Nancyg56
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2005
Personally, I believe the monarchy is archaic. I don't see how they are relevant at all, but that is simply my opinion.They didn't specify that William's sudden change in plans was anything to do with Kate's condition. They simply didn't specify anything. They have 3 kids as well. It's not impossible that one of the kids had a sudden medical need and Kate not being at full force meant William stepped in.
Is it okay to keep the kids' business private if something occurs, or are they considered public entities and owing to the public in return for their room and board as well?
I fully believe the monarchy is something that GB is going to be grappling to sort out over the next several years, a recalibration in the wake of a monarch who ruled an extraordinary length of time. If the monarchy manages to survive it will not be well served to have another generation forced to be automatically shunted aside in the name of royal duty at all costs.
I also think that if the number of royal appearances that I read William appeared at is correct, (13) under any circumstances he is very fortunate that he holds the position he currently has. Again, I don't live in GB, so my perception is that they are vastly overpaid for what they do, and frankly while the senior royals are not required to share info about their kids, they might want to consider being a little more open about their own absence for the job with the people who pay their bills.
I have no idea what Kate is going through, however I cannot understand the reasoning of allowing an obviously PS image of her family to be released. While William may not be King at this time, if he truly aspires to that position, he might want to consider that the perception of the people he wants to reign over is his reality. I dont have a dog in their race, but for 2 people who want to be King and Queen someday, they are not playing a smart longgame.