Brit Royalty - Author Tells it Like it Is and....

[miffy]

But I am saying that as an Australian, and our contribution to the upkeep of royalty is limited to upkeep of a Governor General, security when a royal visits, and bizarre wedding and christening gifts for them as the occasion arises.

Joolya should pick out a nice kangaroo skin coat for Kates push present. :lol:

[lilith]

Joolya should pick out a nice kangaroo skin coat for Kates push present. :lol:

Well they set a precedent by sending "our Mary" eccentric baby gifts for each of her kids.

[miffy]

Well they set a precedent by sending "our Mary" eccentric baby gifts for each of her kids.

Oh I remember now, the TRAM! hahaha My state was to blame for that large folly.

[Iokaste]

I don't think Kate is characterless and I don't think William or his family see her as a mindless breeding machine - if that was the case they would have had a honeymoon baby.

Well, they are doing a damned good job at making her public persona as plastic and characterless as humanly possible!

I admit it, the Duchess annoys me to no ends, she is an educated, supposedly funny and intelligent woman yet she is never heard saying anything and she has chosen/been made to adopt the most boringly stereotypical way of doing the whole "princess-thing". She has the ability to reach and influence potentially millions of people and she choses to say exactly nothing! She might as well be a mute!

Hillary Mantel's essay however was beautiful and poignant and to the point, and I predict that it will become a classic in it's genre. Oh, to be able to handle language like that!

[debrand]

Although I like learning about the royals, I've always wondered how people who pay taxes for their upkeep feel about them. I've read that the British people get more back for their investment in the Royals then they put out.

Diana had many vulnerabilities and flaws but she came across as very real. Many years ago, people still thought that AIDS could be caught through touch. When Diana hugged or shook hands with an AIDS patient, she changed some people's perception. She didn't have to do that or take on that particular issue.

Kate is an intelligent, educated, gorgeous woman but it would be nice if we were able to see some more of her personality. I understand why the Royal family seeks to protect her though. The media could turn on her in a second.

I have no idea why anyone would want to marry into the Royal family. Their lives are under a microscope and they can quickly go from being adored to hated.

[snarktastic]

Diana's virginity was certified by the royal physician

Really?! That's sick and wrong.

With hindsight the massive enthusiasm for the Diana wedding was bizarre. I mean, a teenage girl marrying a bloke in his 30s and everyone's going ooooh how wonderful, this is all totally going to work out just great ?!

[WonderingInWA]

I think Kate and William get along better than Diana and Charles ever did. And they do have a duty to the public, but have learned from what happened to Diana and are being cautious. I don't think Charles deserves to be king and have been hoping, especially after he had the nerve to marry Camilla, that the crown will pass over him and directly to William (that's what Diana would have wanted). Charles scorned Diana in so many ways with his relationship with Camilla that he refused to give up. He owes it to Diana to pass the crown to her son.

[WonderingInWA]

Really?! That's sick and wrong.

With hindsight the massive enthusiasm for the Diana wedding was bizarre. I mean, a teenage girl marrying a bloke in his 30s and everyone's going ooooh how wonderful, this is all totally going to work out just great ?!

Well, and if you've ever watched Diana's Panorama interview, she explains how she felt that day. "Like a lamb to the slaughter". In front of millions of people worldwide. How sad is that?

[bluelady]

Well, they are doing a damned good job at making her public persona as plastic and characterless as humanly possible!

I admit it, the Duchess annoys me to no ends, she is an educated, supposedly funny and intelligent woman yet she is never heard saying anything and she has chosen/been made to adopt the most boringly stereotypical way of doing the whole "princess-thing". She has the ability to reach and influence potentially millions of people and she choses to say exactly nothing! She might as well be a mute!

Hillary Mantel's essay however was beautiful and poignant and to the point, and I predict that it will become a classic in it's genre. Oh, to be able to handle language like that!

I think we just need to give her time. I was just an infant when Charles and Diana married, so I don't know how long it was before Diana took on many of the causes she's known for (AIDS education, land-mines, etc.). Kate and William have only been married a few years. I believe the reports that I've read about them learning from his parents' mistakes and taking time to be a normal, married couple before they dive head-first into the role of public royals.

Also, I think that Diana had a distinct advantage over Kate in some respects. She was from an aristocratic family. I think, while young and naive, she knew a little about how to play the game. I read somewhere that she was not really "scared" of the royal family because her family tree could stand up to theirs any day. Kate's doesn't (in terms of nobility. Obviously that is not the determining factor in what makes a "good" family). Yes, while she has been with William for many years, I think that there is a difference between "my boyfriend's a royal" and "I'm a royal". I won't give her grief for taking time to learn what she feels she needs to learn.

So, based on that, I'm gonna give her time. If five years down the road, she's still stereotypical and mute, maybe I'll think differently.

[Iokaste]

I think we just need to give her time. I was just an infant when Charles and Diana married, so I don't know how long it was before Diana took on many of the causes she's known for (AIDS education, land-mines, etc.). Kate and William have only been married a few years. I believe the reports that I've read about them learning from his parents' mistakes and taking time to be a normal, married couple before they dive head-first into the role of public royals.

Also, I think that Diana had a distinct advantage over Kate in some respects. She was from an aristocratic family. I think, while young and naive, she knew a little about how to play the game. I read somewhere that she was not really "scared" of the royal family because her family tree could stand up to theirs any day. Kate's doesn't (in terms of nobility. Obviously that is not the determining factor in what makes a "good" family). Yes, while she has been with William for many years, I think that there is a difference between "my boyfriend's a royal" and "I'm a royal". I won't give her grief for taking time to learn what she feels she needs to learn.

So, based on that, I'm gonna give her time. If five years down the road, she's still stereotypical and mute, maybe I'll think differently.

There is a huge difference in that Kate was an actual adult when she married into that family, it was her free choice. Honestly I think that Kate has the advantage over Diana and more can be expected of her, she has been out in world, lived on her own, worked real jobs and she has had plenty of years to consider what it would be like to be part of the royal family and how she would eventually play that part if the day should come.

[valsa]

she has had plenty of years to consider what it would be like to be part of the royal family and how she would eventually play that part if the day should come.

I think there's a big difference between speculating how you would act and actually having to act in an official capacity.

I don't think they're trying to make her (and, to a lesser degree, William) into bland mannequins so much as trying to make them "above reproach" at this early stage in their royal life. Given the scandals that have surrounded that family, I think they're trying to polish and protect what might be their last, best chance to keep their brand appearing respectable and, well, regal in the long run. Let's face it, without William and Kate, once the queen kicks it all the royal family would have is the clusterfuck that is Charles and Camilla, and Harry's various embarrassments.

I suspect that once a few more years have passed and William and Kate prove they're not going to implode the way other royal couples have, we'll see them loosen up in public. Given how vicious the media is and how quickly the tides of public favor can turn, I don't blame them for being very, very cautious about doing absolutely anything that could cause offense.

[yewchapel]

The Queen Mother was very distantly related to Henry VII, via Lady Catherine Grey (Lady Jane Grey's sister).

And I agree with Valsa re trying to keep William and Kate as scandal-free as possible.

[laura oz]

^ Diana was very low key about the family she was from before she got married. Apparently an American family she was nannying for in London had no idea she was a Hon, I think they found out by seeing a letter addressed to her.

It was actually a check that was found. I know WAY too much about Diana. It's so strange to me that even though I'm American, I can be so easily fascinated by English history and a member or two of the royal family. I really got into Charles and Diana, but other than watching William's wedding, I just don't care about them. I used to buy all the mags and books about Diana and watched every single made for tv movie, but when it comes to the new generation I'm just like "Meh". She's pretty (even if she does lack much of an upper lip- mine curles up a little bit when I smile too) and it's nice they are happy and expecting, but I'm not all that interested.

[tropaka]

I agree that they are trying to keep the couple "above reproach" - again that plays into the roles they have to play as opposed to their actual personalities etc. There was a bit of a bump with the topless photos, and I guess a photo of a pregnant Kate in a bikini (they did that with Diana too - I would have thought they'd gotten over the prudery by now). Can't have any topless toe sucking escapades, affairs, or dirty phone talk popping up in this generation (mind you, at least it wasn't the nazi sympathies etc that came up 2 gens before that).

[Loveday]

It was actually a check that was found. I know WAY too much about Diana. It's so strange to me that even though I'm American, I can be so easily fascinated by English history and a member or two of the royal family. I really got into Charles and Diana, but other than watching William's wedding, I just don't care about them. I used to buy all the mags and books about Diana and watched every single made for tv movie, but when it comes to the new generation I'm just like "Meh". She's pretty (even if she does lack much of an upper lip- mine curles up a little bit when I smile too) and it's nice they are happy and expecting, but I'm not all that interested.

Are we twins? :lol: I've still got all my Diana books and magazines all these years later. I even have a Charles and Diana tea towel and a book of Charles and Di paper dolls, both from the wedding era. And yes, I was a grown woman at the time, so I was old enough to know better!

I wish I could explain why I'm so fascinated by British royalty even though I'm an American, but I can't quite put my finger on it. I'm only marginally interested in the current crop of royals, though. I'm more into the royalty of the distant past--the Tudors and Plantagenets, mainly, never really got into the Stuarts or Hanoverians much. I do have a book about Elizabeth and Margaret, written by their former nanny, that I read as a child and that made me wish I had a nanny, and parents who wore jewels and formal wear every day, and a playhouse bigger than my own real house. I grew up wishing I could be English and titled and therefore eligible to marry into the Royal Family, although not Charles. I'm much closer in age to Andrew and Edward, so they bore the brunt of my childish fantasies. :lol: I thought that if only I could marry one of them I'd have access to all those castles and palaces and could spend my life exploring every nook and cranny, discovering all sorts of amazing Anne Boleyn or Elizabeth I artifacts that no one knew still existed. I think I just missed my calling in life, I should have been an archeaologist or historian. :roll:

[debrand]

Really?! That's sick and wrong.

With hindsight the massive enthusiasm for the Diana wedding was bizarre. I mean, a teenage girl marrying a bloke in his 30s and everyone's going ooooh how wonderful, this is all totally going to work out just great ?!

Even when I was a fourteen year old in love with all things Diana, I found this weird and offensive. Not only did they check her virginity but they announced it publicly.

Both Charles and Diana would have been much better off if he had said, "Screw the monarchy. I'm marrying Camilla."

It is weird, I've never, ever wanted to be a princess but Diana fascinated my younger self.

[laura oz]

Loveday, I so hear you about being able to explore those castles. My idea of heaven has always been all the books I could read about ALL the subjects that have ever fascinated me and actually getting the answers to all of the questions I have ever had. Call it Geek Heaven :lol:

[Soldier of the One]

I thought the article was beautifully written and compelling, although a bit snarky at times. Even so, you'd have to be a right fool not to see that the criticism is leveled at the institution and not at Kate personally.

I like Kate. Am not a monarchist, but she's doing a good job at what is a very precarious position. She cannot afford herself to 'shine' because shining would mean stepping out into the limelight and voicing her own opinions. At this point in her life and career as royal wife (and yes, it is a career and not for the dim-witted either), she needs to lay low.

The Middletons must be up against a lot. I normally don't feel for privileged millionaires but to be 'nouveau riche' in that context is horrifying. There was even a proposal to raise the family into peerage but it was refused. Kinda lame considering how many families of royal consorts have been raised to peerage in the past. All Kate got was a lousy coat-of-arms which makes her no more than gentry at best. Certainly a 'commoner' by royal standards.

From what I gather, the UK Royal Family is an incredibly conservative institution and it's to Kate's survival instincts, discretion and intelligence that she has done so well. Does it matter that she 'wanted the job'? Not at all. On the contrary. With a position like this, the last thing you need is a starry-eyed, naive Diana-type who thinks she's marrying Prince Charming. You'd need an intelligent, hardworking persona who is also willing to subsume herself to the institution she's marrying into. It's like walking a tightrope and Kate does it beautifully. I cannot imagine what it is like to be harassed and picked apart by the press like that over every.damn.thing. you wear (!) or do. No wonder she's a mute. But I believe she will come into her own in due time. Having a royal baby will secure her position.

Ah, this is all terribly sad and retrograde. But I think she's the best gal for the job, to be honest, and I think they make a good match. They genuinely seem to love each other and they've been together an awful long time (by royal standards) before tying the knot.

What personally mortified me was the super-early announcement of her pregnancy. For a royal pregnancy to be announced at 6 weeks, with the chances of miscarriage and birth defects still relatively high (could you imagine a 'royal abortion'? The scandal!), it must have been agonizing for them to have the word out so quickly.

[Loveday]

Loveday, I so hear you about being able to explore those castles. My idea of heaven has always been all the books I could read about ALL the subjects that have ever fascinated me and actually getting the answers to all of the questions I have ever had. Call it Geek Heaven :lol:

Yes! :clap: This, too! :lol:

[nokidsmom]

I don't think they're trying to make her (and, to a lesser degree, William) into bland mannequins so much as trying to make them "above reproach" at this early stage in their royal life. Given the scandals that have surrounded that family, I think they're trying to polish and protect what might be their last, best chance to keep their brand appearing respectable and, well, regal in the long run. Let's face it, without William and Kate, once the queen kicks it all the royal family would have is the clusterfuck that is Charles and Camilla, and Harry's various embarrassments.

Totally agree with this. I always got the feeling that they are being very careful with William and Kate, to keep them from even seeming to do anything that might be considered the least bit offensive. After all the divorces, scandals, embarassments, and tell-all books from staff and so-called friends, the royal family has learned, often the hard way, that people are no longer in awe of them because of their royal status anymore. The public and media have been questioning their role, their privileges, and their finances. Plus I have never heard anyone say they expect Charles to be a really great king. William, however, seems more capable despite his young age plus he does have the advantage of having the still-very-worshiped Diana as his mother.

[HOTW]

I find many of th eissues the Royal Family has is due to press intrusion into their private lives. They cant seem to understand that there should be a distinction. As for Diana- she wanted to be a Royal and stated it quite early in her teens. She was the one hot and heavy in pursuit of Charles who is quite an intellectual however the press doesnt want to understand what he is talking about so they make fun of him. Imagine living your entire life in a glass box-no thanks. As for her virginity the ones who cared most about it were the press and while there was no official confirmation of it it was her UNCLE who proclaimed her pure-icky icky icky!!

I think the Royals have taken a good approach with Willim and Kate to avoid all the stress which can crack anyone. I only hope they succeed in keeping the baby out of th epublic spectrum especially the press at every milestone of the baby's lives. I think The Queen had a little bit more privacy growing up than her grandsons!

I can remember in the 70's that Charles and Camilla were dating but the press was pretty nasty to her as she was a plain looking woman and it was not surprising she maried someone else! There were a few other prospects and one was a very watched relationship til the press printed topless photos of her on vacation and that was the end of that relationship. I think Charles was under a huge amount of pressure to get married as he was over 30 and he caved in and married the one the press approved of.

As for the many people who beleive the Monarchy is supported by the taxpayer, you must consider that the reigning monarch truns over to the Gov't the incomes from the Crown Estates and retains only the income from the Duchy of Lancaster. This income more than covers the Civil list, the upkeep of the Public Palaces and the Security forces.

I would not be surprised to see a few changes made when the Queen dies and Charles inherits....

[Sola]

If they saw her as a mindless breeding machine & good for PR, the wedding would have happened 5 years ago.

Diana's problem was that she was so naive, she thought Charles wouldn't keep his mistress after they got married.

Slightly off topic, my parents met Charles & Camilla in Spain a couple of years ago (just before the wedding!) & thought they were really charming, Charles especially. They both thought that if more people knew what they were like they would be much more enthusiastic about not having another republic referendum after the Queen dies.

Hmm, well I can't speak for everywhere in the UK, but in my area, which is I'll admit a staunch socialist republic area, that wouldn't make a blind bit of difference. It isn't how nice or how horrible they are. It's the whole establishment. It's the very idea that these people, who by nothing more than luck of birth, are in a position where they are fed, clothed and housed in the ultimate in luxury, off the backs of the people in the UK. In essence they are the ultimate welfare claimants.

[tropaka]

from wiki but I think this explains the monarchy's financing pretty well

Only the Queen officially receives direct funding from the Civil List. The Queen's consort (Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh) receives £359,000 per year. The Queen, as head of state, receives £7,900,000 from the Civil List to defray some of the official expenditure of the monarchy.

In the spending review statement to the House of Commons on 20 October 2010, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, announced that from 2013 the Civil List would be abolished. In its place, "the Royal Household will receive a new Sovereign Support Grant linked to a portion of the revenue of the Crown Estate." On 18 October 2011 the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 received Royal Assent. Under this act, the Sovereign Grant will fund all of the official expenditure of the monarchy, not just the expenditure currently borne by the Civil List.

The state duties and staff of other members of the Royal Family (but not the Prince of Wales, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, or Prince Harry) are funded from a parliamentary annuity, the amount of which is fully refunded by the Queen to the treasury.[2] The Queen is permitted to claim this amount as a deduction against her gross income from personal investments and other sources - the net amount, after deductions, is subject to normal income tax.

So QEII gets to write off the support of the extended Royal family on her income tax. It looks like they're trying to make it pay for itself, but come on....

Canada, last I heard, sends something like a million bucks a year for upkeep of residences, and of course we support the GG etc....

ETA this little nugget from the Monarchist's League of Canada (rolls eyes)

As shown in the latest triennial study of the cost of the Canadian Crown, each Canadian contributes about $1.53 a year (a total of a little over $50 million) towards our form of governance. However, the great majority of these costs stem from: a) maintaining the historic buildings (Government Houses) occupied by vice-regal representatives; and b) from honouring Canadians who have performed outstanding acts or given a lifetime of service to the country.

Only 50 million (rolls eyes again)

[Sola]

from wiki but I think this explains the monarchy's financing pretty well

So QEII gets to write off the support of the extended Royal family on her income tax. It looks like they're trying to make it pay for itself, but come on....

Canada, last I heard, sends something like a million bucks a year for upkeep of residences, and of course we support the GG etc....

ETA this little nugget from the Monarchist's League of Canada (rolls eyes)

Only 50 million (rolls eyes again)

The UK monarchy cost a lot more than what civil list and grants cover. Even the new sovereign grant is not the true cost to the UK tax payer.

http://www.republic.org.uk/valueformoneymyth.pdf Obviously not entirely unbiased, but it is much closer to the mark than is commonly known.

[constantgardener]

Yes! :clap: This, too! :lol:

You guys would love my job. I work for a heritage charity at a stately home once occupied by a Lord. The current Queen and her sister visited as children and carved their initials onto one of the window panes. I feel I am upholding my republican views by helping 'ordinary people' get to see what only a priviledged few once saw. Plus it is a really cool place to work!