Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge is pregnant with her second child

[Bluebonnet]

Charles is the do-nothing weirdo who talks to trees or something--daffy, red-faced and boring, babbling about the ecology, spilling his gin and tonic.

This is absolutely the best description of Charles I've ever read!

[tulip]

I like Kate and William. I don't pay that much attention to the royals, so all this talk about them being lazy and Carole Middleton controlling everything isn't anything I've heard outside of GR. They seem pretty down to earth for royals to me.

[rollo]

Oh you're pulling legs here. Only the Di-tards still stick pins in their Camilla dolls. Wasn't there some poll a while back that showed the British people are more in favor of Chuck ascending the throne than ever before? And they like "Queen Camilla"?

I think that was some rogue DM poll that was reversed the next day.

[lindsaywhit]

Carole may very well piss the Windsors off, I don't know, although you'd think after the "annus horribilis" of the 1990's the queen would feel pretty laid-back about a Christmas dinner here or there. Personally, I've got a feeling she doesn't sweat the small stuff as much as the tabloids like to imply. After Fergie, Diana and a blowzy tampon receptacle, Kate & clan should be a walk in the park. Carole probably is fairly ruthless - and that's why Kate has the enormous self-possession I've never seen her lose. And then off course people bitch that she's not 'natural' - Diana was natural, and needy, and blooming nuts at times. Sure, I loved her, just like everyone else, but she would have been better off with a little less love if it meant she had a Carole M in her corner.

(cue Rocky music)

[rollo]

Yeah, I think Diana had an ambivalent relationship with her mother, sometimes good and sometimes not. Plus her mother insisted on living on a island off Scotland or something so she wasn't any practical help (although she might not have been asked.) It's a completely different situation since Diana's mother was the "bolter" in the family.

[CornFlakegrl]

I don't get what the royals are supposed to "do" to earn their keep. Attend charity functions? Form receiving lines and shake people's hands?

Like other have said, it's not real work anyway so what is the big deal? Kate and Wills are superstars who reflect well on the monarchy because they are loved. that seems to be the point of anything the royals need to do ... keep the masses happy so they will keep paying the bill. To that end, they are doing their job.

[A*O]

I don't get what the royals are supposed to "do" to earn their keep. Attend charity functions? Form receiving lines and shake people's hands?

Like other have said, it's not real work anyway so what is the big deal? Kate and Wills are superstars who reflect well on the monarchy because they are loved. that seems to be the point of anything the royals need to do ... keep the masses happy so they will keep paying the bill. To that end, they are doing their job.

That's exactly what they are supposed to do and often. Not take another holiday in Mustique. It's hard for non Brits to understand the synergy between the royal family and their subjects. There is love and respect for sure but there's also a requirement to do worthy stuff and be seen to be doing it willingly even though most of it is eyewateringly tedious. It's a delicate quid quo pro and I don't think W&K are getting it right.

[ChloroformCasey]

I love how W&K try to act like they are just everyday folks. They should try that shit for a day.

Anyhoo, that baby is the prettiest baby I think I've ever seen. At first I thought it was a doll.

[Beeyotch]

That's exactly what they are supposed to do and often. Not take another holiday in Mustique. It's hard for non Brits to understand the synergy between the royal family and their subjects. There is love and respect for sure but there's also a requirement to do worthy stuff and be seen to be doing it willingly even though most of it is eyewateringly tedious. It's a delicate quid quo pro and I don't think W&K are getting it right.

Are the Brits that naive to believe that the hand-shaking and ribbon-cutting are really that much different than the back-to-back holidays? Neither is real work. Either way, it's just a way of generating photo ops. If the masses like them, who cares? To me it sounds like you're saying, "I am willing to pay taxes to support already rich people if they dress up the way I expect and attend certain social functions I deem appropriate but *NOT* if they take too many publicized vacations." It's a silly distinction.

[A*O]

Like I say, non Brits don't get it. It's not about the money (theirs or mine).

[Beeyotch]

To say non-Brits don't get it is to gloss over the fact that it doesn't make sense. It's about your perception of what's proper. Their *obligation* as royals is totally made up. Like they say, the extremely wealthy have an "obligation" to give back through charity and whatnot. But really, very few are genuine in their devotion to their cause. They're just going through the motions because it's what's expected of them. Like showing up on schedule and doing nothing in a suit is acceptable, but doing nothing whenever it suits them wearing jeans is frowned upon. Ok, but the net effect is the same and they're still doing nothing.

[Kittylady]

Diana was natural, and needy, and blooming nuts at times. Sure, I loved her, just like everyone else

Uh, I beg to differ!

[rollo]

They are not really doing nothing if they are bringing publicity to a charity, encouraging tourism etc. Who would want to see an elected head of state doing that if they had a choice?

[A*O]

It depends on your definition of "doing nothing" and maybe turning up for charity or other worthy fundraising events is deemed "doing nothing" for most of us. But not even doing their share of these duties, and W&K aren't pulling their weight on that IMO, is a different level of doing nothing. If they want to withdraw from royal life and duties there's nothing stopping them. They can continue to live in considerable comfort on the family's private wealth and sink into comparative obscurity. William would have to formally remove himself and his offspring from the line of succession to the throne and then Harry would become #2 after Charles. I suspect many would like that.

I don't see the "hotness" of Hazza at all. But he's showing a lot more willingness to do what's required and seems to have his mother's compassion, ability to connect with people and is in general an all round good bloke. Maybe he would make a better king anyway. Henry IX - it has a ring to it. On the other hand rumour has it that its back On with that dirty gurl Chelsy Davy and I'm not sure she's queen material.

[rollo]

Yep, I tried to post that rumour last week but it wouldn't post.