Duchess of Cambridge - Malta Visit

Started by cinrit, July 06, 2014, 01:12:09 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

wannable

Malta is too important for the Queen, hence she's sending Kate.

Malta is dear to the queen for those two years, the 50th independence anniversary, Kate's command of front page news.

PrincessOfPeace

The world media presence is going to be massive. One reporter said on Twitter she booked her accommodations and accreditation 4 weeks ago to guarantee a place.

sandy

#177
Quote from: Canuck on August 28, 2014, 11:53:26 AM
Sigh.  No one is claiming she's a saint.  I said I would be happy with her as my Queen.  That's not not the same thing as saying she's perfect or infallible.

Assuming you are referring to Camilla, I think that she is controversial and always will be so. As I said there are mixed reactions to her to say the very least.

Double post auto-merged: August 28, 2014, 07:46:25 PM


Quote from: wannable on August 28, 2014, 02:23:41 PM
Malta is too important for the Queen, hence she's sending Kate.

Malta is dear to the queen for those two years, the 50th independence anniversary, Kate's command of front page news.

I know this has been rehashed. But the Queen did not spend two consecutive years in Malta. For one thing she was pregnant within a few months of marriage and before she went on a maternity leave, she spent time in London awaiting Charles birth.  She went to Malta between the births of Charles and Anne and Anne was conceived there. She went to London for her confinement and Anne was born in London. So she did not just spend two straight years there. She did spend more time there but her children stayed with her parents in London. And in between Princess Elizabeth and Prince Philip were active pinch hitting for her father doing major tours and royal duties. She had access to state papers. There was a window of opportunity in Malta but she did not get "two years off" on any consecutive basis.

Double post auto-merged: August 28, 2014, 07:49:06 PM


Quote from: Lady Adams on August 28, 2014, 03:50:06 PM
Quote from: Macrobug on August 28, 2014, 02:34:26 PM
The question is: in this day and age of instant media with twitter and internet, can they separate the public and the personal image.  Is it even worth while to try.  Fifty years ago royal watchers were satisfied with the occasional photo spread of the "inner workings" in Hello Mag. or a 5 minute clip of carefully filmed family life.  Now people want to know everything and if that void isn't filled with actual info then speculation will do.  It is an age of celebrity.  But is the RF celebrities and do they want to be known as such
Macro, I really appreciate your contributions to this discussion, and I think your point about new media raises a lot of good questions. One I'd like to add is: accountability. Instantaneous news and reporting also raises the public's ability to hold their public figures, from the PM to the BRF, accountable.

I, for one, love the Queen Mother and know she had hundreds of patronages. However, I think that if I got a more accurate and instantaneous record of how she spent money (a lot) and her time, I might have a different opinion.

Well there are degrees of this. William and Kate in their thirties are not full time royals but they partake of the perks which are not "cheap."

The Queen Mum died after a life of public service and nobody ever complained about her work ethic. Unlike Kate and William she worked hard. Big difference there.

Macrobug

Quote from: sandy on August 28, 2014, 07:41:34 PM
I know this has been rehashed. But the Queen did not spend two consecutive years in Malta. For one thing she was pregnant within a few months of marriage and before she went on a maternity leave, she spent time in London awaiting Charles birth.  She went to Malta between the births of Charles and Anne and Anne was conceived there. She went to London for her confinement and Anne was born in London. So she did not just spend two straight years there. She did spend more time there but her children stayed with her parents in London. And in between Princess Elizabeth and Prince Philip were active pinch hitting for her father doing major tours and royal duties. She had access to state papers. There was a window of opportunity in Malta but she did not get "two years off" on any consecutive basis.

Double post auto-merged: August 28, 2014, 07:49:06 PM



True, she did not spend 2 years there.  But she has stated that her time in Malta was important to her and was a special time.  Maybe we are reading too much into the choice of Kate but it does seem to me  that it is a vote of confidence.   
BTW - when QE was in Malta it was as 1st in line.  So should we not be comparing her activities then to Charles?
GNU Terry Pratchett

sandy

Quote from: Macrobug on August 28, 2014, 08:00:57 PM
Quote from: sandy on August 28, 2014, 07:41:34 PM
I know this has been rehashed. But the Queen did not spend two consecutive years in Malta. For one thing she was pregnant within a few months of marriage and before she went on a maternity leave, she spent time in London awaiting Charles birth.  She went to Malta between the births of Charles and Anne and Anne was conceived there. She went to London for her confinement and Anne was born in London. So she did not just spend two straight years there. She did spend more time there but her children stayed with her parents in London. And in between Princess Elizabeth and Prince Philip were active pinch hitting for her father doing major tours and royal duties. She had access to state papers. There was a window of opportunity in Malta but she did not get "two years off" on any consecutive basis.

Double post auto-merged: August 28, 2014, 07:49:06 PM



True, she did not spend 2 years there.  But she has stated that her time in Malta was important to her and was a special time.  Maybe we are reading too much into the choice of Kate but it does seem to me  that it is a vote of confidence.   
BTW - when QE was in Malta it was as 1st in line.  So should we not be comparing her activities then to Charles?

Prince Philip was on duty in Malta. As his wife the Queen stayed with him. She was not "sent" to Malta she got permission from her father to stay with Philip. Different from Kate being "sent there." And Kate is not looked at as "more important" than Charles.

Macrobug

^Sorry?  I am having problems following that.   :flower:  Could you expand?  I am not sure what you mean by "sent" there in terms of what I said nor what you mean by more important.  (I am having one of those days where the brain isn't fully engaged.  It may make sense on the next reading)
GNU Terry Pratchett

sandy

#181
Quote from: Macrobug on August 28, 2014, 08:15:16 PM
^Sorry?  I am having problems following that.   :flower:  Could you expand?  I am not sure what you mean by "sent" there in terms of what I said nor what you mean by more important.  (I am having one of those days where the brain isn't fully engaged.  It may make sense on the next reading)


Assigned the tour, Sent by the Queen, what have you.

The Queen when Princess did not "tour" Malta she stayed there with Philip from time to time while he was on duty there.

Double post auto-merged: August 29, 2014, 12:14:27 AM


Quote from: KaTerina Montague on August 28, 2014, 09:53:20 PM
Just to add to the list of women who did say no to a royal, Elizabeth Bowles Lyons said no 2x. I'm sorry for still harping on that but the idea of building these men up just because their first name is Prince irritates the hell out of me.
I used to admire Kate but I am losing that admiration;  I might have this wrong,  but the idea of aristocracy and monarchy is just being there. Doing little accomplishing little contributing little to the wider world, just being there nothing g more. I may have this wrong I just have a theory. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but the queen has accomplished nothing on her own has she? Being a Queen isn't something she worked towards it is just an accident of birth.  Or maybe some of us have differrnt ideas of what an accomplishment is?
Prince Charles has accomplished things as has Princess Anne and others, so I'm not saying it is impossible but maybe it is OK for Kate to accomplish little in her life and still be an admired queen.

Traditionally royals who are not seen much get criticized.  The public thinks they have something against them or are "snobs." 

If Kate rarely works I doubt she'll be an "admired" Queen.

Orchid

[admin]As this topic has digressed a little too far from the originating point of the Malta trip, transpiring into an eclectic mosaic of Kate Middleton themes, I have merged a large proportion of the thread with existing, more relevant topics as follows: The discussions on Kate's graduation, perceived work-ethic/history and general attributes/failings can now be found and pursued here: William & Kate - General Chat No. 5! . The emerging discussion on Kate's qualities and suitability as a future Consort can now be found here: Duchess of Cambridge :What now for Catherine ? . The digressing conversation on general literature can now be found here: Favorite Books [/admin]

[admin] As with any discussion across the forum there is flexibility to digress, but please keep such deviations relevant to the central theme. Thank you.[/admin]
"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things."
-Winston Churchil

PrincessOfPeace

From Twttier

Martin @CourtierUK · 3h
This solo visit to Malta could be a defining factor for Kate. If she performs well, she'll prove she can handle more engagements solo...

Martin @CourtierUK · 3h
...otherwise, I suspect there'll be more of a focus on engagements done with W for near future!

I actually think she has already proven that she can do solo engagements just fine. I think she will now show us that she can carry out official foreign tours on her own.

I thinks she's going to do a fantastic job and I'm sure she's getting herself well prepared for the trip.
__________________

wannable

I'm nervous for her. I do hope those two days go by with flying colors!

PrincessOfPeace

It obviously the Queen has a lot of faith in The Duchess of Cambridge

Limabeany

Or the Queen wants her to work.  :wink:
"You don't have to be pretty. You don't owe prettiness to anyone. Not to your boyfriend/spouse/partner, not to your co-workers, especially not to random men on the street. You don't owe it to your mother, you don't owe it to your children, you don't owe it to civilization in general. Prettiness is not a rent you pay for occupying a space marked 'female'." Diana Vreeland.

Limabeany

"You don't have to be pretty. You don't owe prettiness to anyone. Not to your boyfriend/spouse/partner, not to your co-workers, especially not to random men on the street. You don't owe it to your mother, you don't owe it to your children, you don't owe it to civilization in general. Prettiness is not a rent you pay for occupying a space marked 'female'." Diana Vreeland.

PrincessOfPeace

QuoteMalta is a small island - and Valletta is the smallest capital in the EU. But now the former British colony is getting a planet-sized chunk of attention.

Later this month, the Duchess of Cambridge will represent the Queen on her first official overseas trip without Prince William (or Prince George) to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Maltese independence.

Already the island has gone Kate-crazy. People could talk of little else as I travelled around Malta and its neighbour, Gozo.

TLLK


PaulaB

Quote from: sandy on August 28, 2014, 07:41:34 PM
Quote from: Canuck on August 28, 2014, 11:53:26 AM
Sigh.  No one is claiming she's a saint.  I said I would be happy with her as my Queen.  That's not not the same thing as saying she's perfect or infallible.

Assuming you are referring to Camilla, I think that she is controversial and always will be so. As I said there are mixed reactions to her to say the very least.

Double post auto-merged: August 28, 2014, 07:46:25 PM


Quote from: wannable on August 28, 2014, 02:23:41 PM
Malta is too important for the Queen, hence she's sending Kate.

Malta is dear to the queen for those two years, the 50th independence anniversary, Kate's command of front page news.

I know this has been rehashed. But the Queen did not spend two consecutive years in Malta. For one thing she was pregnant within a few months of marriage and before she went on a maternity leave, she spent time in London awaiting Charles birth.  She went to Malta between the births of Charles and Anne and Anne was conceived there. She went to London for her confinement and Anne was born in London. So she did not just spend two straight years there. She did spend more time there but her children stayed with her parents in London. And in between Princess Elizabeth and Prince Philip were active pinch hitting for her father doing major tours and royal duties. She had access to state papers. There was a window of opportunity in Malta but she did not get "two years off" on any consecutive basis.

Double post auto-merged: August 28, 2014, 07:49:06 PM


Quote from: Lady Adams on August 28, 2014, 03:50:06 PM
Quote from: Macrobug on August 28, 2014, 02:34:26 PM
The question is: in this day and age of instant media with twitter and internet, can they separate the public and the personal image.  Is it even worth while to try.  Fifty years ago royal watchers were satisfied with the occasional photo spread of the "inner workings" in Hello Mag. or a 5 minute clip of carefully filmed family life.  Now people want to know everything and if that void isn't filled with actual info then speculation will do.  It is an age of celebrity.  But is the RF celebrities and do they want to be known as such
Macro, I really appreciate your contributions to this discussion, and I think your point about new media raises a lot of good questions. One I'd like to add is: accountability. Instantaneous news and reporting also raises the public's ability to hold their public figures, from the PM to the BRF, accountable.

I, for one, love the Queen Mother and know she had hundreds of patronages. However, I think that if I got a more accurate and instantaneous record of how she spent money (a lot) and her time, I might have a different opinion.

Well there are degrees of this. William and Kate in their thirties are not full time royals but they partake of the perks which are not "cheap."

The Queen Mum died after a life of public service and nobody ever complained about her work ethic. Unlike Kate and William she worked hard. Big difference there.

May be not but the country did pick up her £8 million debt.

TLLK

 Eight million pounds of debt???? :eyes:

TLLK

BTW did anyone else notice that the DM is running old and recent Cambridge tour photos in the article.  I'd rather that they'd shown more of Malta or of BRF members visiting the island.

Macrobug

Quote from: TLLK on September 04, 2014, 03:24:42 AM
Eight million pounds of debt???? :eyes:
What?  I never heard this.  Off to do some research
GNU Terry Pratchett

TLLK


Curryong

#195
The Queen supposedly paid her mother's debts after her death, though, as we don't know anything about her will it's all very speculative. On the one hand you read that she left millions in trust funds  to grandchildren/ great-grandchildren etc (and she certainly left Charles much of her jewellery for example) and on the other there are stories about the Comptroller of her Household regularly tearing his hair out!

The Queen Mother certainly appeared carefree about her expenditure in her later years, if I can put it like that. A large staff at her homes, an enjoyment in collecting art, she betted a lot on horses and greyhounds. I don't think she understood money at all and her daughter probably picked up the tab plenty of times.

Double post auto-merged: September 04, 2014, 03:58:30 AM


The Queen Mother had a staff of 80 in her widowhood. 27 of them lived 'in', rent free, free meals, utilities etc, including a watchman with a lamp who was stationed outside her bedroom at night!

Her Comptroller reportedly broke down in health because of her annual expenditure and her accountant was urged to retire by his wife because of the strain! The Queen and Prince Charles heavily subsidised the Queen Mother's annual income.

Macrobug

Quote from: TLLK on September 04, 2014, 03:37:32 AM
Nice emoticon Macrobug!!! :)

I like it.  But I think that Orchid was hoping that by giving me that one it would ensure the mod lounge was well stocked with wood for the winter.  I don't have the heart to tell her that I really need a chain saw first.  And a wood splitter.  And several strong well built lumberjacks.  In flannel.
GNU Terry Pratchett

Lothwen

I prefer my lumberjacks to be shirtless :sigh:
You may think you're cool, but do you have a smiley named after you?
Harryite 12-005

Okay, fine.  Macrobug is now as cool as I am

Macrobug

#198
Flannel shirts are lovely. But personally  I have always been particularly fond of flannel sheets.  :girlblush:


Oh we ARE off topic.  :hijack!: The mods are going to have kittens.  Hehehehe.........

Erm........Malta is lovely and I hope their celebrations go off well  (OK lame attempt but at least it was an attempt)
GNU Terry Pratchett

Curryong

Or even better, lumberjacks IN flannelette sheets! :coy: