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

[Anonymous]

Hmm, has the reign of coat dresses for Kate finally come to an end? A turtleneck and a business suit is very...business-like.

She looks good in the rain this morning too! I like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Aside from her long vacation, Kate's actually been out much more in 2021. I'm curious what their beef is then...unless they're not making enough money on these pictures?

I doubt they make much on these. They’re all kind of the same Kate with a wide open mouthed smile. Some fawning write up. It would be boring if that was written about anyone. Plus if you look at the negative stories of Meghan there are way more comments and clicks which for their purposes is better. I think the British tabloids either have something negative that they are holding back on or would like something juicier (aka more clicks) with respect to other members of the royal family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aside from her long vacation, Kate's actually been out much more in 2021. I'm curious what their beef is then...unless they're not making enough money on these pictures?

I doubt they make much on these. They’re all kind of the same Kate with a wide open mouthed smile. Some fawning write up. It would be boring if that was written about anyone. Plus if you look at the negative stories of Meghan there are way more comments and clicks which for their purposes is better. I think the British tabloids either have something negative that they are holding back on or would like something juicier (aka more clicks) with respect to other members of the royal family.

Except how juicy can you get with the current royals? An international tour really gets them clicks but day-to-day? The draw was always the fab three or four. Now its the fab two and the retirement home.

As for negative, the tabloids went full battery against the POW this past month. Negative for his image but certainly didn't generate any revenue for their coffers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First that unapproved kid picture, now the Daily Mail called Kate Duchess DoLittle? They haven't used the word for her in five years. Something is up with the tabloids and the Cambridges.

You know its tongue in cheek, right? Have you never heard of Dr. Dolittle?

The British tabloids are masters at calling someone out while seemingly to not do so. They could have used a million other descriptors about her visit, instead they chose one they know has a history of being nasty for her.

You don't say!? Americans are completely devoid of sense of humor these days. You're hanging on the Daily Mail's every word like its super serious business. Lighten up.

Not too long ago, someone on these very pages assured me that the DM takes their research very seriously, and that while their appeal was broad-based, they could be relied upon to be both thorough and factual. I didn’t ask, though, so it’s quite possible that such comments were made by Americans.

[Anonymous]

She looks fabulous. Graceful, as expected of the position. Well done Kate!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First that unapproved kid picture, now the Daily Mail called Kate Duchess DoLittle? They haven't used the word for her in five years. Something is up with the tabloids and the Cambridges.

You know its tongue in cheek, right? Have you never heard of Dr. Dolittle?

The British tabloids are masters at calling someone out while seemingly to not do so. They could have used a million other descriptors about her visit, instead they chose one they know has a history of being nasty for her.

You don't say!? Americans are completely devoid of sense of humor these days. You're hanging on the Daily Mail's every word like its super serious business. Lighten up.

Not too long ago, someone on these very pages assured me that the DM takes their research very seriously, and that while their appeal was broad-based, they could be relied upon to be both thorough and factual. I didn’t ask, though, so it’s quite possible that such comments were made by Americans.

Cool, that was one person's opinion. It's an anonymous board with many people. Is that news to you too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First that unapproved kid picture, now the Daily Mail called Kate Duchess DoLittle? They haven't used the word for her in five years. Something is up with the tabloids and the Cambridges.

You know its tongue in cheek, right? Have you never heard of Dr. Dolittle?

The British tabloids are masters at calling someone out while seemingly to not do so. They could have used a million other descriptors about her visit, instead they chose one they know has a history of being nasty for her.

You don't say!? Americans are completely devoid of sense of humor these days. You're hanging on the Daily Mail's every word like its super serious business. Lighten up.

Not too long ago, someone on these very pages assured me that the DM takes their research very seriously, and that while their appeal was broad-based, they could be relied upon to be both thorough and factual. I didn’t ask, though, so it’s quite possible that such comments were made by Americans.

Cool, that was one person's opinion. It's an anonymous board with many people. Is that news to you too?

Nope! Just pointing out yet another contradiction amongst the rabble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First that unapproved kid picture, now the Daily Mail called Kate Duchess DoLittle? They haven't used the word for her in five years. Something is up with the tabloids and the Cambridges.

You know its tongue in cheek, right? Have you never heard of Dr. Dolittle?

The British tabloids are masters at calling someone out while seemingly to not do so. They could have used a million other descriptors about her visit, instead they chose one they know has a history of being nasty for her.

You don't say!? Americans are completely devoid of sense of humor these days. You're hanging on the Daily Mail's every word like its super serious business. Lighten up.

Not too long ago, someone on these very pages assured me that the DM takes their research very seriously, and that while their appeal was broad-based, they could be relied upon to be both thorough and factual. I didn’t ask, though, so it’s quite possible that such comments were made by Americans.

Cool, that was one person's opinion. It's an anonymous board with many people. Is that news to you too?

Nope! Just pointing out yet another contradiction amongst the rabble.

If you're too stupid to get a Dr Dolittle reference you have no business pointing fingers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Showing the world who the real star is.

That's a great dress for a Bond movie.

Boom!

Amazing dress for that movie! And yes she looks perfect in it.

The best she’s looked in a long time. DCUM Enhancement experts - what did she do to herself?

I agree her face looks better, but the hairstyle and gold dress makes her look like she’s cosplaying Star Wars.

She needs a stylist!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First that unapproved kid picture, now the Daily Mail called Kate Duchess DoLittle? They haven't used the word for her in five years. Something is up with the tabloids and the Cambridges.

You know its tongue in cheek, right? Have you never heard of Dr. Dolittle?

The British tabloids are masters at calling someone out while seemingly to not do so. They could have used a million other descriptors about her visit, instead they chose one they know has a history of being nasty for her.

You don't say!? Americans are completely devoid of sense of humor these days. You're hanging on the Daily Mail's every word like its super serious business. Lighten up.

Not too long ago, someone on these very pages assured me that the DM takes their research very seriously, and that while their appeal was broad-based, they could be relied upon to be both thorough and factual. I didn’t ask, though, so it’s quite possible that such comments were made by Americans.

Cool, that was one person's opinion. It's an anonymous board with many people. Is that news to you too?

Nope! Just pointing out yet another contradiction amongst the rabble.

If you're too stupid to get a Dr Dolittle reference you have no business pointing fingers.

I’ve actually read the book as a child — and get both allusionS. Perhaps your time would be better spent reading more instead of frothing at the mouth? Figuratively, I assume, although with DCUM you never know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First that unapproved kid picture, now the Daily Mail called Kate Duchess DoLittle? They haven't used the word for her in five years. Something is up with the tabloids and the Cambridges.

You know its tongue in cheek, right? Have you never heard of Dr. Dolittle?

The British tabloids are masters at calling someone out while seemingly to not do so. They could have used a million other descriptors about her visit, instead they chose one they know has a history of being nasty for her.

You don't say!? Americans are completely devoid of sense of humor these days. You're hanging on the Daily Mail's every word like its super serious business. Lighten up.

Not too long ago, someone on these very pages assured me that the DM takes their research very seriously, and that while their appeal was broad-based, they could be relied upon to be both thorough and factual. I didn’t ask, though, so it’s quite possible that such comments were made by Americans.

Cool, that was one person's opinion. It's an anonymous board with many people. Is that news to you too?

Nope! Just pointing out yet another contradiction amongst the rabble.

If you're too stupid to get a Dr Dolittle reference you have no business pointing fingers.

I’ve actually read the book as a child — and get both allusionS. Perhaps your time would be better spent reading more instead of frothing at the mouth? Figuratively, I assume, although with DCUM you never know.

Then you would have laughed instead of your lame "ZOMG what can this mean?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hmm, has the reign of coat dresses for Kate finally come to an end? A turtleneck and a business suit is very...business-like.

She looks good in the rain this morning too! I like it.

She has been wearing a lot more pants and pantsuits the last two years. I think it’s a sign the Queen is giving there more freedom in decision making and brand management. It’s clearly a transition of power.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmm, has the reign of coat dresses for Kate finally come to an end? A turtleneck and a business suit is very...business-like.

She looks good in the rain this morning too! I like it.

She has been wearing a lot more pants and pantsuits the last two years. I think it’s a sign the Queen is giving there more freedom in decision making and brand management. It’s clearly a transition of power.

You think pants and pantsuits was what Kate wanted to wear but she was forced into coat-dresses and prairie dresses the entire time? Interesting thoughts. Diana did change up her entire warddrobe as she was divorcing and divorced.

[Anonymous]

But Pippa voluntarily wore those things and she's not Royal? Seems more like a Norfolk/Old Houses aesthetic than anything else?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmm, has the reign of coat dresses for Kate finally come to an end? A turtleneck and a business suit is very...business-like.

She looks good in the rain this morning too! I like it.

She has been wearing a lot more pants and pantsuits the last two years. I think it’s a sign the Queen is giving there more freedom in decision making and brand management. It’s clearly a transition of power.

You think pants and pantsuits was what Kate wanted to wear but she was forced into coat-dresses and prairie dresses the entire time? Interesting thoughts. Diana did change up her entire warddrobe as she was divorcing and divorced.

DP: I think her tastes may be changing. I think she might be feeling more comfortable, confident, and settled in her role. I also think that she may genuinely like some of Meghan’s clothing choices — and Diana’s — and perhaps realized that she has more flexibility. It’s also possible that some of the “rules” for the Family Firm were set/suggested by Phillip’s expectations, which were based on the standards for “ladylike “ behavior from an earlier era — and now can be relaxed. I’m only guessing, of course, but comparing Kate’s outfits before and after her marriage suggest that she — like many of us — dressed appropriately for her new job. After a few years in, for multiple reasons, there’s often more flexibility.