Royals

www.express.co.uk/news/royal/648005/Prince-William-dubbed-workshy-revelaed-works-80-hours-week-Camilla-Tominey

If this is the article you mean Anniebach you've cut his hours in half.

'The press'? Oh well that will be impartial and accurate!

You obviously missed it Ana

Merlotgran I have no idea when he cut his hours, the press were calling him work shy Will because of the reduction in his hours and the fact he did very few royal duties, in fairness he didn't make stupid excuses , just said he wanted to spend time with his children

He must have reduced them recently then because he was doing 80 hrs per month in Feb this year.

I watch the news, but must have missed the bit about Prince William reducing his hours...

No more than anyone who watches the news Ana

For someone so disapproving of the Royal Family, you seem remarkably well-informed about their movements, Annie!

Wilma, he has cut his hours to forty a month , he said he did this to spend the time with his children, and sorry but what royal duties ? He does very little compared to the older members of his family

But we're not talking about other people Annie, we're just talking about William and Kate. He works 80 hours on average a month doing day and night shifts for the air ambulance, plus his Royal and charity work. He's hardly sitting around all day and would you want him to spend less time with his family because others are less fortunate?

I suppose you could just about justify the expense of having some sort of royal person as a figurehead,
If you mean Head of State and Head of the Commonwealth, then what, I wonder, would happen if we were to have a President and First Lady and associated hangers-on instead.
What would Commonwealth leaders think of, for example, TB and CB?
A rebellion in the Commonwealth would be the first thing I would imagine.

www.dofe.org/

Equivalents of Princes Trust - The Duke of Edinburgh Award scheme 1956?

Blah blah blah. If only everyone was perfect like the royal bashers!

Fair enough if Kate wanted to stay with her children but William working part time because he wants to do the same ? , many fathers would like this choice but their fathers didn't inherit the duchy of Cornwall to support them

Of course she was 'bonding with her baby' along I suppose with the full-time nanny and the rest of the household staff. I suppose you could just about justify the expense of having some sort of royal person as a figurehead, but the rest of the family are just scroungers and freeloaders. I will say the Prince's trust is an excellent charity and does a lot of good, so well done Charles. But why isn't their an equivalent Royal charity if they are so concerned with looking after people? Doing bits here and there isn't good enough.

Yes, I don't have a problem with how much time she takes to be with the family. They both seem very down to earth with the children. The photos of when the Obamas came to dinner were lovely because of how informal they were, and I loved the joke Barak Obama made about the clear breach of protocol when George, having been was allowed up late to see them turned up in his dressing gown.

Wilma I think that could be a possibility, particularly as Diana suffered with pnd and they did not seem to recognise that and failed her so dismally.
Otherwise, Kate could have just thought it was more important to take her full 'maternity leave' to enable her to feed and bond with her baby as so many young mothers do.

One other thing. After Charlotte was born, Kate was not in the public eye for much longer than I would have expected and it crossed my mind that she may have suffered from post natal depression. Even in this day and age, I wouldn't be surprised if this was kept secret.

I'm far from being a fan of the Royal family, but find it hard these days to get worked up about it. I certainly haven't noticed Kate and William being on holiday a lot (Beatrice seems to be though).

I respect for the Queen and Princess Anne because they appear to carry out their 'duties' in a conscientious way. I think Kate, William and Harry are the new and more acceptable face of the Royal family and seem to be on duty a lot. Eugenie too, to a lesser extent. Beatrice appears lets the side down.

Charles was a victim of his upbringing because he was not allowed to marry for love. In marrying Diana whilst continuing his relationship with Camilla, he was out of step with public perception. Diana was part of the future, Charles the past. I was on Team Diana, but I am glad Charles was allowed to marry Camilla.

There's been a changing of the guard and it is doing okay at the moment.

Yes, they have lovely privileged lives with lots of perks. But their is always a dark side to that. I would hate not to walk out of my door without security. Or pop something into the bin without paparazzi taking shaming pix of me in my pyjamas.
Also, the alternative would be some sort or head of state or presidency. Would you really prefer Lord and lady Blair instead of a monarch who has been really quite amazing for 60 years? And the money the royals bring in for tourism is huge.
Andrew is a big twonk and should be given nothing, though.

I do think Charles is genuinely concerned about this country and often think the way he has been treated by Diana groupies is disgusting

I agree the Princes Trust does much good , and Charles was younger than his two lazy sons when he started the trust .

Legs55, I said more tourists visit the London Eye than Buck house, yes people visit the palaces but I don't agree they are THE tourist attraction which bring visitors to this country. If this was true then surely London benefits, doubt tourists visit north England to see the windsors . Many have Stratford as their number one visit . So it is our history not the windsors living now that attract tourists

I saw Prince Charles on our local news last night in an item on the Prince's Trust. A young woman I know used to work for this great organisation. Here is a snippet from their website:
Many of the young people we help are in, or leaving, care, facing issues such as homelessness or mental health problems, or have been in trouble with the law.
The Trust has returned £1.4 billion in value to society through our help for disadvantaged young people over the last ten years alone.
Our free programmes give young people the practical and financial support they need to stabilise their lives. We help them develop key skills while boosting their confidence and motivation.

I suppose he could just live a life of decadence and give nothing back, but I think the Prince's Trust is a wonderful organisation, as do the young people Prince Charles was speaking to yesterday.

Anniebach I think you're wrong about tourists as many choose to come here to see our pageantry, tours of Royal Palaces are popular. You stated that people go to see Buck House - why if not to view a Royal Palace & watch the Changing of the Guard.

I agree with icanhandthem back - no chance of living a "normal" life, none of them chose to be born Royal & before somebody shoots me down in flames their wives/husbands have to choose to live their lives in a certain way. Yes I'd rather have ny life I might not be wealthy & privaleged but I can live my life without being criticised in the press