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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A British reporter shared some interesting conclusions last night

Yikes. That's pretty strongly worded from a reporter.

Oof. The British media landscape will look quite different when they're finally able to speak about William freely without threat of repercussion.

Personally, I can’t wait to hear more about Kate the Sloth and Wills the Bigot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A British reporter shared some interesting conclusions last night

Yikes. That's pretty strongly worded from a reporter.

Oof. The British media landscape will look quite different when they're finally able to speak about William freely without threat of repercussion.

Personally, I can’t wait to hear more about Kate the Sloth and Wills the Bigot.

I don’t have a problem with Kate. The most I can see them going is “Vacant Kate”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A British reporter shared some interesting conclusions last night

Yikes. That's pretty strongly worded from a reporter.

Oof. The British media landscape will look quite different when they're finally able to speak about William freely without threat of repercussion.

Personally, I can’t wait to hear more about Kate the Sloth and Wills the Bigot.

I don’t have a problem with Kate. The most I can see them going is “Vacant Kate”.

Thats much better than mine.

[Anonymous]

Kate and Wills are the second and third most popular royals in the UK behind her Majesty Queen Elizabeth: https://www.theweek.co.uk/104474/the-most-popular-british-royals?amp. As it should be. 😉

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone planning to read Tina Brown’s new book?

Not I. I hate Tina Brown and her books. She's a joke.

[Anonymous]

Just preordered it on iBooks—can’t wait for April 26!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

This is such a lazy and inaccurate claim that's been debunked so many times. You really have to be reaching if you think people are traveling to the UK because of the royal family, lol. Funny how just across the Channel, Versailles brings in way more tourist money than Buckingham Palace ever would. If you spend just a little more than a minute really thinking this through, it becomes immediately apparent just how paper-thin this argument is.

Hit a nerve, I see.

DP. But why do you need the actual people rather than just the palaces?

Right. Italy and France don’t have royal families and their tourism industries seem to be going just fine. In fact, better than the UK.

Italy and France have great food and culture. The UK does not have great food and the culture is much more classist - the royal family is arguably a huge tourism draw. But the concept of a monarchy is incredibly outdated. All William and Kate have done to “modernize” it is prioritize spending “more time” at home with their kids and doing fewer official engagements.

that is a 40 years out of date assumption. so funny I almost wet my pants

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

This is such a lazy and inaccurate claim that's been debunked so many times. You really have to be reaching if you think people are traveling to the UK because of the royal family, lol. Funny how just across the Channel, Versailles brings in way more tourist money than Buckingham Palace ever would. If you spend just a little more than a minute really thinking this through, it becomes immediately apparent just how paper-thin this argument is.

Hit a nerve, I see.

DP. But why do you need the actual people rather than just the palaces?

Right. Italy and France don’t have royal families and their tourism industries seem to be going just fine. In fact, better than the UK.

Italy and France have great food and culture. The UK does not have great food and the culture is much more classist - the royal family is arguably a huge tourism draw. But the concept of a monarchy is incredibly outdated. All William and Kate have done to “modernize” it is prioritize spending “more time” at home with their kids and doing fewer official engagements.

that is a 40 years out of date assumption. so funny I almost wet my pants

No, its pretty accurate for the current times. When fish and chips and curry (which is another country's origin dish) is your best to offer - you've got serious problems. No one goes to the UK for the food.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

This is such a lazy and inaccurate claim that's been debunked so many times. You really have to be reaching if you think people are traveling to the UK because of the royal family, lol. Funny how just across the Channel, Versailles brings in way more tourist money than Buckingham Palace ever would. If you spend just a little more than a minute really thinking this through, it becomes immediately apparent just how paper-thin this argument is.

Hit a nerve, I see.

DP. But why do you need the actual people rather than just the palaces?

Right. Italy and France don’t have royal families and their tourism industries seem to be going just fine. In fact, better than the UK.

Italy and France have great food and culture. The UK does not have great food and the culture is much more classist - the royal family is arguably a huge tourism draw. But the concept of a monarchy is incredibly outdated. All William and Kate have done to “modernize” it is prioritize spending “more time” at home with their kids and doing fewer official engagements.

that is a 40 years out of date assumption. so funny I almost wet my pants

+1 We enjoyed some wonderful food on our recent trip to the UK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

We get it—you hate all things British. Yadda yadda yadda

This is such a lazy and inaccurate claim that's been debunked so many times. You really have to be reaching if you think people are traveling to the UK because of the royal family, lol. Funny how just across the Channel, Versailles brings in way more tourist money than Buckingham Palace ever would. If you spend just a little more than a minute really thinking this through, it becomes immediately apparent just how paper-thin this argument is.

Hit a nerve, I see.

DP. But why do you need the actual people rather than just the palaces?

Right. Italy and France don’t have royal families and their tourism industries seem to be going just fine. In fact, better than the UK.

Italy and France have great food and culture. The UK does not have great food and the culture is much more classist - the royal family is arguably a huge tourism draw. But the concept of a monarchy is incredibly outdated. All William and Kate have done to “modernize” it is prioritize spending “more time” at home with their kids and doing fewer official engagements.

that is a 40 years out of date assumption. so funny I almost wet my pants

No, its pretty accurate for the current times. When fish and chips and curry (which is another country's origin dish) is your best to offer - you've got serious problems. No one goes to the UK for the food.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

This is such a lazy and inaccurate claim that's been debunked so many times. You really have to be reaching if you think people are traveling to the UK because of the royal family, lol. Funny how just across the Channel, Versailles brings in way more tourist money than Buckingham Palace ever would. If you spend just a little more than a minute really thinking this through, it becomes immediately apparent just how paper-thin this argument is.

Hit a nerve, I see.

DP. But why do you need the actual people rather than just the palaces?

Right. Italy and France don’t have royal families and their tourism industries seem to be going just fine. In fact, better than the UK.

Italy and France have great food and culture. The UK does not have great food and the culture is much more classist - the royal family is arguably a huge tourism draw. But the concept of a monarchy is incredibly outdated. All William and Kate have done to “modernize” it is prioritize spending “more time” at home with their kids and doing fewer official engagements.

that is a 40 years out of date assumption. so funny I almost wet my pants

+1 We enjoyed some wonderful food on our recent trip to the UK.

Was it traditional British food?

[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:Does William have a project he organized like Invictus for Harry? I know they had that Heads Together thing but that was William, Kate and Harry together so that doesn’t count. I mean something that’s just his that he obviously cares about. Anything?

William doesn’t have to do shi$… he will be King. Harry will just be… Harry. Indict us helps for sure to keep them in lights but nothing else much.

William doesn’t have to do shit but the Queen and Charles do? How does that work lol?

He makes plenty of appearances and is regularly at events, championing causes, etc. He’s also a father of three little kids and maybe he wants to be a more present father and husband than his father and grandfather. Or maybe he’s depressed. Or facing other issues. We have no idea. But William seems as engaged and devoted to his role as one could expect and these criticisms seem mean spirited.

I gave you the court circular link. No, he doesn’t show up regularly. Look at what his grandma was doing. Look at what his father, his step mom, Sophie, Edward, Meghan and Harry were doing. He’s by all accounts not a present father and that’s not the arrangement. He is a lazy man.

But hey, he’s going to finish off the monarchy when the people revolt at him being unable to keep up his end of the bargain.

Kate is more important to the continuation of the monarchy than he is. And she's doing fine.

I think you could make that argument if the monarchy status quo was generally positive-- scandal free and stable-- but, it's not. You described Kate as fine. She is, but only fine. She doesn't have the endearing or sparkly qualities that garner significant affection or loyalty. That's what you need to counter the damage that's been done in recent years.

She does. She is a good mother and she is unflappable. The queen is loved now because she has endured. Not out of a sense of godliness but because she's been there forever. People have gotten used to Camilla, but Kate is not an interloper, she is steady. And she'll remain steady, there's no question of it.

The Queen is popular not just for her steadiness but because she has worked tirelessly for 75 years in service to the people. You can't say the same for Kate. (And you can't use the excuse of small children. She didn't work before they were born, either.)

What a bunch of crock. Work tirelessly?? Doing what? What exactly did she do for all the Caribbean nations that are now rejecting her? Please describe all the work she has tirelessly done for them.

She showed up and didn't wait until she was forced at 40 to visit her realms. Same with Charles. Same with Anne. Point blank. Sad to say the bar is that low and the Cambridges can't even do that.

Are you DENSE? She became Queen when she was 25, it was her freaking job. William and Kate are the grandchildren of the monarch, I mean, he's not even first in line. What do you expect him to do? You're so dumb.

Someone is.

William is supposed to be doing royal work. He’s supposed to be opening centres and new wings of buildings. He’s supposed to be cutting ribbons and pulling tiny curtains open. He’s supposed to be doing charity work. That’s the whole deal, yes, even as the heir to the heir. And he doesn’t do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone planning to read Tina Brown’s new book?

Absolutely. I’m on the waiting list at the library. Her Diana Chronicles was really well written and pretty even handed. No one came out looking very well in that book.

[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:Does William have a project he organized like Invictus for Harry? I know they had that Heads Together thing but that was William, Kate and Harry together so that doesn’t count. I mean something that’s just his that he obviously cares about. Anything?

William doesn’t have to do shi$… he will be King. Harry will just be… Harry. Indict us helps for sure to keep them in lights but nothing else much.

William doesn’t have to do shit but the Queen and Charles do? How does that work lol?

He makes plenty of appearances and is regularly at events, championing causes, etc. He’s also a father of three little kids and maybe he wants to be a more present father and husband than his father and grandfather. Or maybe he’s depressed. Or facing other issues. We have no idea. But William seems as engaged and devoted to his role as one could expect and these criticisms seem mean spirited.

I gave you the court circular link. No, he doesn’t show up regularly. Look at what his grandma was doing. Look at what his father, his step mom, Sophie, Edward, Meghan and Harry were doing. He’s by all accounts not a present father and that’s not the arrangement. He is a lazy man.

But hey, he’s going to finish off the monarchy when the people revolt at him being unable to keep up his end of the bargain.

Kate is more important to the continuation of the monarchy than he is. And she's doing fine.

I think you could make that argument if the monarchy status quo was generally positive-- scandal free and stable-- but, it's not. You described Kate as fine. She is, but only fine. She doesn't have the endearing or sparkly qualities that garner significant affection or loyalty. That's what you need to counter the damage that's been done in recent years.

She does. She is a good mother and she is unflappable. The queen is loved now because she has endured. Not out of a sense of godliness but because she's been there forever. People have gotten used to Camilla, but Kate is not an interloper, she is steady. And she'll remain steady, there's no question of it.

The Queen is popular not just for her steadiness but because she has worked tirelessly for 75 years in service to the people. You can't say the same for Kate. (And you can't use the excuse of small children. She didn't work before they were born, either.)

What a bunch of crock. Work tirelessly?? Doing what? What exactly did she do for all the Caribbean nations that are now rejecting her? Please describe all the work she has tirelessly done for them.

She showed up and didn't wait until she was forced at 40 to visit her realms. Same with Charles. Same with Anne. Point blank. Sad to say the bar is that low and the Cambridges can't even do that.

Are you DENSE? She became Queen when she was 25, it was her freaking job. William and Kate are the grandchildren of the monarch, I mean, he's not even first in line. What do you expect him to do? You're so dumb.

Someone is.

William is supposed to be doing royal work. He’s supposed to be opening centres and new wings of buildings. He’s supposed to be cutting ribbons and pulling tiny curtains open. He’s supposed to be doing charity work. That’s the whole deal, yes, even as the heir to the heir. And he doesn’t do it.

Yeah he does. Despite you saying the same thing over and over again.

[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:Does William have a project he organized like Invictus for Harry? I know they had that Heads Together thing but that was William, Kate and Harry together so that doesn’t count. I mean something that’s just his that he obviously cares about. Anything?

William doesn’t have to do shi$… he will be King. Harry will just be… Harry. Indict us helps for sure to keep them in lights but nothing else much.

William doesn’t have to do shit but the Queen and Charles do? How does that work lol?

He makes plenty of appearances and is regularly at events, championing causes, etc. He’s also a father of three little kids and maybe he wants to be a more present father and husband than his father and grandfather. Or maybe he’s depressed. Or facing other issues. We have no idea. But William seems as engaged and devoted to his role as one could expect and these criticisms seem mean spirited.

I gave you the court circular link. No, he doesn’t show up regularly. Look at what his grandma was doing. Look at what his father, his step mom, Sophie, Edward, Meghan and Harry were doing. He’s by all accounts not a present father and that’s not the arrangement. He is a lazy man.

But hey, he’s going to finish off the monarchy when the people revolt at him being unable to keep up his end of the bargain.

Kate is more important to the continuation of the monarchy than he is. And she's doing fine.

I think you could make that argument if the monarchy status quo was generally positive-- scandal free and stable-- but, it's not. You described Kate as fine. She is, but only fine. She doesn't have the endearing or sparkly qualities that garner significant affection or loyalty. That's what you need to counter the damage that's been done in recent years.

She does. She is a good mother and she is unflappable. The queen is loved now because she has endured. Not out of a sense of godliness but because she's been there forever. People have gotten used to Camilla, but Kate is not an interloper, she is steady. And she'll remain steady, there's no question of it.

The Queen is popular not just for her steadiness but because she has worked tirelessly for 75 years in service to the people. You can't say the same for Kate. (And you can't use the excuse of small children. She didn't work before they were born, either.)

What a bunch of crock. Work tirelessly?? Doing what? What exactly did she do for all the Caribbean nations that are now rejecting her? Please describe all the work she has tirelessly done for them.

She showed up and didn't wait until she was forced at 40 to visit her realms. Same with Charles. Same with Anne. Point blank. Sad to say the bar is that low and the Cambridges can't even do that.

Are you DENSE? She became Queen when she was 25, it was her freaking job. William and Kate are the grandchildren of the monarch, I mean, he's not even first in line. What do you expect him to do? You're so dumb.

Someone is.

William is supposed to be doing royal work. He’s supposed to be opening centres and new wings of buildings. He’s supposed to be cutting ribbons and pulling tiny curtains open. He’s supposed to be doing charity work. That’s the whole deal, yes, even as the heir to the heir. And he doesn’t do it.

Yeah he does. Despite you saying the same thing over and over again.

You keep assuming that its one person with this option. You're wrong. Its many and the way the Commonwealth is dropping the future Head of State like dominos is pretty much a note that a global population sees the laziness of the heir and doesn't want him for their future or what he represents. I mean you'd think the BRF would be rushing to correct the narratives, make apologies, and outreach to the rest of the Commonwealth to build bridges but they just aren't that smart.

- DP