Kate Middleton and Prince William have been criticized for their lack of royal air.  Christopher Lee, a writer and former BBC defense correspondent, has called them mere celebrities that don’t have the gravitas of royals.

Lee criticizes Kate and William for doing ordinary things—like bending down and talking to kids—and says the “glamorous and imperial air” that has existed since the Victorian age won’t exist when William becomes king, and that Kate is too dull.

Lee also has said that he believes that Prince George will never be king.  He may have a public role but not in the traditional “King of England” sense.

I agree and disagree with Lee here.  I fully believe that William and Kate are mere celebrities and do not possess the gravitas that royals traditionally, and historically, have.  But I don’t think that comes from bending down and talking to kids, you know.  William and Kate’s “celebrity” status, rather than royal status, comes from their lack of work ethic as royals and a lack of carrying themselves in a confident and professional manner suitable to a royal.  They are celebrities because they put film premieres and celeb appearances over actually working for charity.  Diana bent down and talked to kids, but she carried herself with confidence and professionalism and actually worked and cared about her charities, and the glamour and celebrity came after.  The Queen is glamorous and the biggest celebrity of them all, but she doesn’t play into that.  She has the gravitas because of the way she carries herself and how she conducts her work.  Will and Kate prioritize being celebrities, therefore they are celebrities.  This is evident by their totally unneeded trip to LA where they spent more time rubbing elbows with celebs than doing charity appearances.

I also fully believe that Prince George will not be king, and I question whether William will ever be king.  Not because they would be too dull, or whatever Lee said, but because if they continue with their lack of public service the people will kick them out.  Times are changing, and when the Queen dies there may be a huge shake up with the British Monarchy as we know it.  There is so much goodwill for the Queen that no one dare leave the Commonwealth (even if they’ve said they want to).  But once the Queen dies, there will probably be some major countries leaving.  I have no doubt Charles will be king, because he will become king automatically once the Queen dies, but for William and especially George… I don’t know.

I do wholeheartedly agree with Lee about Prince Charles.  Lee says, “[Charles] will be a much, much better King than any of us believe. Forget about courtiers squeezing his toothpaste for him, this is a very intelligent man who questions the world around him.”  I agree that Charles will be a better king than what people expect.  People think he will be an awful king, in my opinion, because of the lack of goodwill for him brought on by his divorce from Diana (yes the divorce was years ago, and her death was years ago, but that lack of goodwill still lingers, even if people don’t really relate it openly to Diana anymore).  They dislike him as a person, and prefer William and his youth, so they think Charles will make a bad king.  When in reality Charles will make a better king than William.  I have no doubt on that.

I want to point one thing out that really bugged me about the article, it begins by referencing the Hilary Mantel controversy from last year, but says it was only “just months” ago.  That is false.  The Hilary Mantel stuff happened in February/March last year.  Almost a year ago, not “just months” ago.  It’s little things like that (and saying the York girls went to Germany only months ago when it was also a year ago) that bug me.  It’s like they’re trying to make it sound worse (or better in the case of the Yorks) than it actually is.  They make it sound like Kate is being attacked too much, when it’s quite the opposite.  Kate isn’t being criticized enough by the press for her lack of work, etc.