The uncomfortable truth about Kate and William that nobody wants to admit

[Social Media]

 

The recent turmoil and unanswered questions surrounding Kate and William have sparked speculation and scrutiny, particularly in the wake of a controversial photograph and Kate's absence from public events. Despite attempts by tabloids to downplay the situation, there is a growing sense of unease and mistrust within the public and the media.

 

In the aftermath of Queen Elizabeth II's reign, the royal family faced challenges in maintaining stability and public confidence. While Prince Charles stepped up to fulfill his duties, Prince William and Kate Middleton found themselves thrust into a more prominent role. However, the absence of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, coupled with health issues faced by other senior royals, has left a void within the institution.

 

The shrinking royal family is now under increased scrutiny, with attention focused on William and Kate as the new "lynchpins" of the monarchy. Yet, Kate's recent health struggles and the intense media scrutiny surrounding her only exacerbate the situation. As the monarchy faces internal and external pressures, including a growing republican movement and shifting public attitudes, the future of the institution remains uncertain.

 

William's approach to his royal duties reflects a desire for autonomy and control, as seen in his selective participation in public events and reluctance to engage with media scrutiny. However, this approach risks alienating both traditional royal supporters and a younger, more cynical generation who view the monarchy with skepticism.

 

As social media becomes a primary source of news and information, the royal family's ability to control their public image is increasingly challenged. The younger generation, in particular, may prove less inclined to support the monarchy, posing a significant threat to its long-term viability.

 

Ultimately, the future of the monarchy hinges on its ability to adapt to changing societal norms and maintain relevance in an increasingly diverse and skeptical world. Apathy and indifference, rather than outright revolution, may prove to be the greatest challenges facing the modern monarchy.

 

18.03.24

Source

[JonnyF]

Nonsense. We're gonna have the best flag AND the hottest Queen in the world.

 

Rule Britannia! 

[BritManToo]

Andy says he's ready and willing to take up the slack!

[2baht]

Absolute gutter press, why don't you find a story that effects your readers??? More rubbish from the gutter!

[Rimmer]

A troll post has been removed

[Chomper Higgot]

I thought the truth nobody wants to admit would be the obvious eating disorder.

[RayC]

3 hours ago, 2baht said:

Absolute gutter press, why don't you find a story that effects your readers??? More rubbish from the gutter!

 

Why rubbish?

 

Assuming that the UK constitution doesn't change and that he doesn't predecease his father, William will be the next unelected UK Head of State so issues surrounding him are of public interest.

 

I hope that his wife recovers from her health problems but if there are aspects of his life - such as his obvious concern for her well-being - which might restrict his ability to perform his future role effectively then the public should be aware of the fact. The public also has every right to know how he is likely to approach his future role. 

 

If William is unable and/or unwilling to meet those conditions then he should step aside. We could then install a Head of State who is democratically elected by the UK electorate.

[JonnyF]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I thought the truth nobody wants to admit would be the obvious eating disorder.

 

Truth? 😆

 

Unsubstantiated gossip.

[george]

In a lot of recent articles it suggest that her her health issue could be mentally related. I guess they are talking about anxiety/depression here. Always a stigma to talk about mental illnesses. Poor her.

[hotchilli]

6 hours ago, 2baht said:

Absolute gutter press, why don't you find a story that effects your readers??? More rubbish from the gutter!

Vultures, anything for a story

[Scouse123]

There has been so much dirty washing aired in public by that family of late, both before and after the death of our magnificent Queen, Elizabeth ll, maybe it is time we became a republic with the behaviour of Andrew, Harry, and others.

 

The Royal Family are supposed to be a shining example of Britain and these days, falls well short of the mark.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 18 by Scouse123

[brewsterbudgen]

Twitter/X full of rumours that King Charles has expired...

[Bangkok Barry]

2 hours ago, RayC said:

democratically elected by the UK electorate.

 

UK elections are not democratic. When you add up the votes of the various parties after an election, it is rare that the party which forms the government has more than 50% of the total votes. In other words, over 50% did not not vote for the new government. The majority did not want that government. Strange kind of democracy.

 

But at least it's better than Thailand where even if 100% voted for one party it would be banned if it was the 'wrong' winner.

[Scouse123]

16 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Twitter/X full of rumours that King Charles has expired...

 

 

I don't believe that.

 

11 minutes ago, Bangkok Barry said:

UK elections are not democratic. When you add up the votes of the various parties after an election, it is rare that the party which forms the government has more than 50% of the total votes. In other words, over 50% did not not vote for the new government. The majority did not want that government. Strange kind of democracy.

 

We rarely get the governments we would like - Ask the Russians.

[RayC]

51 minutes ago, Bangkok Barry said:

 

UK elections are not democratic. When you add up the votes of the various parties after an election, it is rare that the party which forms the government has more than 50% of the total votes. In other words, over 50% did not not vote for the new government. The majority did not want that government. Strange kind of democracy.

 

But at least it's better than Thailand where even if 100% voted for one party it would be banned if it was the 'wrong' winner.

 

I agree that UK elections could be more democratic, however the election for a Head of State couldn't follow the 'first past the post' system.

 

At least other three possibilities for deciding a winner spring to mind: 1) 'Winner takes all' i.e. person with the highest number of votes wins 2) Runoff if no candidate gets >50% e.g. similar to French Presidential elections 3) Single Transferable Vote.

 

Whatever system is chosen, by definition it will be more democratic than the system based on inheritance which we currently have.

[pelagicpete]

I am sorry, I cannot let this go unanswered. 

Shame on the Independent for publishing this load of old cobblers.

This has been written by a republican journalist, it has no standing and not an ounce of truth where the beliefs hopes and fears of the mass of general public

in the UK are concerned. 

There have always been a hard core of republicans who like to make a name for themselves by attempting to reduce the value and social importance of our Royal family. This is not new. But for a large national newspaper to put out a story attempting to 'gentrify' this opinion is a shame and tells us much about the editorship of today's modern Independent newspaper, nothing else.

Maybe it is the opinion of a few of their metro friends and they felt the need to virtue polish their obviously shaky place in the rankings.

Well, I call BS and shame on them for this wanton attempt at destruction of our Royal family, a beloved institution that does a lot of good around the World. Bless them, in a hard world they are a ray of light.

[VocalNeal]

4 hours ago, RayC said:

We could then install a Head of State who is democratically elected by the UK electorate.

 

Like Tony Blair. God forbid.

[RayC]

1 minute ago, VocalNeal said:

 

Like Tony Blair. God forbid.

 

You could vote against him becoming HoS. If enough Brits shared your opinion, Blair would not be elected. 

[PETERTHEEATER]

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Truth? 😆

 

Unsubstantiated gossip.

But, but it was on BookFace......😋

[RayC]

29 minutes ago, pelagicpete said:

I am sorry, I cannot let this go unanswered. 

Shame on the Independent for publishing this load of old cobblers.

This has been written by a republican journalist, it has no standing and not an ounce of truth where the beliefs hopes and fears of the mass of general public

in the UK are concerned. 

There have always been a hard core of republicans who like to make a name for themselves by attempting to reduce the value and social importance of our Royal family. This is not new. But for a large national newspaper to put out a story attempting to 'gentrify' this opinion is a shame and tells us much about the editorship of today's modern Independent newspaper, nothing else.

Maybe it is the opinion of a few of their metro friends and they felt the need to virtue polish their obviously shaky place in the rankings.

Well, I call BS and shame on them for this wanton attempt at destruction of our Royal family, a beloved institution that does a lot of good around the World. Bless them, in a hard world they are a ray of light.

 

The author of the article, Tessa Dunlop, is an historian and describes herself as a "soft" monarchist. So much for republican bias.

[JonnyF]

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

The author of the article, Tessa Dunlop, is an historian and describes herself as a "soft" monarchist. So much for republican bias.

 

"Soft Monarchist"? 😆

 

She despises the monarchy. You only have to listen to her talking about them for 5 minutes to witness the envy and hatred seeping out from every aged pore. 

[Bangkok Barry]

1 hour ago, Thingamabob said:

Now conveniently forgotten it should be remembered that William lost his temper and insisted a lady telephone operator of Indian origin should be sacked for mistakenly putting through a fake call from Australia to Kate at St. George's hospital in London. The lady operator commited suicide out of shame. Worrying that the same William will one day be king.

 

That was a very well-known prankster who is very, very well skilled in deceiving others, And if you can produce a quote from a reliable source that William lost his temper and said she should be sacked then please do. In fact, news reports said exactly the opposite. From this link:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-13/prank-call-dj-apologises-to-family-of-nurse-who-suicided/5741442

"We would like to thank the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge who publicly and privately have supported the family and have always been concerned for their welfare," said British politician Keith Vaz, who has been representing Saldanha's family.

 

 

[Bangkok Barry]

The Head Of State is the Prime Minister, who is unelected as such by the people but by the Party membership.

 

The King or Queen is Head of the Commonwealth and acts in an advisory role in weekly meetings with the Prime Minister. The Royal Family has no active role in government, demonstrated by its representative, Black Rod, having the door to the Commons slammed in her face as she approaches from the Lords to summons MPs to hear the King's speech, which lays out the government's ambitions for the coming year.

[Bangkok Barry]

Just now, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Do you have a link to that story ?

The bit about Willian losing his temper with the receptionist , as that isnt my recollection of events 

 

You don't have a recollection as it didn't happen.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-13/prank-call-dj-apologises-to-family-of-nurse-who-suicided/5741442

[Nick Carter icp]

1 hour ago, Thingamabob said:

Now conveniently forgotten it should be remembered that William lost his temper and insisted a lady telephone operator of Indian origin should be sacked for mistakenly putting through a fake call from Australia to Kate at St. George's hospital in London. The lady operator commited suicide out of shame. Worrying that the same William will one day be king.

 

   Here is the story and no mention of William getting angry or calling for her to be sacked 

(BTW , why is here Indian origin any relevance ?)

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/jacintha-saldanha-took-blame-prank-call-duchess-cambridge-australian-djs-inquest

 

 

 

[RayC]

20 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

"Soft Monarchist"? 😆

 

She despises the monarchy. You only have to listen to her talking about them for 5 minutes to witness the envy and hatred seeping out from every aged pore. 

 

She has gone of record stating that she does not want rid of the monarchy so - unless she's lying - by definition, that makes her a monarchist.

 

Like any other rational person, she doesn't appear to believe in the 'divine right of kings'. If that adds up to despisal, then there's plenty of us who fit the bill 

 

[Bangkok Barry]

 

William and Kate are the latest example of the once rigid formality of the Royal Family being eased, largely as a result of the enormous outcry when the Queen remained in Scotland after Princess Diana was killed. The whole 'enterprise' then was on very rocky ground, explained later by her desire to protect William and Harry from the huge public reaction to her death.

 

William has continued his mother's informality as much as he is able, and both he and Kate have attended many charities that help others. William's more down-to-earth approach, again as taught by Diana, in my opinion continues a march in the right direction. Just don't expect to see him riding the Tube, as he did in disguise as a kid.

 

At the same time, I find it ironic how many call for the royals to 'get a proper job' (without knowing what they actually do) and when Harry decided to 'get off the gravy train' and do exactly that he was vilified by many.

[RayC]

13 minutes ago, Bangkok Barry said:

The Head Of State is the Prime Minister, who is unelected as such by the people but by the Party membership.

 

The King or Queen is Head of the Commonwealth and acts in an advisory role in weekly meetings with the Prime Minister. The Royal Family has no active role in government, demonstrated by its representative, Black Rod, having the door to the Commons slammed in her face as she approaches from the Lords to summons MPs to hear the King's speech, which lays out the government's ambitions for the coming year.

 

The PM is the leader of the government. The Head of State is the Monarch. Although he is unelected, the King holds constitutional powers and could exercise them through the use of the Royal Prerogative.

[Bangkok Barry]

17 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

The PM is the leader of the government. The Head of State is the Monarch. Although he is unelected, the King holds constitutional powers and could exercise them through the use of the Royal Prerogative.

 

The real Head of State is the PM. The King is largely a figurehead with no direct constitutional role, no matter what powers he might have on paper. If he took an active role in the actual running of the country or in enacting laws against the wish of the elected government then there would be uproar and rebellion. The compromise, if you will, is that he advises. But he does not impose, even if constitutionally he can.

Edited March 18 by Bangkok Barry

[Bangkok Barry]

In my line of work I have known a huge number of personalities, people who because of their talent are forced to live their life in the spotlight, and it isn't necessarily the glamourous life you might expect. Imagine being stared at wherever you go, if you are even able to go where you want to in the first place. Of course, there are the financial benefits, and the ability to get a table in a restaurant that is 'full'. And the famous meet others who are famous, people they admire and those us mere morals have no access to. Doors are opened. Most balance it well. A minority do not and fall by the wayside.

 

William and Kate do not have the option of leaving their job. Harry did, and look how he was hated for it, moving away from the tabloid attention he has largely and successfully sued against, leaving the intense spotlight he was under in the UK. That spotlight can be intense, and a life of privilege isn't without its downsides as well as its benefits. It isn't all roses.