The Cambridges News and Updates ( Prince William, Kate Middleton, George, Charlotte and Louis)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also I loved this picture - U.K. Mistress #1 with U.K. Mistress #2 with Original Wife #1

Ok I’m not even a fan of Kate but she looks the classiest and best by far in this picture. Boris Johnson’s wife is such a tacky mess with her piling on every current trend she can.

Can we please stop attacking women for their appearance? If not lets start attacking the men too

Boris Johnson actually looks pretty good here. You should see his wedding day pictures - he looked like he got dragged out of bed by his niece.

Charles looks like he's one step away from a retirement home. And William (in a different picture) looks both short and old on the same day - like a little gremlin which is weird because he's neither.

Charles lobbied to have business people working in climate change at the G 7 meetings. It was a first and he uses his power well. As the Duke of Cornwall, he used his geographic power to get on the agenda.

He is far from retirement as is his mother.

I knew the Brits were delusional but this takes the cake. She's 95. Anyone else her age is in a retirement clinic heavily doped up on a regimen to battle alzeihemers and dementia progression.

When do you think she'd be close to retirement? When she's in a casket?

No when she recognizes that she cannot continue her duties to the Crown.

Are you aware of old-age cognitive decline? People a quarter of a century younger than her refuse to recognize when their keys need to be taken away so they stop getting in car accidents or that they can no longer live alone because they keep leaving the stove on.

But...you think...this 95-year-old is in full control of her mental faculties enough to be head of state for a country with a population of 66-million in economic and foreign political decline?

I'm saying this with all seriousness - maybe if a nonagenarian hadn't been in charge Parliament wouldn't have been unlawfully prorogued (a power only the monarch holds) and Brexit never would have happened. Its the worst mistake in this century.

Have you thought about that?

NP. It is a fact that IQ fluctuates with age. But I don’t think any of this matters because I don’t think Elizabeth is really running anything. I think there has been effectively a Charles regency from the moment he replaced her private secretary and prince Philip went into retirement.

That is an interesting theory but if he was effectively running things why doesn't he have a better run of the BRF?

- He let Andrew hold that disastrous interview inside of Buckingham Palace on national television
- He let and/or propagated his newest daughter-in-law be smeared knowing he needed the couple for engagements
- The whole H/M meltdown could have easily been handled better by someone properly in charge
- The Brexit mess where the Queen pro-rogued Parliament for only the third time in a century
- The scandal with the Queen's secret bank accounts in private shareholdings
- The Prince Michael of Kent russia-gate affair

You’re blaming Charles for the Sussexes bratty behavior?

Not immediate PP. of course he isn’t the cause of their bratty behavior. But the truth of the matter is that they were an asset that could have been used for Charles purposes if he had been able to handle them appropriately. Considering one of the chief justifications for the BRF is soft diplomacy the fact that Charles couldn’t handle that is an astonish failure. Also I disagree with PP saying that Charles was bothered by Andrew’s interview. They hate each other and Charles has been trying to push him out for decades. The interview permanently did all that.

NP. No one has been able to handle the Sussexes’ bratty behavior. They are only on good terms with a single family member (Doria).

You aren't an asset if you are an unpredictable loose cannon.

Psh. Charles just needs someone with a pulse. Right now he is forced to rely on his octogenarian siblings until Williams kids come of age. He doesn’t want any of his nieces or nephews to pick up the slack because he doesn’t want them to be full time working royals. He could have held his nose and dealt with the Sussex for a decade. Now what is he going to do when his siblings and his mother, who together do the bulk of royal numbers, start to die? He can reduce the number of events but if his mom, who is way more popular than Charles, dies people are already going to be looking with increased scrutiny of UK taxpayer support so timing would be bad (doing less for the same money). People forget that him and Camilla were attacked in their car when college fees were increased. His relationship to the public is not that strong.

They can scale back like the Swedes and Spaniards have done. He doesn’t need to hold his nose with the Sussexes. Their popularity is in the toilet with the British public anyway.

They can scale back but the Swedes and Spaniards receive substantially less public money than the BRF. How will they justify doing less without a corresponding reduction in money? I mean the Spanish monarchy is all crammed into one castle…I can’t see them doing that.

We will just have to wait and see. Things seem to be chugging along for now even in the wake of the Sussex flounce. The Brits don't seem to want them back as much as the Americans get whipped up into a frenzy over them. The Royal Family has made it this far and survived many other crises and general support doesn't seem to be wavering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also I loved this picture - U.K. Mistress #1 with U.K. Mistress #2 with Original Wife #1

Ok I’m not even a fan of Kate but she looks the classiest and best by far in this picture. Boris Johnson’s wife is such a tacky mess with her piling on every current trend she can.

Can we please stop attacking women for their appearance? If not lets start attacking the men too

Boris Johnson actually looks pretty good here. You should see his wedding day pictures - he looked like he got dragged out of bed by his niece.

Charles looks like he's one step away from a retirement home. And William (in a different picture) looks both short and old on the same day - like a little gremlin which is weird because he's neither.

Charles lobbied to have business people working in climate change at the G 7 meetings. It was a first and he uses his power well. As the Duke of Cornwall, he used his geographic power to get on the agenda.

He is far from retirement as is his mother.

I knew the Brits were delusional but this takes the cake. She's 95. Anyone else her age is in a retirement clinic heavily doped up on a regimen to battle alzeihemers and dementia progression.

When do you think she'd be close to retirement? When she's in a casket?

No when she recognizes that she cannot continue her duties to the Crown.

Are you aware of old-age cognitive decline? People a quarter of a century younger than her refuse to recognize when their keys need to be taken away so they stop getting in car accidents or that they can no longer live alone because they keep leaving the stove on.

But...you think...this 95-year-old is in full control of her mental faculties enough to be head of state for a country with a population of 66-million in economic and foreign political decline?

I'm saying this with all seriousness - maybe if a nonagenarian hadn't been in charge Parliament wouldn't have been unlawfully prorogued (a power only the monarch holds) and Brexit never would have happened. Its the worst mistake in this century.

Have you thought about that?

NP. It is a fact that IQ fluctuates with age. But I don’t think any of this matters because I don’t think Elizabeth is really running anything. I think there has been effectively a Charles regency from the moment he replaced her private secretary and prince Philip went into retirement.

That is an interesting theory but if he was effectively running things why doesn't he have a better run of the BRF?

- He let Andrew hold that disastrous interview inside of Buckingham Palace on national television
- He let and/or propagated his newest daughter-in-law be smeared knowing he needed the couple for engagements
- The whole H/M meltdown could have easily been handled better by someone properly in charge
- The Brexit mess where the Queen pro-rogued Parliament for only the third time in a century
- The scandal with the Queen's secret bank accounts in private shareholdings
- The Prince Michael of Kent russia-gate affair

You’re blaming Charles for the Sussexes bratty behavior?

Not immediate PP. of course he isn’t the cause of their bratty behavior. But the truth of the matter is that they were an asset that could have been used for Charles purposes if he had been able to handle them appropriately. Considering one of the chief justifications for the BRF is soft diplomacy the fact that Charles couldn’t handle that is an astonish failure. Also I disagree with PP saying that Charles was bothered by Andrew’s interview. They hate each other and Charles has been trying to push him out for decades. The interview permanently did all that.

NP. No one has been able to handle the Sussexes’ bratty behavior. They are only on good terms with a single family member (Doria).

You aren't an asset if you are an unpredictable loose cannon.

Psh. Charles just needs someone with a pulse. Right now he is forced to rely on his octogenarian siblings until Williams kids come of age. He doesn’t want any of his nieces or nephews to pick up the slack because he doesn’t want them to be full time working royals. He could have held his nose and dealt with the Sussex for a decade. Now what is he going to do when his siblings and his mother, who together do the bulk of royal numbers, start to die? He can reduce the number of events but if his mom, who is way more popular than Charles, dies people are already going to be looking with increased scrutiny of UK taxpayer support so timing would be bad (doing less for the same money). People forget that him and Camilla were attacked in their car when college fees were increased. His relationship to the public is not that strong.

You’re acting like the Sussexes actually wanted to stay and put in the hard work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also I loved this picture - U.K. Mistress #1 with U.K. Mistress #2 with Original Wife #1

Ok I’m not even a fan of Kate but she looks the classiest and best by far in this picture. Boris Johnson’s wife is such a tacky mess with her piling on every current trend she can.

Can we please stop attacking women for their appearance? If not lets start attacking the men too

Boris Johnson actually looks pretty good here. You should see his wedding day pictures - he looked like he got dragged out of bed by his niece.

Charles looks like he's one step away from a retirement home. And William (in a different picture) looks both short and old on the same day - like a little gremlin which is weird because he's neither.

Charles lobbied to have business people working in climate change at the G 7 meetings. It was a first and he uses his power well. As the Duke of Cornwall, he used his geographic power to get on the agenda.

He is far from retirement as is his mother.

I knew the Brits were delusional but this takes the cake. She's 95. Anyone else her age is in a retirement clinic heavily doped up on a regimen to battle alzeihemers and dementia progression.

When do you think she'd be close to retirement? When she's in a casket?

No when she recognizes that she cannot continue her duties to the Crown.

Are you aware of old-age cognitive decline? People a quarter of a century younger than her refuse to recognize when their keys need to be taken away so they stop getting in car accidents or that they can no longer live alone because they keep leaving the stove on.

But...you think...this 95-year-old is in full control of her mental faculties enough to be head of state for a country with a population of 66-million in economic and foreign political decline?

I'm saying this with all seriousness - maybe if a nonagenarian hadn't been in charge Parliament wouldn't have been unlawfully prorogued (a power only the monarch holds) and Brexit never would have happened. Its the worst mistake in this century.

Have you thought about that?

NP. It is a fact that IQ fluctuates with age. But I don’t think any of this matters because I don’t think Elizabeth is really running anything. I think there has been effectively a Charles regency from the moment he replaced her private secretary and prince Philip went into retirement.

That is an interesting theory but if he was effectively running things why doesn't he have a better run of the BRF?

- He let Andrew hold that disastrous interview inside of Buckingham Palace on national television
- He let and/or propagated his newest daughter-in-law be smeared knowing he needed the couple for engagements
- The whole H/M meltdown could have easily been handled better by someone properly in charge
- The Brexit mess where the Queen pro-rogued Parliament for only the third time in a century
- The scandal with the Queen's secret bank accounts in private shareholdings
- The Prince Michael of Kent russia-gate affair

You’re blaming Charles for the Sussexes bratty behavior?

Not immediate PP. of course he isn’t the cause of their bratty behavior. But the truth of the matter is that they were an asset that could have been used for Charles purposes if he had been able to handle them appropriately. Considering one of the chief justifications for the BRF is soft diplomacy the fact that Charles couldn’t handle that is an astonish failure. Also I disagree with PP saying that Charles was bothered by Andrew’s interview. They hate each other and Charles has been trying to push him out for decades. The interview permanently did all that.

NP. No one has been able to handle the Sussexes’ bratty behavior. They are only on good terms with a single family member (Doria).

You aren't an asset if you are an unpredictable loose cannon.

Psh. Charles just needs someone with a pulse. Right now he is forced to rely on his octogenarian siblings until Williams kids come of age. He doesn’t want any of his nieces or nephews to pick up the slack because he doesn’t want them to be full time working royals. He could have held his nose and dealt with the Sussex for a decade. Now what is he going to do when his siblings and his mother, who together do the bulk of royal numbers, start to die? He can reduce the number of events but if his mom, who is way more popular than Charles, dies people are already going to be looking with increased scrutiny of UK taxpayer support so timing would be bad (doing less for the same money). People forget that him and Camilla were attacked in their car when college fees were increased. His relationship to the public is not that strong.

They can scale back like the Swedes and Spaniards have done. He doesn’t need to hold his nose with the Sussexes. Their popularity is in the toilet with the British public anyway.

They can scale back but the Swedes and Spaniards receive substantially less public money than the BRF. How will they justify doing less without a corresponding reduction in money? I mean the Spanish monarchy is all crammed into one castle…I can’t see them doing that.

We will just have to wait and see. Things seem to be chugging along for now even in the wake of the Sussex flounce. The Brits don't seem to want them back as much as the Americans get whipped up into a frenzy over them. The Royal Family has made it this far and survived many other crises and general support doesn't seem to be wavering.

General support isn’t wavering? In the past twelve months they’ve lost one commonwealth country and Scotland seems to be on their way out as well. I agree the brits don’t want the Sussexs back but it is naive to think they aren’t going to have quite the crisis when QEII dies. She still puts up a lot of numbers at 95 years old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also I loved this picture - U.K. Mistress #1 with U.K. Mistress #2 with Original Wife #1

Ok I’m not even a fan of Kate but she looks the classiest and best by far in this picture. Boris Johnson’s wife is such a tacky mess with her piling on every current trend she can.

Can we please stop attacking women for their appearance? If not lets start attacking the men too

Boris Johnson actually looks pretty good here. You should see his wedding day pictures - he looked like he got dragged out of bed by his niece.

Charles looks like he's one step away from a retirement home. And William (in a different picture) looks both short and old on the same day - like a little gremlin which is weird because he's neither.

Charles lobbied to have business people working in climate change at the G 7 meetings. It was a first and he uses his power well. As the Duke of Cornwall, he used his geographic power to get on the agenda.

He is far from retirement as is his mother.

I knew the Brits were delusional but this takes the cake. She's 95. Anyone else her age is in a retirement clinic heavily doped up on a regimen to battle alzeihemers and dementia progression.

When do you think she'd be close to retirement? When she's in a casket?

No when she recognizes that she cannot continue her duties to the Crown.

Are you aware of old-age cognitive decline? People a quarter of a century younger than her refuse to recognize when their keys need to be taken away so they stop getting in car accidents or that they can no longer live alone because they keep leaving the stove on.

But...you think...this 95-year-old is in full control of her mental faculties enough to be head of state for a country with a population of 66-million in economic and foreign political decline?

I'm saying this with all seriousness - maybe if a nonagenarian hadn't been in charge Parliament wouldn't have been unlawfully prorogued (a power only the monarch holds) and Brexit never would have happened. Its the worst mistake in this century.

Have you thought about that?

NP. It is a fact that IQ fluctuates with age. But I don’t think any of this matters because I don’t think Elizabeth is really running anything. I think there has been effectively a Charles regency from the moment he replaced her private secretary and prince Philip went into retirement.

That is an interesting theory but if he was effectively running things why doesn't he have a better run of the BRF?

- He let Andrew hold that disastrous interview inside of Buckingham Palace on national television
- He let and/or propagated his newest daughter-in-law be smeared knowing he needed the couple for engagements
- The whole H/M meltdown could have easily been handled better by someone properly in charge
- The Brexit mess where the Queen pro-rogued Parliament for only the third time in a century
- The scandal with the Queen's secret bank accounts in private shareholdings
- The Prince Michael of Kent russia-gate affair

You’re blaming Charles for the Sussexes bratty behavior?

Not immediate PP. of course he isn’t the cause of their bratty behavior. But the truth of the matter is that they were an asset that could have been used for Charles purposes if he had been able to handle them appropriately. Considering one of the chief justifications for the BRF is soft diplomacy the fact that Charles couldn’t handle that is an astonish failure. Also I disagree with PP saying that Charles was bothered by Andrew’s interview. They hate each other and Charles has been trying to push him out for decades. The interview permanently did all that.

NP. No one has been able to handle the Sussexes’ bratty behavior. They are only on good terms with a single family member (Doria).

Oprah has. But then again she has competent managerial skills…

Oprah isn’t H&M’s family. Oprah and H&M are partners in making money. As long as the ratings and money keep rolling in, Oprah and H&M will get along well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also I loved this picture - U.K. Mistress #1 with U.K. Mistress #2 with Original Wife #1

Ok I’m not even a fan of Kate but she looks the classiest and best by far in this picture. Boris Johnson’s wife is such a tacky mess with her piling on every current trend she can.

Can we please stop attacking women for their appearance? If not lets start attacking the men too

Boris Johnson actually looks pretty good here. You should see his wedding day pictures - he looked like he got dragged out of bed by his niece.

Charles looks like he's one step away from a retirement home. And William (in a different picture) looks both short and old on the same day - like a little gremlin which is weird because he's neither.

Charles lobbied to have business people working in climate change at the G 7 meetings. It was a first and he uses his power well. As the Duke of Cornwall, he used his geographic power to get on the agenda.

He is far from retirement as is his mother.

I knew the Brits were delusional but this takes the cake. She's 95. Anyone else her age is in a retirement clinic heavily doped up on a regimen to battle alzeihemers and dementia progression.

When do you think she'd be close to retirement? When she's in a casket?

No when she recognizes that she cannot continue her duties to the Crown.

Are you aware of old-age cognitive decline? People a quarter of a century younger than her refuse to recognize when their keys need to be taken away so they stop getting in car accidents or that they can no longer live alone because they keep leaving the stove on.

But...you think...this 95-year-old is in full control of her mental faculties enough to be head of state for a country with a population of 66-million in economic and foreign political decline?

I'm saying this with all seriousness - maybe if a nonagenarian hadn't been in charge Parliament wouldn't have been unlawfully prorogued (a power only the monarch holds) and Brexit never would have happened. Its the worst mistake in this century.

Have you thought about that?

NP. It is a fact that IQ fluctuates with age. But I don’t think any of this matters because I don’t think Elizabeth is really running anything. I think there has been effectively a Charles regency from the moment he replaced her private secretary and prince Philip went into retirement.

That is an interesting theory but if he was effectively running things why doesn't he have a better run of the BRF?

- He let Andrew hold that disastrous interview inside of Buckingham Palace on national television
- He let and/or propagated his newest daughter-in-law be smeared knowing he needed the couple for engagements
- The whole H/M meltdown could have easily been handled better by someone properly in charge
- The Brexit mess where the Queen pro-rogued Parliament for only the third time in a century
- The scandal with the Queen's secret bank accounts in private shareholdings
- The Prince Michael of Kent russia-gate affair

You’re blaming Charles for the Sussexes bratty behavior?

Not immediate PP. of course he isn’t the cause of their bratty behavior. But the truth of the matter is that they were an asset that could have been used for Charles purposes if he had been able to handle them appropriately. Considering one of the chief justifications for the BRF is soft diplomacy the fact that Charles couldn’t handle that is an astonish failure. Also I disagree with PP saying that Charles was bothered by Andrew’s interview. They hate each other and Charles has been trying to push him out for decades. The interview permanently did all that.

NP. No one has been able to handle the Sussexes’ bratty behavior. They are only on good terms with a single family member (Doria).

You aren't an asset if you are an unpredictable loose cannon.

Psh. Charles just needs someone with a pulse. Right now he is forced to rely on his octogenarian siblings until Williams kids come of age. He doesn’t want any of his nieces or nephews to pick up the slack because he doesn’t want them to be full time working royals. He could have held his nose and dealt with the Sussex for a decade. Now what is he going to do when his siblings and his mother, who together do the bulk of royal numbers, start to die? He can reduce the number of events but if his mom, who is way more popular than Charles, dies people are already going to be looking with increased scrutiny of UK taxpayer support so timing would be bad (doing less for the same money). People forget that him and Camilla were attacked in their car when college fees were increased. His relationship to the public is not that strong.

They can scale back like the Swedes and Spaniards have done. He doesn’t need to hold his nose with the Sussexes. Their popularity is in the toilet with the British public anyway.

They can scale back but the Swedes and Spaniards receive substantially less public money than the BRF. How will they justify doing less without a corresponding reduction in money? I mean the Spanish monarchy is all crammed into one castle…I can’t see them doing that.

We will just have to wait and see. Things seem to be chugging along for now even in the wake of the Sussex flounce. The Brits don't seem to want them back as much as the Americans get whipped up into a frenzy over them. The Royal Family has made it this far and survived many other crises and general support doesn't seem to be wavering.

General support isn’t wavering? In the past twelve months they’ve lost one commonwealth country and Scotland seems to be on their way out as well. I agree the brits don’t want the Sussexs back but it is naive to think they aren’t going to have quite the crisis when QEII dies. She still puts up a lot of numbers at 95 years old.

Polls don't show general support for he Royal family wavering. Scotland's issues aren't with the BRF.

https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/poll-finds-popularity-monarchy-remains-stable-among-britons

[Anonymous]

A few thoughts on the points expressed above, without repeating that extremely long set of quotes. They will manage with fewer royals until Will and Kate's kids grow up. The principals don't need to spend so much time cutting ribbons at every building opening-they can amplify their work with social media. Plus, a royal family with fewer active members will cost less which is good considering challenging times in Britain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A few thoughts on the points expressed above, without repeating that extremely long set of quotes. They will manage with fewer royals until Will and Kate's kids grow up. The principals don't need to spend so much time cutting ribbons at every building opening-they can amplify their work with social media. Plus, a royal family with fewer active members will cost less which is good considering challenging times in Britain.

They’re already trying that - their social media growth is stagnate without the Sussexs and the Cambridge-only YouTube channel is doing worse than a SAHM’s blog.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A few thoughts on the points expressed above, without repeating that extremely long set of quotes. They will manage with fewer royals until Will and Kate's kids grow up. The principals don't need to spend so much time cutting ribbons at every building opening-they can amplify their work with social media. Plus, a royal family with fewer active members will cost less which is good considering challenging times in Britain.

They’re already trying that - their social media growth is stagnate without the Sussexs and the Cambridge-only YouTube channel is doing worse than a SAHM’s blog.

Asking because I genuinely do not know- is it stagnant in the UK? Or is the UK happy with it- are the UK viewers watching it? I do think that the British will be happy to pay for less working royals and have less ribbon cutting ceremonies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A few thoughts on the points expressed above, without repeating that extremely long set of quotes. They will manage with fewer royals until Will and Kate's kids grow up. The principals don't need to spend so much time cutting ribbons at every building opening-they can amplify their work with social media. Plus, a royal family with fewer active members will cost less which is good considering challenging times in Britain.

They’re already trying that - their social media growth is stagnate without the Sussexs and the Cambridge-only YouTube channel is doing worse than a SAHM’s blog.

Asking because I genuinely do not know- is it stagnant in the UK? Or is the UK happy with it- are the UK viewers watching it? I do think that the British will be happy to pay for less working royals and have less ribbon cutting ceremonies.

Do heads of the nation need social media growth?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A few thoughts on the points expressed above, without repeating that extremely long set of quotes. They will manage with fewer royals until Will and Kate's kids grow up. The principals don't need to spend so much time cutting ribbons at every building opening-they can amplify their work with social media. Plus, a royal family with fewer active members will cost less which is good considering challenging times in Britain.

They’re already trying that - their social media growth is stagnate without the Sussexs and the Cambridge-only YouTube channel is doing worse than a SAHM’s blog.

Asking because I genuinely do not know- is it stagnant in the UK? Or is the UK happy with it- are the UK viewers watching it? I do think that the British will be happy to pay for less working royals and have less ribbon cutting ceremonies.

Do heads of the nation need social media growth?

IDK ask Donald Trump who has been cut off at the knees without his.

As for the Cambridges future with social media - there was a question on whether or not the royal weddings/funerals/coronation should be televisized iin the 1950s as well. They didn't 'need' that newfangled contraption to reach the people.

Now its commonplace. So common in fact that they're losing audience retention that used to automatically have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A few thoughts on the points expressed above, without repeating that extremely long set of quotes. They will manage with fewer royals until Will and Kate's kids grow up. The principals don't need to spend so much time cutting ribbons at every building opening-they can amplify their work with social media. Plus, a royal family with fewer active members will cost less which is good considering challenging times in Britain.

They’re already trying that - their social media growth is stagnate without the Sussexs and the Cambridge-only YouTube channel is doing worse than a SAHM’s blog.

Asking because I genuinely do not know- is it stagnant in the UK? Or is the UK happy with it- are the UK viewers watching it? I do think that the British will be happy to pay for less working royals and have less ribbon cutting ceremonies.

Do heads of the nation need social media growth?

IDK ask Donald Trump who has been cut off at the knees without his.

As for the Cambridges future with social media - there was a question on whether or not the royal weddings/funerals/coronation should be televisized iin the 1950s as well. They didn't 'need' that newfangled contraption to reach the people.

Now its commonplace. So common in fact that they're losing audience retention that used to automatically have.

Donald Trump is head of nothing. Charles will be next monarch, not Will and Kate. The Queen doesn't seem to be suffering for her lack of social media presence. How is Joe Biden doing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A few thoughts on the points expressed above, without repeating that extremely long set of quotes. They will manage with fewer royals until Will and Kate's kids grow up. The principals don't need to spend so much time cutting ribbons at every building opening-they can amplify their work with social media. Plus, a royal family with fewer active members will cost less which is good considering challenging times in Britain.

They’re already trying that - their social media growth is stagnate without the Sussexs and the Cambridge-only YouTube channel is doing worse than a SAHM’s blog.

Asking because I genuinely do not know- is it stagnant in the UK? Or is the UK happy with it- are the UK viewers watching it? I do think that the British will be happy to pay for less working royals and have less ribbon cutting ceremonies.

Do heads of the nation need social media growth?

IDK ask Donald Trump who has been cut off at the knees without his.

As for the Cambridges future with social media - there was a question on whether or not the royal weddings/funerals/coronation should be televisized iin the 1950s as well. They didn't 'need' that newfangled contraption to reach the people.

Now its commonplace. So common in fact that they're losing audience retention that used to automatically have.

Donald Trump is head of nothing. Charles will be next monarch, not Will and Kate. The Queen doesn't seem to be suffering for her lack of social media presence. How is Joe Biden doing?

DP, and I like the Cambridges. The Queen and Joe Biden both have social media. They don't have any presence comparable to DJT's Twitter account in its reach and pull, but they both use social media (Twitter, IG) regularly. I think it's savvy of the Cambridges to expand their social media presence; it's important for engagement with younger generations, which statistically aren't as attached to the royal family as older Britons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A few thoughts on the points expressed above, without repeating that extremely long set of quotes. They will manage with fewer royals until Will and Kate's kids grow up. The principals don't need to spend so much time cutting ribbons at every building opening-they can amplify their work with social media. Plus, a royal family with fewer active members will cost less which is good considering challenging times in Britain.

I just don’t see it. They are not popular amongst the youngest people so I think as they do less they will seem less and less useful to a population that has much less attachment to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A few thoughts on the points expressed above, without repeating that extremely long set of quotes. They will manage with fewer royals until Will and Kate's kids grow up. The principals don't need to spend so much time cutting ribbons at every building opening-they can amplify their work with social media. Plus, a royal family with fewer active members will cost less which is good considering challenging times in Britain.

They’re already trying that - their social media growth is stagnate without the Sussexs and the Cambridge-only YouTube channel is doing worse than a SAHM’s blog.

Asking because I genuinely do not know- is it stagnant in the UK? Or is the UK happy with it- are the UK viewers watching it? I do think that the British will be happy to pay for less working royals and have less ribbon cutting ceremonies.

Do heads of the nation need social media growth?

IDK ask Donald Trump who has been cut off at the knees without his.

As for the Cambridges future with social media - there was a question on whether or not the royal weddings/funerals/coronation should be televisized iin the 1950s as well. They didn't 'need' that newfangled contraption to reach the people.

Now its commonplace. So common in fact that they're losing audience retention that used to automatically have.

Donald Trump is head of nothing. Charles will be next monarch, not Will and Kate. The Queen doesn't seem to be suffering for her lack of social media presence. How is Joe Biden doing?

Donald Trump tweeted and tv-Ed his way to the presidency despite lack of experience and ability. Meanwhile
Charles has spent the last year demanding Netflix add a “this is fictional” warning to a fictional show. Does not get it whatsoever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A few thoughts on the points expressed above, without repeating that extremely long set of quotes. They will manage with fewer royals until Will and Kate's kids grow up. The principals don't need to spend so much time cutting ribbons at every building opening-they can amplify their work with social media. Plus, a royal family with fewer active members will cost less which is good considering challenging times in Britain.

I just don’t see it. They are not popular amongst the youngest people so I think as they do less they will seem less and less useful to a population that has much less attachment to them.

But this is the way it has always been and for whatever reason when those young people grow up they become nostalgic or something for the BRF. This is not a new phenomenon with disaffected youth. Look at all the youngish famous people who have accepted OBE or CBE recently.