is visiting Ciderman and Me at the moment. He was on the news rubbing noses with the Maori people dressed in a lovely cape and holding a bird (of the feathered kind I might add). I'm sure I spotted Me in the crowd clutching his bottle of gin while Ciderman was behind with a handful of grandchildren on his shoulders.

The reception he got looked encouraging (Prince William that is, not Me). I do think he's a really nice lad and will make a fine king when his turn comes around.

Any comments anyone?

Post edited 12:35 am – 19th January 10 by Me.

Possibly the most interesting comment came from a female bystander, she reportedly said his mother was the people's princess, now William could well be the people's prince. Rather a nice thought Me thinks. 

Mags, Me was unhappy, the gin bottle was empty.

 I can't somehow imagine you as a Royalist, Lucy! Personally I'd give him the same respect as any other 'nice' person but not because of his 'mom'! There is a movement for a republic here, and they spend a bit of time stirring up apathy, but I'm not sure that would be any better. They don't cost us any more than any head of state or important person who visits but we don't have the same enthusiasm for royal  visits as in the early part of last century. When the Queen visited in 1953 we had the Tangiwai disaster so maybe there's some deep psychological mistrust of royal luck!

Many countries that are run along a revolutionary format have a dictator at the helm, and the people are far poorer for the experience. I recall the words of President Kennedy, this  from his famous speech made in Berlin, something along the lines, ”Democracy may not be the best system in the world, but we never had to build a wall to keep our people in.”

The Royal family strike me as being cast in exactly the same mould as ordinary people, only their slightest misjudgement is slapped across the world's press. I might add, and I will accept any critique levelled at me, the worst media for turning out a never ending diatribe of Royal cr*p, are women's magazines. The amount of good they do, such as Prince William's visit here, is hardly newsworthy … but should he go to a nightclub for a break … WOW!!!

I think revolutions are made to go round.

A rather bitter reply Mr Hammer. The thread is about Prince William not Prince Charles, but I take on board your comments because they tend to substantiate what I have written, whatever the royals do it is slapped across the world's press.

I note you have made no reference to the good Prince Charles has done through his trust and work with the young, or any of the other foundations he works tirelessly for, his help keeping their coffers in the black.  

Most stories have two sides, and the private life of Prince Charles, rather like that of Princess Margaret make for very sad reading, probably totally incomprehensible to most ordinary people. Princess Diana, like her or loath her, disclosed more about the expectations and restraints of living in the house of Windsor than any other person would have dared. The royal household has a set of standards we wouldn't and couldn't live with for five minutes, and yet your Queen has managed the task for close on sixty years. On ascending the throne she swore an oath to her people, and not for one minute has she ever let them down. There are times when she has stood accused of being out of touch, well this is the way royal families over the centuries have been encouraged to stay, a figure head with no voice, other than what parliamentarians want her to say.

Having read the way Blair mislead his party, parliament and the people, and the way Cameron is so detached from reality, who would you suggest would or could take the place of your royals. Blair is now set on becoming the crown head of Europe, which would give the Americans a very strong foothold in a huge land area, also a conglomerate of countries where at present they have no say … thank God and let's keep in that way. 

My own opinion, for what it's worth, I will stick with the Queen, Prince Charles and Prince William, I have far more faith in them than I do in any elected politician. During the past twelve months we have all seen what a twisted, pocket lining, fiddling collection of self interested parasites they really are, nearly all with their snouts planted firmly in the public trough … sorry purse.

God save the Queen, and may God save us all from all politicians.

I'm onside with that too. Our Royal Family has faults but which family doesn't?

I agree that much of our thinking about them is media driven and probably bears little similarity with the truth. As someone once tried to teach me many years ago, “Never let the facts spoil a good story.”…..Not an attitude I subscribe too.

You wrote how you feel Hammer and that is positive.

I understand how you feel and the Royal Family too have their problems but they are not the same ones as you and me.

If Britain had a President it wouldn't be any different.

He/She would too be a person with privileges both financial and social.

When I read about the Presidents of both France and Italy, our neighbouring countries, I think how can a leader of a country behave in that manner.

As a small, but very positive piece on Prince William. Before he flew out of New Zealand on Tuesday morning, he visited a children's hospital. Anyone who watched that particular news item could not but help note the strong resemblance to his mother: the mannerisms, the compassion, the ready smile, and most importantly, the look of absolute wonder on the children's faces. In all fairness it would be wrong not to mention many of the staff also had expressions that implied they had just joined the Prince William fan club.

This is the positive side of the royals, sadly the side that rarely make for world headlines. I am not a monarchist or a royalist, but I have yet to find another country that can put forward a better system for a head of state. I believe it fair to consider, in recent history have the royals ever let their people down? I can only remember once, and that was when David turned his back on the people and married Wallace Simpson. The then heir to the throne walked away because of love. Perhaps Margaret and Charles should have done likewise, but that is hindsight at work, for what price can you really put on happiness?

Doreen, I understand what you are saying about Italy and France, information on the Italian leader's antics have made the news here. Likewise the news that Blair is to face an inquiry about his handling of events leading to the Iraq fiasco. The catastrophe of George W Bush, the lies of Nixon, even the Mafia connection of Kennedy. I can find little to recommend a republic, in fact to Me it tends to give the royals a nice rosy glow.

Fair comment, Michael. But it's interesting to note, both are small countries with a very small population. The second house is there to prevent bad legislation going through unchecked. Even the UK has a second house, the Lords. Although they have the somewhat unusual threat hanging over them, do as the house of commons say, or be done away with, disbanded.

Now how's that for democracy at work?

If I may add one serious question to this rather interesting thread . Is it possible to name one person that contributors would be happy to see occupying the leader's chair of the UK? I have scratched my head and can only think of three, two deceased and one retired. It's my opinion that although people always complain about their leaders, I believe they will always respect strength. I believe Bevan would have made a good president, likewise the doggedness and unifying qualities of Churchill.

My third (and preferred) choice, is now retired, the iron lady. As the first female British prime minister she commanded respect, although many of her government's decisions were very unpopular. On the world stage she was admired and her views were indeed respected, oddly, especially so by the Americans, Reagan was in total awe of her. Politics aside, this woman was the only leader I can recall who firmly believe the word 'Great' was not misplaced in the term 'Great Britain'.

Post edited 8:45 am – 21st January 10 by Ciderman

You're up early as usual Lucy!

I hope you're not including me in the monarchy supporters! I bear them no ill will, but I do not believe in 'position by birth'. As I've found since I have been working in the museum, most of the pioneers of NZ were 'in service' before they left Britain, held down to their positions simply by birth and yet they were the practical, hard working people who were best equipped for a new land. They were butlers, housekeepers, maids and gardeners- the ideal new immigrants.

They also cared for their fellows. The beginnings of a system of social security and lets not forget the instigation of equal rights for women in 1893- the first country in the world.

I can mention this without feeling that I am boasting as I was not born here but chose to live here. We ain't perfect but I can't find better(although I'd be tempted by Aussie!)