Please read here on how to use images on RoyalDish. - Please read the RoyalDish message on board purpose and rules.
Images containing full nudity or sexual activities are strongly forbidden on RoyalDish.


Pages: 1 ... 257 258 [259] 260 261 ... 273   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: William and Kate: Australia and New Zealand Tour  (Read 668330 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
freethespoon

Most Exalted Member
*

Reputation: 3860

Offline Offline

Posts: 13871


Official TeaSpoon of Royal Dish. Aka TrollSpoon.




Ignore
« Reply #3870 on: April 26, 2014, 12:01:54 AM »

Credit where it's due.  They smiled politely, were clean and tidy and they had a cute baby in tow.  Add in a sympathetic press corps and beautiful scenery (eg Uluru) and you're guaranteed a success.

They did alright, as much as it pains me to say it.

But have I been turned around on the idea of a monarchy?  Nope.

Do I think they have earned their vast wealth and power, and deserve their position as a result of this tour?  Nope.

Do I think anyone should curtsy to them because they really are that special?  Nope.

I read a columnist yesterday who wrote about Graham Richardson's comments that a republic was all but dead. The main argument against a republic was not focussed on these two being fantastic but that, in our current system, they are effectively impotent so there is no harm in having them as Heads of State.  They do nothing, are kinda brainless and smile alot.  Better that than a political driven President, they said.  

I thought that was an interesting argument.  Why trade an empty vessel that does what you want it to for something more unpredictable.  Will and Kate are empty vessels.  They will sit there and be a 'Head of State' in name only, and that that's ok.  Not sure I agree but it certainly got me thinking.

Yes, it is food for thought, but my answer to that argument is that if we are going to have an empty vessel in the role it should be an Australian empty vessel - one who an Australian citizen and whose loyalties are not divided between his homeland and fifteen other realms.

I essentially like the status quo and I don't want a major overhaul.  Our system works well but we could have one of our own as head of the executive government.  We could simply rebrand the Governor-General the President.  That is the republic model that I have always preferred, because it amounts to minimal change and doesn't introduce an extra pesky politician into the equation.  Our recent Governors-General have been fine people who have productive careers behind them and they are excellent choices to represent us on the world stage hosting state dinners and doing all that stuff that the Governors-General do, but they don't meddle into politics and that's the way it should be, IMO.  But my view on the appropriate model for an Australian republic is in the minority.

It bothers me immensely if the majority of the people of my country have fallen for this uninspiring duo based on just having watched them pfaffing around the country showing off their teeth and their wardrobe and their baby and tossing the occasional spadeful of soil onto already planted trees, peering over the edge of cliffs,  having their photos taken at tourist destinations, and looking interested at various meetings of carefully selected meetees, and laying the occasional wreath.  It bothers me immensely that it seems that the hearts of huge numbers of the Australian public can be bought by dangling these shiny new toys in front of them for a few weeks.  What have these two English people actually done while they have been here that should endear us to them and make us prefer them over worthy Australians for our Head of State who live here and have spent their working life contributing to this country?  Nothing, in my opinion.  Absolutely nothing.

 



Margaret, take heart.  The same numbers turned out to see the Kardashians.  As one journo put it, they are celebrities.  The American press fawn over them in a similar fashion but they're not about to make them King and Queen.  They see them for what they are - celebrities (shiny and pretty).
Logged


You can call me TrollSpoon.
freethespoon

Most Exalted Member
*

Reputation: 3860

Offline Offline

Posts: 13871


Official TeaSpoon of Royal Dish. Aka TrollSpoon.




Ignore
« Reply #3871 on: April 26, 2014, 12:05:14 AM »

Don't worry spoonie what I have in mind doesn't require too much in the way of talking

He'll whine afterwards.

When he plays in Oz, my husband and his friends stand on the sidelines and pretend to cry.  Over everything.  Just like Richie.
Logged


You can call me TrollSpoon.
Fertiv
Banned
Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 278

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 993





Ignore
« Reply #3872 on: April 26, 2014, 12:19:34 AM »

Don't worry spoonie what I have in mind doesn't require too much in the way of talking

He'll whine afterwards.

When he plays in Oz, my husband and his friends stand on the sidelines and pretend to cry.  Over everything.  Just like Richie.

it wouldn't be the first time a night with me reduced a man to tears....

Logged
freethespoon

Most Exalted Member
*

Reputation: 3860

Offline Offline

Posts: 13871


Official TeaSpoon of Royal Dish. Aka TrollSpoon.




Ignore
« Reply #3873 on: April 26, 2014, 12:24:26 AM »

Don't worry spoonie what I have in mind doesn't require too much in the way of talking

He'll whine afterwards.

When he plays in Oz, my husband and his friends stand on the sidelines and pretend to cry.  Over everything.  Just like Richie.

it wouldn't be the first time a night with me reduced a man to tears....



McCaw is a defcon whinger.  Careful what you wish for.

But you ladies proceed.  More Daniel Carter for me....

Logged


You can call me TrollSpoon.
Fertiv
Banned
Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 278

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 993





Ignore
« Reply #3874 on: April 26, 2014, 12:27:31 AM »


I think some Australian monarchists think she does represent Australia - in an old school, white Australia kind of way (IMO only).  She represents an Australia that was white, Christian and where dinners were meat and three veg, in their view. 

I think some of us are aware, and proud, of our links to England but, in 2014, we're now adult kids who are ready to leave the nest and set off on our own path.

Well put....
There's a degree of the older white middle class generation still in power there, once they've gone as well, change may be more forthcoming.
Not to say I want to get rid of you, but if you love something, set it free - maybe the Queen should resign or something??


PS:  Dan is far too pretty for me - is it wrong to say Quade Cooper??
Logged
MadMissManton
Banned
Banned
Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 132

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1017





Ignore
« Reply #3875 on: April 26, 2014, 12:47:01 AM »

Can anyone answer this-I wrote this earlier, it got skipped over and I would love to know what you think:

One thing that is very interesting to me and forgive me if it has been said before, but Arthur Edwards, the esteemed royal photographer, who has walked the beat since 77 and who even William likes asked on his Twitter, when would England get to see George? Now if HE is asking that, you know there is an issue.

I want to raise a hypothetical and would love to know the answer: what if Kate is really only interested in raising her children well and keeping house? What if she feels those her most important jobs? What if that is really all she wants to do? What if she were to not really do charity and stay with her kids, making sure they turned out well?

Also on the flip side, say Kate's charities get fed up with her? Could they dump her for being lazy and would that cause drama?
Logged
divinemiss

Warned
Huge Member
********

Reputation: 1033

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2279





Ignore
« Reply #3876 on: April 26, 2014, 12:57:45 AM »

Ok - DC for spoonie, Cooper for Fertiv and I'll have Richie....that sounds amicable to me'

MissManton - then Kate married the wrong man. There's not a thing wrong with wanting to be a stay at home mum but if that is your desire and you meet someone who wants to get into politics/acting or is already in the public eye then you have to decide...either you can't get what you want (a private, stay at home looking after the kids life) or you can't be with this person. William himself said in their engagement interview - she had plenty of time and opportunity to get out if it wasn't what she wanted.

As for the charities - it's not that they couldn't but they wouldn't. It would cause an uproar IMO.
Logged
Emily
Banned
Banned
Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 308

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 889





Ignore
« Reply #3877 on: April 26, 2014, 01:05:17 AM »

Can anyone answer this-I wrote this earlier, it got skipped over and I would love to know what you think:

One thing that is very interesting to me and forgive me if it has been said before, but Arthur Edwards, the esteemed royal photographer, who has walked the beat since 77 and who even William likes asked on his Twitter, when would England get to see George? Now if HE is asking that, you know there is an issue.


Arthur Edwards is a professional photographer so of course he's interested in when George will next be photographed.

But it's well over 30 years since Edwards' heyday and times have changed. The interest just isn't there. William and Kate are regarded as dull and their baby is regarded as just a baby... The Daily Mail tries it's best but remember that most people don't read the DM and the other papers arn't interested. Nobody is bothered if we don't see the baby. Nobody was bothered because he was unveiled in NZ first. He's not a working royal, he's an eight-month-old, no-one expects much from him at all.

Regarding your other questions - no charity would dump Kate. It just isn't worth it to them to create any drama. The types of people/orgs who would snub her would be doing so to generate publicity for their republican causes, and charities don't belong to this group.

In any case everything is frozen while QEII is alive. People are kindly enough to remember that these people are her family and no-one wants to give an old lady pain by criticizing her kin. Nothing will happen IMO till she passes on, and she looks to be healthy for another 20 years. So resign yourself to another 20 years of the status quo.
Logged
Visenya

Large Member
******

Reputation: 172

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1421


Aegon > William


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #3878 on: April 26, 2014, 01:09:55 AM »

There have been complaints (the $$$ is better spent elsewhere, time for a republic, etc...) about the visit in NZ but the government and PR media team won't highlight the discontent because the current prime minister is very pro-monarchy and has a vested interest to make it appear the tour has gone well. The turn out crowds to see them aren't anything extraordinary, celebrities have pulled similar and even larger amounts of people. The media has lied about the crowd numbers repeatedly.  

I imagine it is similar for Aussie, there have been reports that the crowds going to see them aren't anything spectacular, Kim K managed to get a similar amount of fan turnouts. The Aussie prime minister is very pro-monarchy as well, so I wouldn't be surprised if he is jumping through the hoops and manipulating the mainstream media in the background to sideline any complaints and hide anything that would put these two in a bad light.  

Yes, there was whinging last month by one (admittedly minor) media outlet, Crikey, about the expense of this trip.  They tried to piece together what it might cost and estimated in excess of $2million.

It's interesting.  I had no idea that a) royals can and do give out gifts (but I understand that that might only happen if QEII visits because it's a meeting of equals or something like that) and b) we pay for them if they do!  So basically they identify they would like to present a gift, we pay for that gift but we don't get to sign the card LOL.

http://www.crikey.com.au/...d-kates-aussie-adventure/

It will come out around budget estimates time so we won't have long to wait to find out the indicative final bill.  
It's very usual of tours that the royals exchange gifts (and yes, it appears that the people pay for them). I know that Charles has on occasion asked that instead of a gift, the money is given to charity. But I think there's a budget for the gifts, don't quote me on that, I might be wrong tho.  Confused
Logged

Never grow a wishbone, daughter, where your backbone ought to be. Clementine Paddleford
Fiction is the Truth inside a Lie. Stephen King.
Fertiv
Banned
Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 278

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 993





Ignore
« Reply #3879 on: April 26, 2014, 01:16:30 AM »

Can anyone answer this-I wrote this earlier, it got skipped over and I would love to know what you think:

One thing that is very interesting to me and forgive me if it has been said before, but Arthur Edwards, the esteemed royal photographer, who has walked the beat since 77 and who even William likes asked on his Twitter, when would England get to see George? Now if HE is asking that, you know there is an issue.

I want to raise a hypothetical and would love to know the answer: what if Kate is really only interested in raising her children well and keeping house? What if she feels those her most important jobs? What if that is really all she wants to do? What if she were to not really do charity and stay with her kids, making sure they turned out well?

Also on the flip side, say Kate's charities get fed up with her? Could they dump her for being lazy and would that cause drama?

now we've all sorted out our sex lives...

I don't see AEs comments as particularly telling - he is a royal photographer and gets paid to take pics of the royals and george is no1 best seller right now... I personally don't expect to see George until probally his birthday sometime...

As to Kate as a royal housewife, well  I think its the case that she wants to do that.  To date she's not officially a full time working royal and I don't expect that to change in the next few months at least.
Alot depends on Williams next move,  I'm not sure that will be full time royal duty either - there is some talk about government postings or some such role.  If he becomes a full time working royal then she will probably do more engagements, but I don't think that will be for a couple of years for either of them.  
I personally think this plan has the agreement and approval of Charles and the Queen..  none of them want another Diana and none of them want another unhappy marriage/childhood for a royal prince.  They all know that W&K get the limelight whatever they do (hence the others all basically took the month off while they were on tour) and they don't necessarily want that to happen.

As for the charities,  no they're not going to drop a royal patron, it hugely increases their publicity and cachet.  Also,  she is only patron of a small number vs say Philip being patron of must be getting on for a thousand.  she can do say two visits a year to them, whereas Phil couldn't get round all his so by that (crap) measure she does more for them than the average.



Logged
dawni

Mini Member
***

Reputation: 211

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 328





Ignore
« Reply #3880 on: April 26, 2014, 01:18:09 AM »

Can anyone answer this-I wrote this earlier, it got skipped over and I would love to know what you think:

One thing that is very interesting to me and forgive me if it has been said before, but Arthur Edwards, the esteemed royal photographer, who has walked the beat since 77 and who even William likes asked on his Twitter, when would England get to see George? Now if HE is asking that, you know there is an issue.

I want to raise a hypothetical and would love to know the answer: what if Kate is really only interested in raising her children well and keeping house? What if she feels those her most important jobs? What if that is really all she wants to do? What if she were to not really do charity and stay with her kids, making sure they turned out well?

Also on the flip side, say Kate's charities get fed up with her? Could they dump her for being lazy and would that cause drama?

I've said before that what really matters is what William and Kate will do once they're back in the UK. If they disappear into private life again, taking George with them, there will definitely be complaints. People aren't stupid, they won't be happy to see British people and good causes ignored, plus no sight of George, after this tour. So if all we see is William handing out a few honours in Buckingham Palace on behalf of the Queen, and the two of them attending an occasional evening fun event, their popularity will once again drop as it did after their Maldives holiday. Like it or not, they're going to have to buckle down and work in the UK, and they're going to have to show George to his fellow citizens - anything less will just start the complaints up again. I noticed in the Daily Mail comments that while the overseas comments were mostly favourable, those from the British weren't always so nice, quite a few being on the lines of 'Well, if you like them so much you can keep them and pay for them'! No point in W & K going all out to impress the New Zealanders and Australians if they fail to impress at home.

As for Kate - when she married William she signed up to a life of public service, so she can't just elect to be a wife and mother only, much more is expected of her, no matter how important those particular roles are. So far she's done little work and I'm sure her charities must wonder when she's going to start doing as much as possible to promote them. I can't even remember the names of her charities, though maybe that's just me (I only remember the Art Room one). I'm hoping that maybe this tour will have taught Kate the value of being seen to work, that's she's learnt that she really can get publicity for good causes if she's seen publicly to make visits and talk to people. There was talk about 'secret' visits to charities in the past, but the whole point of having a royal as patron is to draw public attention to the charity, something that no secret visit can possibly do.
Logged
divinemiss

Warned
Huge Member
********

Reputation: 1033

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2279





Ignore
« Reply #3881 on: April 26, 2014, 01:38:24 AM »

Genuinely don't want to get into an argument but: if everyone has decided that she's going to be a stay-at-home mum then on what planet did it seem like a good idea to kick a tennant out of Amner and saddle the taxpayer with renovation costs, kick a charity out of 1A and saddle the taxpayer with more renovation costs?

Surely if the agreed position is "stay-at-home" then a little cottage somewhere a la Anglesey (with decent transport links, I'm not suggesting the outer Hebrides) would have been what was decided. And a clear directive that this is what has been decided issued.

No one in their right mind would think that a stance of "we're not working unless it involves a gala, celebrities or an overseas trip but remember we're really important so we need a huge apartment in London and two or three large country piles too - all done up by the taxpayer" is going to be acceptable for any length of time.

It doesn't make sense
Logged
Sparky

Big Member
*******

Reputation: 600

Offline Offline

Posts: 1697





Ignore
« Reply #3882 on: April 26, 2014, 02:00:04 AM »

Genuinely don't want to get into an argument but: if everyone has decided that she's going to be a stay-at-home mum then on what planet did it seem like a good idea to kick a tennant out of Amner and saddle the taxpayer with renovation costs, kick a charity out of 1A and saddle the taxpayer with more renovation costs?

Surely if the agreed position is "stay-at-home" then a little cottage somewhere a la Anglesey (with decent transport links, I'm not suggesting the outer Hebrides) would have been what was decided. And a clear directive that this is what has been decided issued.

No one in their right mind would think that a stance of "we're not working unless it involves a gala, celebrities or an overseas trip but remember we're really important so we need a huge apartment in London and two or three large country piles too - all done up by the taxpayer" is going to be acceptable for any length of time

It doesn't make sense

 Star  Good post ITA.


IMO - she doesn't want to be a stay at home wife and mother. She wants to be a kept woman, live life in her own terms and pop out for the occasional limelight to keep the plebs happy, pretty much a royal WAG. I doubt she does any housework, cooking, diaper changing, midnight feedings, etc...  the dirty and not so fun jobs are for the housekeepers, cooks, nannies and other hired staff.

Both Horse Face and Waity have a long history of avoiding any work of substance, of course there are plenty of excuses for them - oh the media circus is too much, daddy Charles is too jealous and stopped them, they need time to settle down as an engaged couple/newly-weds/new parents, we can't ever repeated Diana in the early years and overwork the snowflakes, they don't need to work because they aren't the prince and princess of wales yet, etc...

These two have lied to the public plenty of times on the issue - such as leaving the paralympics early to prepare for the asia tour... only to be caught holidaying in France. Of course, it is the media's fault.

I doubt they are being held back from working by jealous royals. If these two really wanted to work then nothing could have really stopped them. They have done things out of their own initiative plenty of times, without anyone looming over them and even against the advice and orders from the top dogs at Buckingham palace.

« Last Edit: April 26, 2014, 02:25:42 AM by Sparky » Logged

Fertiv
Banned
Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 278

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 993





Ignore
« Reply #3883 on: April 26, 2014, 02:03:12 AM »

Genuinely don't want to get into an argument but: if everyone has decided that she's going to be a stay-at-home mum then on what planet did it seem like a good idea to kick a tennant out of Amner and saddle the taxpayer with renovation costs, kick a charity out of 1A and saddle the taxpayer with more renovation costs?

Surely if the agreed position is "stay-at-home" then a little cottage somewhere a la Anglesey (with decent transport links, I'm not suggesting the outer Hebrides) would have been what was decided. And a clear directive that this is what has been decided issued.

No one in their right mind would think that a stance of "we're not working unless it involves a gala, celebrities or an overseas trip but remember we're really important so we need a huge apartment in London and two or three large country piles too - all done up by the taxpayer" is going to be acceptable for any length of time.

It doesn't make sense

No argument from me its a fair point.

First thing i'd say is that she doesn't live alone so what she does is only half the issue.   Secondly, well Anmer belongs to HMQ so she is paying for the renovations/ tenant removal... I can't imagine that anyone other than her and Phil decided to present the house to  William and his wife.

I really doubt that any directives being issued are being made from W&K,  they are given choices in that do you want to live in palace A or palace B, appartment 1a or 1b,  it is always what's going to happen. 
Refurb costs are what they are, nearly 10million was spent last year on fixing things up around the place, its a lot of money sure but, then its all relative.

Who knows where they would chose to live if they had a free choice - a nice semi in Bucklebury maybe. 

Logged
Emily
Banned
Banned
Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 308

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 889





Ignore
« Reply #3884 on: April 26, 2014, 02:03:59 AM »

It's entirely possible that Kate quite wants to do things because we know she likes the limelight -  but is prevented from doing so by the needs of Charles (who now controls the PR of all of them).

I might be mis-remembering and no doubt people will correct me if I have, but Diana didn't go full on with her charitable works till she separated from Charles. Partly because she needed something to occupy her, and partly because, free of the palace, she could do charity without worrying about whether she was stealing limelight from Charles (and by that time she loved to draw attention away from him and he hated every minute of it).

We've already had reports that Charles has been disgruntled about the Australia tour - see here.

So if we don't see much of Waity it might be because she's lazy. But it might also be because Charles thinks she, William and George have had their quota of publicity for this year. Anything is possible (and Charles is slightly bonkers - what normal man is jealous of his son doing a dull tour of the Antipodes?) And I don't think Waity has any more control of the situation than Diana did while she was married.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 257 258 [259] 260 261 ... 273   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: