Royalty and the media

I don't like the ring either but if Kate and William like it and its associations, why should we care? I also don't think Kate flashes it; the media twerps zoom in on it because they know people will be female doggy about it.

I don't know about "flashing" the ring – it's such a damn great vulgar thing, it's bound to catch the cameras. Family rings can be hugely special, but given the history, wasn't it a bit tactless to use it as an engagement ring?

I feel something every time I see the Duchess of Cambridge flashing Diana's ring as well Crimson. I dont think it was a good idea for Prince William to give it to her as an engagement ring, he should have just given it to her as a ''ordinary'' ring, now she seems to be flashing it in public all the time.That is just my opinion though others might be alright about it.

Yes, £210.7 million is quite a lot to contribute to the economy. Selective history at work.

am so glad elegran that i am not the only one who points out that the royals lost out financially when the took to the Civil list and when the details crop up each year the newspapers cleverly forget to mention how much they would have had if they had legally kept it

That would be interesting.

It may occur to them at some point to have a quiet church wedding to seal that loophole (as the actress said to the bishop!). They may have to wait until Camilla's ex is dead though. don't know what the situation is on that.

Of course, the Prince Regent found it OK to marry dynastically without waiting until Mrs Fitzherbert was dead, or even divorced.

Elegran There's an interesting thought. "If she is the legitimate wife of the Prince of Wales…" When the act that made it possible to marry in a Register Office became law, the royal family – at least the immediate members of the monarch's family – were very specifically excluded. This matter was raised at the time of the P of W's marriage, but was brushed aside. However, they had got things wrong to begin with because they were originally intending to marry somewhere that didn't have a licence – would that have been Windsor Castle? What an interesting constitutional dilemma would arise if it should turn out that they're not legally married after Charles has been crowned king and she queen.

Can't help but feel every time I see a photo of The Duchess of Cambridge flashing her [Diana's] engagement ring there's a point being made and I think to myself 'yes William, I still remember your mum'. I do have , however, total respect for the Queen and her devotion to our country. Charles and Diana should never have married, but they did so to produce an heir to the throne. And I'm very proud of William. Can't believe I'm saying this as I've never been a royalist. Must be me age.

It's not the person its what the Queen stands for - this tiny woman embodying our country's history. That is why I respect her. I find it hard to feel the same way about Charles, but William has certainly got that 'something' which engenders respect for his position. Camilla? I'm sure she's a very nice person, and I think she and Charles are right for each other, but that is as far as it goes for me.

I'm not sure deserving it comes into it. If she is the legitimate wife of the Prince of Wales, then she must be the Princess of Wales? It is not a title given as a prize for good conduct. If Miss Jones marries Mr Smith, then she becomes Mrs Smith, whatever anyone thinks of her personally.

I'm glad it doesn't cost 5p to put these messages on.

haven't done

Yes she does. Have a little bit of human kindness and forgiveness. She hasn't done anything in her personal life that loads of others have done. She is human, and so is Charles.

Camilla being given the title of Princess of Wales ...... NEVER, she doesn't deserve it.

We are going to the Sandringham flower show next week. I'm sure we will be pleased if we spy any of the Royals. As I don't watch TV news much, I don't see much of the Royals on TV (rely on the Internet for news.)

Baggy

Incorrigible is your middle name, jangly.

That's not to say my daughter and I will be exploring out of the way, romantic locations looking for any really posh looking "cottage". Of course not. As if.

I'm definitely going to shop in Waitrose there. Every day.

We are going on week's holiday to Anglesey soon. We have been there before and love it, especially up the top on the coast. But, if I did happen to bump into Kate, or even (sigh) gorgeous young William (dirty old bint that I am), I will be really really excited!!!

Absolutely, nuff said.

I agree with everything you've said, Liz08. Enough's enough!

I agree that William and Kate seem like a lovely young couple, I'm not really a royalist, though even I enjoyed the Royal Wedding.

But once their royal duties are over can we please back off and leave them alone to enjoy their privacy?

Realistically they are never going to lead a 'normal life', but if we all keep encouraging the media by devouring every little bit of trivial and invasive info about them its going to spiral out of control, and we all know where that could lead ........

Holland did the change over quite well, royalty on bicycles, that sort of thing.

I am quite happy with a monarchy without power. If they have enough gravitas combined with common sense and don't take themselves too seriously they can be a force for good, above party politics and bitchyness.

Monarchy without pomp and circumstance does lose something in pageantry though. That is one of the things this country does well. I enjoyed watching right through the whole of the Trooping of the Colour for the first time. A banana republic could not have got the same mix of spectacle and sentiment.

Goodness – isn't it fabulous where threads meander off to? Elegran The Greek royal family (which no longer exists as the country is a republic) is Danish. Prince Philip is of the house of Schleswig Holstein Sonderberg Glucksburg (spelling here may be a bit wobbly). British royal family became Windsor – much against the wishes of George V – during World War I and the Battenburgs (not the cake) became Mountbatten at the same time. The present queen added Mountbatten to Windsor to honour her husband.

I reckon the royal family is an anachronism we could do well without. Once HM the Q pops her regal clogs, that should be it. Lots of countries have presidents without their costing vast sums of money – Ireland, for example. They do the head of state bit without wielding power, rather like the monarchy but without all the trappings and hangers-on. It's awfully easy to think in terms of the US presidency which is extravagance and power personified.

Well said, Elegran People don't realise how much a presidency could cost. And people go into politics for a variety of reasons, not all good ones. With a monarchy, the Royal Family have no choice - they are King or Queen! And they have been brought up to respect duty and help with good causes.