Post your unpopular royal family opinions?

[DreamyPombear]

I will start
I prefer Harry to william

That they play you all like a fiddle and brainwashed you all into this good vs evil between the brothers and wives

True

Harold did want to do it but on his own terms. When he was told 'no' he didn't so much resign as flounce.

Hoglet70 · Yesterday 22:58
Princess Di was a nut job and I absolutely love Queen Camilla.

I agree. Poor Diana - she came from a messed-up family and had abandonment issues, I'm sure. But wow - I think she was a difficult woman. She had a great and genuine warmth in terms of her public role and that was commendable, but also a track-record of very difficult personal relationships behind her. I'm not minimising the situation she found herself in on her marriage, though.

Camilla seems refreshingly uncomplicated, down-to-earth and ego-free. I'm sure she's just what the highly-strung, insecure and emotionally damaged KC needs. I wish them happiness!

That Charles is the biggest environmental hypocrite out there and attempts to greemwash the RF by converting a vintage Bentley to biofuel are pitiful, nauseating greenwashing.

That Meghan is an environmental hypocrite as YET AGAIN she has flown in a private jet to the East coast of the USA.

Aren’t they all environmental hypocrites? Kate, William, Charles, Anne, Edward etc.

Helicoptering all over the place.

Oh and another one: Kate's "vital" work on early years is insulting to actual experts who spend years researching this stuff but are massively underfunded.

@HumanBurrito "Oh and another one: Kate's "vital" work on early years is insulting to actual experts who spend years researching this stuff but are massively underfunded"

Yes. This ^

My only reply to you is that you have completely missed the point. The allegation made by Meghan in which she referred to her son were directed at the royal family. None of the examples you’ve quoted are relevant to that claim.

Another unpopular opinion of mine is that Kate's early years work, described as her life's work, was dreamed up by some KP PR person and she's not really feeling it but agreed to go along with it because King Charles and Camilla had already ring-fenced gardening.

I think that W and K are pretty much separated but that they’re coparenting successfully. She was desperate for Royal life and she’s ok with the arrangement. He does as he pleases, discreetly. I suspect that her parents and sister are doing the heavy lifting in terms of supporting her through cancer. I don’t think he’s a bad guy but if he’d managed to get one of the aristos interested in marriage during their breakup, he’d not have returned to Kate. But I don’t think she’s a victim or miserable.

That’s not an unpopular opinion. That’s a complete fantasy 😂😂

The thing about Kate ‘doing’ early years is that whoever thought it up (whether that was Kate or someone else) didn’t think things through. It is almost impossible to actually do anything to improve early years provision without getting political (increased state funding to allow a parent to stay home until a child is 5 for example) which Kate isn’t allowed to do. She’s basically hamstrung from the start. Hence taking literally years to produce the completely obvious.

She’d have been a lot better off doing something like children’s sport - much easier to put programmes in place without seeming to criticise the government.

CandidHedgehog · Yesterday 20:23

That's a really interesting point, and I agree that with her genuine interest in sport, it would have been a better focus. She could have particularly encouraged girls to get involved in sport - something which is becoming more difficult, I hear, from my teaching friends.

Not Catherine's fault, obviously, but I agree with this point.

Another one. I don t think it actually matters which cause members of the RF show support for. It's all PR and smoke and mirrors and makes absolutely no difference to what actually happens at all. Except giving some people an opportunity to have a cup of tea and a selfie with a famous person.

And when you actually look at the data royal patronage is pretty ineffective anyway. It makes a difference in the sense that some charity sectors and regions are hugely overrepresented in the royal charity portfolio (naice things like the arts, mainly in the south within easy reach od London) to the detriment of real thorny, gritty, social issues that get less media space as a result.

King Charles seems to have a genuine interest in championing and providing funds for the restoration of historic old buildings, for example, the Castle of Mey and Dumfries House. Having heritage as your 'thing' seems to align better with the USP of royalty.

Homelessness is a difficult one to sell to the public if you are conspicuously homeful. (Also a political hot potato.)

Unfortunately, neither K nor W seem to be particularly interested in heritage matters.

But for what reason would she wear it?

Such a cynical view of people in general. Fortunately not everyone looks at life like that. Many people like to embrace a more community minded spirit.

@HucklefinBerry I read on here the other day that people wear fake bumps to make their maternity wardrobe look good. 🤷‍♀️ This is the first time I've heard this in my 87 years on this planet!

Meghan put on very obvious pregnancy weight around her face, back, arms and thighs.

The popping sound is literally that. A sound. Could be anything.

Meghan looked obviously pregnant and I'm not talking about the belly. Her entire face and body gained weight the way a pregnancy does. And it took many many months to o back to how she was before.

Money isn't always needed. The biggest input you can have is making a mother feel confident and enabled. I used to work with mothers in a scheme like this and much of it is getting the women off their backsides and phones to interact with their children. It is also to enable fathers or partners to interact with children in the household in a positive way. Not everyone has these skills. They may have been brought up in generational deprivation or in care and lack these. It's about confidence boosting and it may be group team bonding with women and creating small communities in their area which can prosper once set up. It's not all about money.

@sausawyee "
"Such a cynical view of people in general. Fortunately not everyone looks at life like that. Many people like to embrace a more community minded spirit"

I really don't understand this comment. Could you explain exactly how royal involvement helps the cause less they take up? What has Kate contributed to early years provision?

Or to put it another way, what has she, with her BA (possibly MA) in art history achieved for early years provision that could not have been done better and more effectively by channeling the same money to actual subject-area experts with PhDs and decades of experience?