William and Kate are the most boring, vanilla royals ever…

[Sneezyone]

🚨 Unpopular opinion 🚨

I’m not a big ‘follower’ of royals b/c USIAN but it occurred to me today (after seeing an uncomfortably odd portrait revealed) that once the elderly monarch (with her connections to significant global events and the decline of empire) is gone, the successor couples might end up homeless pensioners. They’re BORING. W/O a bad boy/girl/couple foil, they pale and fade away in the global consciousness, much the way pa has upon entering his innocuous second marriage. Who, globally, would look to either of the successor couples as notable experts or visionaries or symbols of triumph? The younger, in particular, has seemingly never put a public step wrong. Who among their subjects can relate to that? Jesus is a better exemplar and costs a lot less to worship, lol.

[bensonduck]

I disagree. I think they are very effective at their jobs. In my opinion, the objective of the modern monarchy in the UK is public service and I think they carry off their engagements well and bring a lot of attention to causes they care about.
 

For example, William’s recent turn selling the Big Issue newspaper got a lot of attention and got many people thinking about homelessness. Even his “official” 40th birthday photos released by the royal family were of him selling the paper! 
 

The point of the monarchy is *not* to put a foot wrong. We’re not supposed to be able to relate to them. They work hard, very publicly, on their causes. 
 

I do not worship them- but I have a lot of respect for William and Catherine especially. Working and raising a family in that most intense fishbowl can’t be easy. 

[Catwoman]

I like them.  🙂 

[Dianthus]

I think Catherine is lovely, so calm and kind. William is ok. They do a good job together.

Eta: so much harder doing what's right than not, with the public eye. I don't like your insinuation that well behaved white people are boring. Vanilla??? How is saying that ok?

Edited June 23, 2022 by Spirea

[Sneezyone]

3 hours ago, Spirea said:

I think Catherine is lovely, so calm and kind. William is ok. They do a good job together.

Eta: so much harder doing what's right than not, with the public eye. I don't like your insinuation that well behaved white people are boring. Vanilla??? How is saying that ok?

They are, IMO, as boring as vanilla ice cream. It's a simile. That's good in some ways (it's TASTY!) and bad in others (it's UNINSPIRED!). I could use Oscar Meyer wieners instead to the same effect. ETA: It is possible to be both tasty and pack a punch...think rum raisin. Same base, more impact.

Edited June 24, 2022 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, bensonduck said:

The point of the monarchy is *not* to put a foot wrong. We’re not supposed to be able to relate to them. They work hard, very publicly, on their causes. 
 

I do not worship them- but I have a lot of respect for William and Catherine especially. Working and raising a family in that most intense fishbowl can’t be easy. 

I agree with the latter but not so much the former. I don't think people idealize perfection. They value AUTHENTICITY. I don't think their personas are authentic.

I do respect their work ethic tho. It must take a lot of emotional energy to do their jobs.

I didn't quote the other things you mentioned because as a 'non-follower' it never crossed my radar.

Edited June 23, 2022 by Sneezyone

[Scarlett]

14 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

They are, IMO, as boring as vanilla ice cream. It's a simile. That's good in some ways (it's TASTY!) and bad in others (it's UNINSPIRED!). I could use Oscar Meyer wieners instead to the same effect. 

I definitely prefer vanilla ice cream to Oscar Meyer!  Gag.

I like WM and Kate well enough.  For strangers I don’t really know.  Lol

[itsheresomewhere]

I like them.  And I find their kids adorable. 

[WildflowerMom]

I’m not a royals person, at all, no matter the country.  However, I do like William and Kate because they just don’t invite any drama.    It’s nice to have leaders who just do their job instead of act the fool, run their mouths, or God forbid, become a predator like his creepy uncle.   

[Selkie]

1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:

🚨 Unpopular opinion 🚨

I’m not a big ‘follower’ of royals b/c USIAN but it occurred to me today (after seeing an uncomfortably odd portrait revealed) that once the elderly monarch (with her connections to significant global events and the decline of empire) is gone, the successor couples might end up homeless pensioners. They’re BORING. W/O a bad boy/girl/couple foil, they pale and fade away in the global consciousness, much the way pa has upon entering his innocuous second marriage. Who, globally, would look to either of the successor couples as notable experts or visionaries or symbols of triumph? The younger, in particular, has seemingly never put a public step wrong. Who among their subjects can relate to that? Jesus is a better exemplar and costs a lot less to worship, lol.

I don't think so. From what I've seen, William and Kate seem to be quite highly regarded and popular with the British people.

 

 

[Scarlett]

19 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I agree with the latter but not so much the former. I don't think people idealize perfection. They value AUTHENTICITY. I don't think their personas are authentic.

I do respect their work ethic tho. It must take a lot of emotional energy to do their jobs.

I didn't quote the other things you mentioned because as a 'non-follower' it never crossed my radar.

Charles was the most inauthentic person ever…..marrying a young woman while  in love with a married woman.  

[mathnerd]

I don’t think that bad boy princes and socialite princesses are cool and that hard working and ordinary royal couples are uninspiring or bad. William and Cate are far more like able than Charles and Camilla, to me. I don’t follow them on principle because I hate the connotation of Colonialism, Subjugation and Looting of the commonwealth colonies that the Royal family name invokes in my mind. But, for me, amongst them all, these two are more like able than even their parents.

Edited June 23, 2022 by mathnerd

[Mrs Tiggywinkle]

4 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Charles was the most inauthentic person ever…..marrying a young woman while  in love with a married woman.  

I know it’s unpopular, but I feel sorry for young Charles. He wanted to marry Camilla. He was in love with her. I think it’s clear to everyone now that they are a loving couple and a good team and should have been allowed to be together from the start.  Diana could have married someone who gave her the love and adoration she needed.  Everyone could have been happy had Charles and Camilla been allowed to marry at the beginning.

[Catwoman]

9 minutes ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle said:

I know it’s unpopular, but I feel sorry for young Charles. He wanted to marry Camilla. He was in love with her. I think it’s clear to everyone now that they are a loving couple and a good team and should have been allowed to be together from the start.  Diana could have married someone who gave her the love and adoration she needed.  Everyone could have been happy had Charles and Camilla been allowed to marry at the beginning.

Yes, I’m sure he always regretted not having married Camilla when he first had the chance. I could be remembering the story wrong, but it sounds like he didn’t realize that he really loved her and wanted to marry her until she had already married someone else. She had gotten sick of waiting for him. Also, it sounds like the Queen wouldn’t have been happy if he had married Camilla back then.

They certainly appear to be extremely happy together now. They have been together for years, and they seem to be the perfect match.

Edited June 23, 2022 by Catwoman

[itsheresomewhere]

6 minutes ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle said:

I know it’s unpopular, but I feel sorry for young Charles. He wanted to marry Camilla. He was in love with her. I think it’s clear to everyone now that they are a loving couple and a good team and should have been allowed to be together from the start.  Diana could have married someone who gave her the love and adoration she needed.  Everyone could have been happy had Charles and Camilla been allowed to marry at the beginning.

I agree.  

[Mrs Tiggywinkle]

5 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

Yes, I’m sure he always regretted not having married Camilla when he first had the chance. I could be remembering the story wrong, but it sounds like he didn’t realize that he really loved her and wanted to marry her until she had already married someone else. She had gotten sick of waiting for him. 

They certainly appear to be extremely happy together now. They have been together for years, and they seem to be the perfect match.

She’d had boyfriends and was not a virgin.  The Queen Mother especially considered her totally unsuitable(and probably not of as high birth as they wanted for a future Queen) and they maneuvered to send Charles away. Camilla probably figured out they didn’t want her around and moved on with her life. Clearly it didn’t work.

Edited June 23, 2022 by Mrs Tiggywinkle

[Catwoman]

1 minute ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle said:

She’d had boyfriends and was not a virgin.  The Queen Mother especially considered her especially unsuitable and they maneuvered to send Charles off.  Camilla probably figured out they didn’t want her around and moved on with her life. Clearly it didn’t work.

There are so many stories about why Charles and Camilla didn't marry back in the early 70's, and I'm sure the truth is a combination of all of them. One thing that does seem true is that Charles doesn't seem to have fought for the right to marry Camilla, because he was happy as a single guy. And really, it would have been hard to blame him -- he was a future king, and women were always throwing themselves at him. I can't really fault an eligible guy in his 20s for wanting to do a lot of dating.

[Scarlett]

12 minutes ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle said:

I know it’s unpopular, but I feel sorry for young Charles. He wanted to marry Camilla. He was in love with her. I think it’s clear to everyone now that they are a loving couple and a good team and should have been allowed to be together from the start.  Diana could have married someone who gave her the love and adoration she needed.  Everyone could have been happy had Charles and Camilla been allowed to marry at the beginning.

Oh I definitely have come to have a lot of sympathy for him. But he was inauthentic. 
 

My understanding is he was not allowed to marry her.  You know—- until 2 marriages were wrecked, children were left with broken homes, a princess was killed and THEN he was allowed to.  

[Scarlett]

3 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

There are so many stories about why Charles and Camilla didn't marry back in the early 70's, and I'm sure the truth is a combination of all of them. One thing that does seem true is that Charles doesn't seem to have fought for the right to marry Camilla, because he was happy as a single guy. And really, it would have been hard to blame him -- he was a future king, and women were always throwing themselves at him. I can't really fault an eligible guy in his 20s for wanting to do a lot of dating.

I think he was encouraged to do a lot of ‘dating’.  Clearly it was very very bad advice.

[Catwoman]

8 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I think he was encouraged to do a lot of ‘dating’.  Clearly it was very very bad advice.

Why? What was wrong with him doing a lot of dating?

 

Edited June 23, 2022 by Catwoman
I can't type

[Scarlett]

13 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

Why? What was wrong with him doing a lot of dating?

 

Do you think that turned out well for him?

[Catwoman]

Just now, Scarlett said:

Do you think that turned out well for him?

Sure, why not?

Honestly, it probably would have turned out a lot better for him if he had continued dating and having fun, instead of caving into family pressure and marrying a woman he didn't love.

[Scarlett]

1 minute ago, Catwoman said:

Sure, why not?

Honestly, it probably would have turned out a lot better for him if he had continued dating and having fun, instead of caving into family pressure and marrying a woman he didn't love.

That is one way to view it.  I was thinking back way up and when you fall in love marry her and stop dating. 

[Catwoman]

Just now, Scarlett said:

That is one way to view it.  I was thinking back way up and when you fall in love marry her and stop dating. 

Maybe he didn't feel that he was ready for marriage before Camilla married Andrew Parker-Bowles. He was probably enjoying himself too much, or maybe he just wasn't 100% sure she was the one for him. Also, even if he wanted to marry her, his family didn't approve of Camilla, and he probably wasn't confident enough back then to defy his family and tradition. 

[Scarlett]

10 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

Maybe he didn't feel that he was ready for marriage before Camilla married Andrew Parker-Bowles. He was probably enjoying himself too much, or maybe he just wasn't 100% sure she was the one for him. Also, even if he wanted to marry her, his family didn't approve of Camilla, and he probably wasn't confident enough back then to defy his family and tradition. 

And I am saying all of his way of thinking and doing (influenced by his family and tradition) did not work out very well for him.  Or his children.  Or Princess Di.  

[Katy]

I agree it wasn’t a great way of thinking. But then again his uncle had abdicated to marry a divorced woman. And there’s the whole head of the church thing to consider. I definitely understand why Charles’s life turned out the way it is. The main problem is that he was too obvious about rubbing his affair in Diana’s face. He was supposed to keep his lack of character and entitled way of thinking private. 

[Scarlett]

14 minutes ago, Katy said:

I agree it wasn’t a great way of thinking. But then again his uncle had abdicated to marry a divorced woman. And there’s the whole head of the church thing to consider. I definitely understand why Charles’s life turned out the way it is. The main problem is that he was too obvious about rubbing his affair in Diana’s face. He was supposed to keep his lack of character and entitled way of thinking private. 

Yes, all of it is so messy and tragic.  

[Melissa in Australia]

I am very happy to be part of the commonwealth with a royal family. 

 I find it very tiresome to have people in countries that don't have the British royal family saying they are boring etc.  They are doing their job. They aren't there to provide soap opera entertainment 

[Shoeless]

Well, they have a badboy/girl foil in Harry and Meghan. The media seems keen to promote that dynamic, at least.

[Tanaqui]

The British royal family owns a LOT of land, including land in other nations that could not easily be reclaimed by the UK government. Even if the nation decided to just ditch the monarchy altogether, they'd still have all their money and assets and property. So no worries. William and Kate can be as publicly boring as they like, they still will never end up homeless.

Though it does seem to me that the British public might be more likely to ditch the monarchy for being a national embarrassment than for simply being boring and basic. Lots of other places still have monarchies that manage to keep out of the news most of the time.

[Farrar]

I'm also not a big royals follower... I agree that Will and Kate really vanilla. Like vanilla, they're sometimes charming, but usually dull. 

I do find her rare public parenting moments sort of interesting and.... relatable goes too far, but human? Understandable? Decent? Like that image from ages ago where she had baby Charlotte on her hip and George was having a little tantrum and she had to lean down and give him a cajoling talking to while on an airport runway. I like that they have him in ballet - or they did anyway - and they said it was his favorite. Here's to ballet boys. Honestly, Prince George is hilarious. A friend of mine has a kid almost the same age who is a total doppelganger for him and she posts funny images where her kid and Prince George are making the same annoyed little kid faces and he's got a lot of expression in that little kid way.

[Jean in Newcastle]

They aren’t there to be entertainment. Now anyways they are there to provide a face for British interests and for charitable work within the UK. Or at least that’s how I see it. The only reason we see news here in the US is because “news” outlets like People magazine have figured out that articles on them will get views. If articles on the Thai royal family would get views then we’d see coverage of them. 

[Farrar]

As for the other topics in this thread... they'll never be homeless. And on a fundamental level, it's obscene that the royal family exists on the public dime at all. But it's not my country, so I don't judge too much.

I think both Charles and Diana were sad. She was essentially pulled into that life before she had a chance to mature. He is the worst mix of conniving but meek, ambitious but aimless. He's self-involved and cold and immature. But most of it isn't really his fault. Like, the way they treated him. His horrible upbringing. It just seems like he got the worst of both ends. He was spoiled and deprived in all the wrong ways. Children should be spoiled in love, and not deprived, but moderated in terms of getting material goods and indulgences. He was deprived of love and understanding and spoiled in material goods and indulgences.

They're more fun to analyze than this latest generation though. It seems to me that Diana managed to give both William and Harry enough of whatever to make them come out human in the midst of all that. And they've each chosen partners who also ground them reasonably well. I mean, who knows the truth underneath and obviously they've got family "issues" but they seem... fine.

[Rosie_0801]

Eh. They're allowed to be boring. I'm boring too, but they're doing more good in the world than I can.

[DreamerGirl]

A lot of things will change with the Queen dies. Everything from the Commonwealth to the Anglican Church. Her's was the reign where the majority of the Commonwealth countries became independent and voluntarily joined. 

The world the Queen became head of state exists no more. There has been a lot of things that are and will come to a reckoning at this point in time. The whole history of colonization and the part of the BRF played in it a big part of it especially in the role of indigenous people. Many countries in the Caribbean are replacing or have replaced the Queen as head of state. 

There are calls for an apology for colonization from the person who wears the crown and it is louder. It will fall upon her successors to deal with it. Then comes the Anglican church, again world wide and the British Monarch is head of it. Prince Charles is divorced. That will not sit well in many countries. He is not exactly shy about his opinions and making it known unlike his mother which does not sit well with governments.

The world William and Kate inherit will be vastly different from what the Queen inherited. Their personality or popularity will not be a factor in that world like it was for the Queen. Even people who dislike the BRF like her mostly in my experience. Being boring will serve them well.

[Sneezyone]

54 minutes ago, Melissa in Australia said:

I am very happy to be part of the commonwealth with a royal family. 

 I find it very tiresome to have people in countries that don't have the British royal family saying they are boring etc.  They are doing their job. They aren't there to provide soap opera entertainment 

Fair enough. Their faces pop up in local media fairly regularly and I'm over here like...BUT WHY?

[Sneezyone]

2 hours ago, Selkie said:

I don't think so. From what I've seen, William and Kate seem to be quite highly regarded and popular with the British people.

 

 

If that’s the case, God bless ‘em. I’m sure it’ll all be fine. I’m just unconvinced. Seems like a pale imitation of trendsetting. I know ‘that’s not what monarchy is for’ and ‘they’re not entertainers’ except…THEY ARE. They represent one of the oldest forms of entertainment and speculation and leadership…aristocracy. How do you do that and stay relevant when others are doing it better? WRT advocacy and leadership, they offer nothing that can’t be had for far less coin on the economy. Like, are ppl listening to Greta Thunberg (again, I’m not a celebrity follower but even I know of her advocacy work) or Charles (who came first)? It’s more of a curiosity for me than a conviction.

Edited June 24, 2022 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, MissLemon said:

Well, they have a badboy/girl foil in Harry and Meghan. The media seems keen to promote that dynamic, at least.

They're deliberately letting that go tho. I both admire the eschewing of drama and wonder how they survive without it. Before that it was Charles and Di, Andrew and Fergie, Anne, Edward... without the drama or historical leadership/import, what is it?

[wintermom]

I'm curious about where the OP is getting their intel from about British royals. Newspapers, tabloids, TV, social media, wikipedia? How much fact about daily lives is revealed? 

31 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

They're deliberately letting that go tho. I both admire the eschewing of drama and wonder how they survive without it. Before that it was Charles and Di, Andrew and Fergie, Anne, Edward... without the drama or historical leadership/import, what is it?

The media creates the drama in all these cases to make money for themselves. I don't follow any of the 'drama' about the British Royals. I'm a Canadian, so the Queen is the head of my country, but I have no idea of the day-to-day functioning of the Royal family and all their duties entail. I'm pretty sure that keeping Americans entertained is not one of their duties or ambitions.

[Carrie12345]

I feel bad for people born into the public eye. On the surface, I’d say marrying into it is different, but I suppose this was a goal she inherited, too. If they can make that life dull, good on them! They didn’t go looking to be characters in a movie for people’s entertainment. They weren’t given much choice.

[Melissa in Australia]

12 minutes ago, wintermom said:

I'm curious about where the OP is getting their intel from about British royals. Newspapers, tabloids, TV, social media, wikipedia? How much fact about daily lives is revealed? 

The media creates the drama in all these cases to make money for themselves. I don't follow any of the 'drama' about the British Royals. I'm a Canadian, so the Queen is the head of my country, but I have no idea of the day-to-day functioning of the Royal family and all their duties entail. I'm pretty sure that keeping Americans entertained is not one of their duties or ambitions.

This

Thank you

I was really struggling how to politely word basically this. 

The original post is to me more of a reflection on the op choice if media than anything 

[Shoeless]

41 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

They're deliberately letting that go tho. I both admire the eschewing of drama and wonder how they survive without it. Before that it was Charles and Di, Andrew and Fergie, Anne, Edward... without the drama or historical leadership/import, what is it?

A life of public service. Anne does a lot of charity work. Her schedule is jam packed with meetings and events for charities. I think Edward and his wife are pretty busy with events, but they still have kids to mind, so they aren't as busy as Anne.

I think a lot of people are tired of drama, especially drama from wealthy people, and would rather have vanilla and dull if it comes with a good work ethic.

 

[wintermom]

nm

Edited June 24, 2022 by wintermom

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, wintermom said:

I'm curious about where the OP is getting their intel from about British royals. Newspapers, tabloids, TV, social media, wikipedia? How much fact about daily lives is revealed? 

The media creates the drama in all these cases to make money for themselves. I don't follow any of the 'drama' about the British Royals. I'm a Canadian, so the Queen is the head of my country, but I have no idea of the day-to-day functioning of the Royal family and all their duties entail. I'm pretty sure that keeping Americans entertained is not one of their duties or ambitions.

THIS SITE. Literally, that's where I get my 'royal' news. That's primarily where I see it discussed in depth and the adoration for some is obvious and OTT. I just happened to see a story about the first 'official' portrait being unveiled of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on my *WORK* news feed, courtesy of Microsoft, and thought for the umpteenth time...BUT WHY???.

Edited June 24, 2022 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

40 minutes ago, MissLemon said:

A life of public service. Anne does a lot of charity work. Her schedule is jam packed with meetings and events for charities. I think Edward and his wife are pretty busy with events, but they still have kids to mind, so they aren't as busy as Anne.

I think a lot of people are tired of drama, especially drama from wealthy people, and would rather have vanilla and dull if it comes with a good work ethic.

 

Lots of very public, self-supporting people lead those lives tho.

[Sneezyone]

2 hours ago, Farrar said:

I'm also not a big royals follower... I agree that Will and Kate really vanilla. Like vanilla, they're sometimes charming, but usually dull. 

I do find her rare public parenting moments sort of interesting and.... relatable goes too far, but human? Understandable? Decent? Like that image from ages ago where she had baby Charlotte on her hip and George was having a little tantrum and she had to lean down and give him a cajoling talking to while on an airport runway. I like that they have him in ballet - or they did anyway - and they said it was his favorite. Here's to ballet boys. Honestly, Prince George is hilarious. A friend of mine has a kid almost the same age who is a total doppelganger for him and she posts funny images where her kid and Prince George are making the same annoyed little kid faces and he's got a lot of expression in that little kid way.

I do enjoy the photos of prince George that cross my path. He reminds me of my niece. IDGAF vibes. May he live long and prosper, lol.

[Shoeless]

15 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Lots of very public, self-supporting people lead those lives tho.

🤷‍♀️ 

I don't have a dog in that race because I'm not a citizen of the Commonwealth. Whether or not a British monarchy has value isn't for me to decide. 

The Queen seems like a nice old lady, though.

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, MissLemon said:

🤷‍♀️

I don't have a dog in that race because I'm not a citizen of the Commonwealth. Whether or not a British monarchy has value isn't for me to decide. 

The Queen seems like a nice old lady, though.

ITA. These are only my impressions. Like I said, unpopular opinion. I don't really understand why *any* of it shows up in my news feed at all. They are totally irrelevant WRT policy as far as I'm concerned. Their only value is as entertainment.

[Shoeless]

2 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

ITA. These are only my impressions. Like I said, unpopular opinion. I don't really understand why *any* of it shows up in my news feed at all. They are totally irrelevant WRT policy as far as I'm concerned. Their only value is as entertainment.

Maybe they are like really fancy diplomats? 

[Sneezyone]

Just now, MissLemon said:

Maybe they are like really fancy diplomats? 

That might be a nice evolution.