

Women on this board are supported when they have young children. Even women on here who use nannies and have home help. And even, shock, wealthy mothers that don’t work at all! But the same consideration isn’t extended to Catherine. Whatever she does, it’s wrong. Oh, and just for good measure, she’s ageing badly, is too thin, has boring dress sense, and is a woman who only knows how to nod politely.

I don’t really care if people don’t like her. It’s the unfair comments or unequal levels of criticism she attracts that I think is unfair. People make up stuff about her because there’s little valid reason to genuinely criticise.

NotaDuchessIworkalot · 25/07/2024 12:20

Ger1atricMillennial · 25/07/2024 01:52

Its interesting... I was fully expecting a bloodbath around H an M but instead people are having a more of a crack at Catherine (someone even said she was aging badly). I guess the media are doing a good job at giving them good press.

Oh that is very accurate!

NotaDuchessIworkalot · 25/07/2024 12:22

AliceOlive · 25/07/2024 11:57

Meghan didn’t want out though. She never said she did and it’s proven continually. Most recently with the Nigerian faux Royal tour.

The Oprah interview was payback for the Queen refusing to “collaborate” with Harry and Meghan.

Balderdash!

smilesy · 25/07/2024 12:25

NotaDuchessIworkalot · 25/07/2024 12:20

Oh that is very accurate!

Probably because they are a lot of “post and dash” posters who are negative to Catherine because they are fans of Meghan. It’s happening a lot recently on this board

NotaDuchessIworkalot · 25/07/2024 12:27

AliceOlive · 25/07/2024 11:57

Meghan didn’t want out though. She never said she did and it’s proven continually. Most recently with the Nigerian faux Royal tour.

The Oprah interview was payback for the Queen refusing to “collaborate” with Harry and Meghan.

Just repeating the press headlines about the ‘royal tour’.

AliceOlive · 25/07/2024 12:29

NotaDuchessIworkalot · 25/07/2024 12:27

Just repeating the press headlines about the ‘royal tour’.

I watched the videos of them sitting on podiums watching Nigerians putting on demonstrations for them. I and saw plenty of Misan photos that the couple endorsed, also. It was Commonwealth 2.0.

NotaDuchessIworkalot · 25/07/2024 12:29

smilesy · 25/07/2024 12:25

Probably because they are a lot of “post and dash” posters who are negative to Catherine because they are fans of Meghan. It’s happening a lot recently on this board

So the ‘club’ of royalists on here who are anti Meghan and Harry or are just anti them are being challenged. That is a good thing.

AliceOlive · 25/07/2024 12:30

NotaDuchessIworkalot · 25/07/2024 12:29

So the ‘club’ of royalists on here who are anti Meghan and Harry or are just anti them are being challenged. That is a good thing.

I wouldn’t describe posting one word replies like “balderdash” as a challenge

AliceOlive · 25/07/2024 12:31

Nor the name calling. That’s just cheesy nonsense.

NotaDuchessIworkalot · 25/07/2024 12:31

AliceOlive · 25/07/2024 12:29

I watched the videos of them sitting on podiums watching Nigerians putting on demonstrations for them. I and saw plenty of Misan photos that the couple endorsed, also. It was Commonwealth 2.0.

Well, the Nigerians were obviously good hosts…

…and they were invited.

You clearly have a completely closed viewpoint when it comes to H and M.

NotaDuchessIworkalot · 25/07/2024 12:42

AliceOlive · 25/07/2024 12:30

I wouldn’t describe posting one word replies like “balderdash” as a challenge

Pot. I don’t see well reasoned arguments and usually just one word or several when Harry is mentioned positively by someone. Invariably, you make it about the person commenting. Not nice.

Morethanafeelingbutbesmart · 25/07/2024 12:46

AliceOlive · 25/07/2024 11:57

Meghan didn’t want out though. She never said she did and it’s proven continually. Most recently with the Nigerian faux Royal tour.

The Oprah interview was payback for the Queen refusing to “collaborate” with Harry and Meghan.

Misinformation campaign yet again.

BemusedAmerican · 25/07/2024 12:47

I really doubt that Meghan will become a billionaire, or the hope of the Democratic party, as mentioned by a previous poster. She's getting too old to marry one if she divorces Harry, and he certainly isn't going to become a billionaire. ARO appears to be dead in the water.

Meghan has not run for public office. She isn't involved with local issues to get her feet wet. Acting in Suits doesn't make her knowledgeable in law. The ARO farce makes it clear that she has no business sense.

In a democracy, Harry and two kids calling themselves by royal titles are not assets. People in the US call their pets Prince, Princess, and Duchess. I've worked with people who have those as given first names. Spare me.

MrsGusset · 25/07/2024 12:56

I think the Royal Family have become far too soft for their own good.

Many a previous Monarch would have sent Harold the Spare on a one way riverboat trip to the Tower.

And his Duchess would have been forced to live out her days in a remote convent where the lack of access to cameras, microphones and paparazzi would have proved a cruel & unusual punishment.

Mischief making used to be a very dangerous business.

Serenster · 25/07/2024 13:00

Morethanafeelingbutbesmart · 25/07/2024 12:46

Misinformation campaign yet again.

Meghan and Harry most definitely didn’t want out. Here is what they told us themselves, in their own words In January 2020, when they first made their public announcement on their website.

They definitely weren’t suggesting they were leaving their Royal roles. Rather, they announced that they had "made the choice to transition into a new working model”. Why did they want to do this? Because they don’t "benefit from their charitable and cause driven work” because "under the current structure and financing arrangements, they are prohibited from earning any income in any form”. The Sussexes however "value the ability to earn a professional income, which in the current structure they are prohibited from doing”. And so this is why they have chosen a new approach - it will "enable them to continue to carry out their duties for Her Majesty The Queen, while having the future financial autonomy to work externally”.

They also intended to proudly maximise the Queen’s legacy "by supporting their patronages and carrying out works for The Monarchy within the UK or abroad, as called upon".

They couldn’t have been clearer: they wanted to stay royal but make money based on their royal status.

Likewhatever · 25/07/2024 13:04

I thought the point of this thread was to give people a chance to say something that challenged the obvious but might be worth hearing and discussing on its merits.

I definitely didn’t read the room…

AliceOlive · 25/07/2024 13:10

Well it’s not an AA meeting so feedback is to be expected. Or would you prefer a hearty “Thanks Likewhatever” from every poster?

smilesy · 25/07/2024 13:12

NotaDuchessIworkalot · 25/07/2024 12:29

So the ‘club’ of royalists on here who are anti Meghan and Harry or are just anti them are being challenged. That is a good thing.

No. There are a few new names who have joined the discussion and that is interesting as I said to a poster elsewhere. As Alice says, it is those who just turn up and declare undying love for Harry and or Meghan, say nasty things about Catherine, declare other posters to be haters, stalk other posters and then just disappear in a poof. Those are the ones I’m talking about. That isn’t challenging or discussing with anyone

Illegally18 · 25/07/2024 13:13

Likewhatever · 25/07/2024 08:44

My unpopular opinion is that if Diana had lived, Kate wouldn’t have got a look in. Diana was an aristocrat through and through and she would have had her own ideas of a suitable match for a future king. I don’t think their relationship would have progressed to marriage because she would have discouraged it early on.

i don't agree. She may have been a nob though and through, but her siblings have all married people who have no blue blood. Anyway, isn't she the living (dead) proof that possessing a title is not enough for a ha[[y marriage?

Likewhatever · 25/07/2024 13:14

AliceOlive · 25/07/2024 13:10

Well it’s not an AA meeting so feedback is to be expected. Or would you prefer a hearty “Thanks Likewhatever” from every poster?

Course not @AliceOlive!

I’m not looking for acknowledgment myself, but this thread does seem to have taken a bit of a sharp turn that’s all.

Likewhatever · 25/07/2024 13:22

Illegally18 · 25/07/2024 13:13

i don't agree. She may have been a nob though and through, but her siblings have all married people who have no blue blood. Anyway, isn't she the living (dead) proof that possessing a title is not enough for a ha[[y marriage?

Diana was the mother of the future king though, she would have expected William to marry accordingly. In terms of having a happy marriage I think she fully intended to be the wife and mother her role demanded and saw it as her destiny. I even think she would have adjusted to the differences between herself and Charles if he had been faithful.

Personally I believe she would have been wrong to see Kate off, but I’m sure she would have done.

Anyway, that’s my unpopular opinion!

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.