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:I love Kate. She will make a wi fearful Queen.

Freudian slip. Kate does look a bit bewildered at times, doesn't she?

DP. The worst was on the Caribbean tour. William looked super pensive and borderline distraught and she has that same slacked jawed smile in every picture. Even someone in the rota referred to it as a “glue gun smile.” I always thought she was bright but the weird lack of awareness of how terribly it was going changed my mind.

I think she was aware, and horrified, but like a lazy, procrastinating student who didn’t do and won’t do their homework, she can only try to smile through how awful the public portion of the test is going. Neither she nor William have any intention of reading the binders of research with which they are undoubtedly provided and neither of them seems aware that in failing to do this most basic aspect of their job, they’re endangering their future.

And she defaults to what looks like a rictus grin.

Ouch!

There was one particularly horrifying picture of her from the Caribbean sadness tour. I can’t post it because the site (and hence the web address) has a banned word in it, but it’s… she’s not some easy-smiling, elegant woman.

Can you just copy and paste the image here? You've piqued my curiosity.

I’ve tried; the web address contains a banned word. If you search “Duchess Kate is now ready to shed her “Norfolk Mum” persona,” there should be a website called “CeleBRITy,” but replace “brit” with “mother dog.” Scroll down and she’s there. I don’t know how to do a reverse image search to find it elsewhere. (Just don’t linger too long in the comments unless you want to get stupid all over yourself.)

Found it. Thanks, and yikes! Fascinating little bit in there comparing her favorably to Diana. I didn't get it until the comments.

“Yikes!” is an appropriate response to that expression!

So that site needs to be consumed in small doses (one cannot simultaneously say that the tabloids are always lying but also say that the tabloids are the mouthpiece for x royal you hate; we can read tea leaves but those people are CONVINCED they know the real story; it’s as gross in its own way as the people who say crap like “Kate is such a gentle, beautiful, shy mother and England is lucky to have such a glorious queen.”), but they do have entertaining insights on some of the stuff. The royal family is basically a soap opera that can be read and watched forward and backward. It’s like Mad Men but with bigger sets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love Kate. She will make a wi fearful Queen.

Freudian slip. Kate does look a bit bewildered at times, doesn't she?

DP. The worst was on the Caribbean tour. William looked super pensive and borderline distraught and she has that same slacked jawed smile in every picture. Even someone in the rota referred to it as a “glue gun smile.” I always thought she was bright but the weird lack of awareness of how terribly it was going changed my mind.

I think she was aware, and horrified, but like a lazy, procrastinating student who didn’t do and won’t do their homework, she can only try to smile through how awful the public portion of the test is going. Neither she nor William have any intention of reading the binders of research with which they are undoubtedly provided and neither of them seems aware that in failing to do this most basic aspect of their job, they’re endangering their future.

And she defaults to what looks like a rictus grin.

Ouch!

There was one particularly horrifying picture of her from the Caribbean sadness tour. I can’t post it because the site (and hence the web address) has a banned word in it, but it’s… she’s not some easy-smiling, elegant woman.

Can you just copy and paste the image here? You've piqued my curiosity.

I’ve tried; the web address contains a banned word. If you search “Duchess Kate is now ready to shed her “Norfolk Mum” persona,” there should be a website called “CeleBRITy,” but replace “brit” with “mother dog.” Scroll down and she’s there. I don’t know how to do a reverse image search to find it elsewhere. (Just don’t linger too long in the comments unless you want to get stupid all over yourself.)

You're not convincing, citing that.

SMH

+1. Digging deep there, lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular opinion, but I actually find less issue with Charles and Camilla than I do with Kate and William. Charles and Camilla are problematic but ultimately come off as harmless, and they’ve also been put through the wringer for their own share of missteps. William and Kate, however, come off as extremely coddled and conniving. And lazy. A really powerfully distasteful combo.

Canadian here. I think Charles has actually done some good in his life, which is an admittedly low bar in a family that has protected Andrew for years. He has a long history of bringing environmental issues forward. I still don’t want him to get Canadian tax money but he isn’t as offensive as William, whose laziness is a slap to the face of the Canadian taxpayer.

I don’t care much about Kate. I mostly feel sorry for her because I think she’s married to a jerk who probably treats her badly and she doesn’t seem to have friends.

I don’t feel sorry for Kate. She didn’t have to marry a jerk or marry the future king of England. Not like she was some 20 year old child bride like Diana. Kate chose her life. She seems fine with her lot.

Not really; her lot is supposed to be “a life of ‘service’” in exchange for living high on the hog. Neither she nor her husband seems to have any idea that it’s an exchange and that the largesse of the Commonwealth taxpayers will happily keep paying for them.

Your posts are absolutely dripping with envy.

[Anonymous]

Honest question, are there a lot of British people on DCUM? I am surprised by a couple of the aggressively pro-Royalty commenters on here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honest question, are there a lot of British people on DCUM? I am surprised by a couple of the aggressively pro-Royalty commenters on here.

You’re surprised by fans of the Cambridges coming on a Cambridge thread? Seriously? Americans have always been fans of the BRF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question, are there a lot of British people on DCUM? I am surprised by a couple of the aggressively pro-Royalty commenters on here.

You’re surprised by fans of the Cambridges coming on a Cambridge thread? Seriously? Americans have always been fans of the BRF.

Can't imagine bootlicking "royalty" (it just seems like an awfully spineless and self-defeating activity), let along the royalty of another country altogether. That's gotta be like a double whammy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question, are there a lot of British people on DCUM? I am surprised by a couple of the aggressively pro-Royalty commenters on here.

You’re surprised by fans of the Cambridges coming on a Cambridge thread? Seriously? Americans have always been fans of the BRF.

Can't imagine bootlicking "royalty" (it just seems like an awfully spineless and self-defeating activity), let along the royalty of another country altogether. That's gotta be like a double whammy.

Have you ever heard the word Anglophile? It doesn't mean bootlicking, fyi.

[Anonymous]

People keep calling them "lazy" but what exactly do you want them to do? they are not allowed to have any political power or opinions. Being a patron of a charity isn't even raising money for it, its just shwoing up at events and smiling to publicize a call. they cannot lobby govt for anything. So thats what they do, they show up to dozens of events, nothing controversial and cut ribbons and shake hands. its not on them to "read the binders" of research, their staff should be advising them better on the bad look of the caribean tour. The problem is that the palace staff is full of stuffy old white peopel who refuse to see the writing on the wall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People keep calling them "lazy" but what exactly do you want them to do? they are not allowed to have any political power or opinions. Being a patron of a charity isn't even raising money for it, its just shwoing up at events and smiling to publicize a call. they cannot lobby govt for anything. So thats what they do, they show up to dozens of events, nothing controversial and cut ribbons and shake hands. its not on them to "read the binders" of research, their staff should be advising them better on the bad look of the caribean tour. The problem is that the palace staff is full of stuffy old white peopel who refuse to see the writing on the wall.

I think you've sort of encapsulated to a tee the uselessness of monarchy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People keep calling them "lazy" but what exactly do you want them to do? they are not allowed to have any political power or opinions. Being a patron of a charity isn't even raising money for it, its just shwoing up at events and smiling to publicize a call. they cannot lobby govt for anything. So thats what they do, they show up to dozens of events, nothing controversial and cut ribbons and shake hands. its not on them to "read the binders" of research, their staff should be advising them better on the bad look of the caribean tour. The problem is that the palace staff is full of stuffy old white peopel who refuse to see the writing on the wall.

I think you've sort of encapsulated to a tee the uselessness of monarchy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People keep calling them "lazy" but what exactly do you want them to do? they are not allowed to have any political power or opinions. Being a patron of a charity isn't even raising money for it, its just shwoing up at events and smiling to publicize a call. they cannot lobby govt for anything. So thats what they do, they show up to dozens of events, nothing controversial and cut ribbons and shake hands. its not on them to "read the binders" of research, their staff should be advising them better on the bad look of the caribean tour. The problem is that the palace staff is full of stuffy old white peopel who refuse to see the writing on the wall.

I think you've sort of encapsulated to a tee the uselessness of monarchy.

The British Royal Family is a symbol of tradition, heritage, and culture. They are important to the country, despite accusations of "uselessness".

To some extent, our First Family fills the role here. Since they switch out every 4 or 8 years, though, there's no stability or permanence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People keep calling them "lazy" but what exactly do you want them to do? they are not allowed to have any political power or opinions. Being a patron of a charity isn't even raising money for it, its just shwoing up at events and smiling to publicize a call. they cannot lobby govt for anything. So thats what they do, they show up to dozens of events, nothing controversial and cut ribbons and shake hands. its not on them to "read the binders" of research, their staff should be advising them better on the bad look of the caribean tour. The problem is that the palace staff is full of stuffy old white peopel who refuse to see the writing on the wall.

I think you've sort of encapsulated to a tee the uselessness of monarchy.

The British Royal Family is a symbol of tradition, heritage, and culture. They are important to the country, despite accusations of "uselessness".

To some extent, our First Family fills the role here. Since they switch out every 4 or 8 years, though, there's no stability or permanence.

Well said, pp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People keep calling them "lazy" but what exactly do you want them to do? they are not allowed to have any political power or opinions. Being a patron of a charity isn't even raising money for it, its just shwoing up at events and smiling to publicize a call. they cannot lobby govt for anything. So thats what they do, they show up to dozens of events, nothing controversial and cut ribbons and shake hands. its not on them to "read the binders" of research, their staff should be advising them better on the bad look of the caribean tour. The problem is that the palace staff is full of stuffy old white peopel who refuse to see the writing on the wall.

I think you've sort of encapsulated to a tee the uselessness of monarchy.

The British Royal Family is a symbol of tradition, heritage, and culture. They are important to the country, despite accusations of "uselessness".

To some extent, our First Family fills the role here. Since they switch out every 4 or 8 years, though, there's no stability or permanence.

They also bring in much more than they cost: https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/they-cost-us-a-mint-but-bring-in-much-more/amp/

[Anonymous]

Great! Then they don’t need to siphon money from Canada and the other Commonwealth countries!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Great! Then they don’t need to siphon money from Canada and the other Commonwealth countries!

Canada and the other Commonwealth countries will make decisions about what they want to do. Are you Canadian? You don't sound like it, in your post.