General News for the Cambridge Family 2: January 2015-March 2017

[Skippyboo]

They would have multiple RPOs. It's not going to be WK and 1 RPO. At least 2 inside with the Cambridges. Some out with the cars. There is going to be a second car to follow the Royal car. Back in the post college clubbing days, when they were both drunk did a RPO drive or did they get a driver from the Royal Mews?


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Tiggersk8]

Just going to throw in my own two cents worth on the issue of asking for sources. I believe that it is part and parcel of the forum rules that what is posted is able to be backed up by reputable sources. This, I believe, keeps TRF as more of an informational archive than a gossip/flamethrowing/speculative forum where anything can be dished out.



Our moderators work hard to keep this place the way it is and its because of this dedication that TRF has been around for so long.



To quote the TRF rules:



Whenever possible, opinions should be based on factual information obtained from reputable sources and should be backed up by references to those sources. The moderators reserve the right to delete posts containing the more fanciful types of gossip and speculation, whether they originate in gossip magazines and websites or are simply fabricated.

Which Is fine when it's something being discussed that's just happened, but that's not usually the case around here and 99.9% of the time, it's things that happened years after the fact and usually by someone attempting to stir things up. This isn't a Thesis Defence or something being published where every little source needs quoted. This a Discussion Forum about Royals for crying out loud and supposed to be fun for the most part.

It's not so much being sick of what's being asked, but sick and tired of the snippy snotty nasty manner of how it's usually asked and not only that, but about something 2, 3, 4 who knows how many years ago. That I am beyond sick and tired of and I stand by what I said. If you don't believe me that's fine, but I'm also not going to search for something for someone who won't believe it or will challenge it, because they've been proven wrong and can't have that happen after all.

BTW...I believe I did state where that news piece I heard Kate say that was over at YouTube. As I said though, if someone doesn't want to or know how to do a simple search in this day and age, especially for something from nearly two years ago, then it is not up to me!!


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[AdmirerUS]

When I supply a source I know I am helping to let people learn more. Sometimes i don't have time to go back and find past links in the Forums - bit I do try to point people to threads.
And I really, really appreciate it when people give me liks or point me somewhere in the Forums.
We're off topic, but I did want to say thanks to all.

 

[MARG]

Actually, I don't think it is actually 'off topic', especially when it concerns the Cambridge family. If people cannot be bothered to back up their own "facts" then perhaps they are on the wrong thread.

I love TRF for asking us to back up our often controversial assertions about the Cambridge family, more so as opinions are more and more often stated as fact rather than prefixed with IMHO or even IMO. When opinion gets mixed up with fact, it is increasingly difficult to separate fact from fiction or, somebody's biased opinion from the actual truth and it's consequent squabbles.

Not surprisingly the Cambridge family are prime targets for misinformation or disinformation and the consequent requests for verification are increasingly being labelled as "argumentative" by their purveyors, instead of answered.

 

[Jacknch]

Time to move the discussion back on-topic, which is General News for the Cambridge Family and not a debate over providing sources.

 

[Queen Claude]

Wills is throne idle: Prince on 1st job of the year... and it’s a disaster
Royal’s first official engagement of the new year turned into a right cock-up
By EMILY ANDREWS, Royal Correspondent
19:01, 17 Feb 2016

PRINCE WILLIAM has finally shown up for work.

While most of us have been grafting for well over a month, his first official engagement came 47 days into the new year — and even then it turned into a right royal cock-up.

Addressing diplomats at the Foreign Office on Tuesday, about the virtues of diplomacy, should have eased the prince in gently.

But the fallout yesterday likely left him wishing he had pulled a sickie...

Wills is throne idle: Prince on 1st job of the year... and it’s a disaster

 

[Rudolph]

Its hard to make a comment given no sources are listed. I mean there are 'unnamed' sources but that can mean its completely fabricated.

Anyone can write a story if they're not going to say who their source is. Without knowing, its rubbish to me.

Its just the same 'William needs to more' that the tabloids like to push

 

[Mbruno]

Wills is throne idle: Prince on 1st job of the year... and it’s a disaster
Royal’s first official engagement of the new year turned into a right cock-up
By EMILY ANDREWS, Royal Correspondent
19:01, 17 Feb 2016

PRINCE WILLIAM has finally shown up for work.

While most of us have been grafting for well over a month, his first official engagement came 47 days into the new year — and even then it turned into a right royal cock-up.

Addressing diplomats at the Foreign Office on Tuesday, about the virtues of diplomacy, should have eased the prince in gently.

But the fallout yesterday likely left him wishing he had pulled a sickie.
...

Wills is throne idle: Prince on 1st job of the year... and it’s a disaster

That discussion is pointless. When Charles is king, William will have to take up more public duties whether he likes it or not, as he will be the heir to the throne and Charles is said to want a slimmed-down royal family.

Talk about "reluctant heirs" is nothing new. We used to hear it also in connection with Frederik of Denmark, Willem-Alexander in the Netherlands, and even Philippe of Belgium. In time, all of the above "fell in line". Philippe and Willem-Alexander are even full-time kings now due to the premature abdications of their respective parents.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

It is a pointless question. When the prince is not suitable to be King, a Regent will be appointed unless he himself renounces his rights or abdicates the throne. Even if we conclude that William is most unsuitable indeed, he will be King anyway.

 

[cepe]

That discussion is pointless. When Charles is king, William will have to take up more public duties whether he likes it or not, as he will be the heir to the throne and Charles is said to want a slimmed-down royal family.

Talk about "reluctant heirs" is nothing new. We used to hear it also in connection with Frederik of Denmark, Willem-Alexander in the Netherlands, and even Philippe of Belgium. In time, all of the above "fell in line". Philippe and Willem-Alexander are even full-time kings now due to the premature abdications of their respective parents.

So true - its all cyclical. And the above examples were/are the heirs to thrones. William isnt

 

[TLLK]

Glad to see that there are many here who remember those articles about our recent monarchs. From what I recall all of them had their share of "He/She is unprepared!!!" stories for years. Now it's William's turn and he has yet to reach the position of heir to the throne.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I don't know about reluctancy concerning Prince Philippe of Belgium. Until King Baudouin's unexpected death, he never was the Heir. He was already a matured man, aged 33, when he became Duke of Brabant and successor to the King. It was probably already too late for reluctant feelings, which are often very much connected to the formative years.

 

[sndral]

"He deliberately based himself, wife Kate and their children — George, two, and nine-month-old Charlotte — out of the public eye at the ten-bedroom Anmer Hall in deepest Norfolk."
Quote from the Sun article.
To me this says it all - substitute "out of the public eye" with "out of the stalking paparazzi's long telephoto lenses" and you have what really bothers the Tabloid press - William has successfully shielded his family from the intrusive voracious gutter press and they don't like it.
The Tabs 'need' those shots of George and Charlotte walking in the park next to KP, William and Catherine shopping in London or driving the kids to BP for swimming lessons, etc. to pay the bills.
The Tab press can snivel and whine and call William names all they want, but it won't change a thing, William is determined to protect his family and based on the Tab's complaints, it appears he's doing so successfully
What's missing from the article's complaint that he's becoming a 'gentleman farmer like his posh friends' is the fact that he is actually working as a helicopter pilot - a full time job for most mortals - plus doing some Royal duties - and of course there's that tour of India coming up.

 

[miss whirley]

Its hard to make a comment given no sources are listed. I mean there are 'unnamed' sources but that can mean its completely fabricated.

Anyone can write a story if they're not going to say who their source is. Without knowing, its rubbish to me.

Its just the same 'William needs to more' that the tabloids like to push

Yeah, If it came from a different writer I might raise an eyebrow, but Emily Andrews has a long history of fabricating sources and/or trusting unreliable ones.

Recently, she proclaimed in big letters that Arthur Landon was engaged. And her “exclusive” was believed by many royal watchers. Why even on this site people were congratulating Arthur. Then Arthur Landon took to Twitter, he said he wasn’t engaged, and that The Sun had fabricated the story. Emily Andrews and The Sun had to issue a humiliating retraction. According, to Ms. Andrews a troll on social media sent her the claim and she believed it, so she published it, it’s not her fault she published something without independently verifying, or looking for a legitimate source.

Then there was Emily Andrews' “exclusive” on Juliette Labelle. She claimed that Harry has being having a secret liaison with the American woman. Of course, Ms. Labelle came forward and said she never met Harry and that she was in Mexico during NYE when Ms. Andrews claimed she was in LA. It was another embarrassment for Ms. Andrews, so she kept her head down on the subject for awhile. But apparently she got a lot of clicks out of her original article - enough to warrant ignoring the denial, because today she published pictures of Harry’s ‘LA girlfriend’ topless. She said she had 'exclusive' access to the pictures, when actually they were posted on IG, and Ms. Andrews merely copied and pasted.

And these examples are just in the last month. I’d like to believe that her editor is bullying her for exclusives, and because she doesn’t have any, she resorts to fabrication. The other alternative is that she has no journalistic integrity and enjoys the attention she gets from yarns, the Katie Nicholl blueprint. I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt and say she’s her editors puppet, and right now she’s over her head.

 

[Curryong]

I think William's lifestyle at the moment rather echoes that of King George V when he was Duke of York and his children were small. George very much lived the life of a Norfolk country gentleman, interspersed with Royal duties, until his father became King.

I will say this, however. The British tabloids seem to be becoming increasingly disgruntled about the Cambridges' very private lifestyle. I do think this is something the couple ignore at their peril as, love em or hate em, this section of the media are an influence on British public opinion. (I believe Richard Palmer on his Twitter page agreed that the broad thrust of the article coincided with what he had gathered from contacts at KP.)

The Guardian's view. Halfway down the article it talks of the frustrations of other editors.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/feb/18/the-sun-gives-both-barrels-to-prince-william

 

[Rudolph]

The problem with unnamed sources is this, how is the public to judge? It's one thing to use a source when the story is verifiable but almost all royal stories aren't verifiable. It's just gossip.

Anytime a reporter warts to take a pop, it's always well my sources tell me so and so. And?

Unless Emily Andrews or Richard Palmer can name someone specific and on the record, I will ignore. Give me a name and then we can debate it.

 

[miss whirley]

I will say this, however. The British tabloids seem to be becoming increasingly disgruntled about the Cambridges' very private lifestyle. I do think this is something the couple ignore at their peril as, love em or hate em, this section of the media are an influence on British public opinion. [/url]

If William is thumbing his nose at the misogynistic, racist, classist, islamophobic British tabloids, then he has greatly gone up in my estimation. He’s not here to entertain those creeps with his personal life and private job. If they choose not to cover the hard work of the full-time royals, but instead whine that the part-timers(William, Catherine, Harry) aren’t giving them enough photo opportunities or juicy gossip, then it’s their own superficial editorial decisions that are letting them down. Instead of complaining that the BRF aren’t helping their tabloid create a profit, they should be looking in the mirror.

 

[Crashley]

I feel bad for William when it comes to situations like this. I think he's trying to have a normal life as much as possible now, because he knows it will change soon enough. It was different for Charles because he was already Prince of Wales when he got married and had children, he simply had more responsibility. It's the same for Diana - comparing her work load to Kate's. Anyway, I get why the journos (as a journalist myself, I use the term loosely with some of these people) are mad but frankly, I don't think they should be. They need to lay off sometimes.

 

[Curryong]

The Guardian's not a tabloid, see the link above. I just think, as I've said before that KP can't ignore this. I lived in Britain for over twenty years and then some more in recent years, so I do know what I'm talking about. The tabloids have a greater effect on shaping British public opinion than you'd think, whatever our opinion of them here.

 

[miss whirley]

The Guardian's not a tabloid, see the link above. I just think, as I've said before that KP can't ignore this. I lived in Britain for over twenty years and then some more in recent years, so I do know what I'm talking about. The tabloids have a greater effect on shaping British public opinion than you'd think.

The Guardian was discussing The Sun and other tabloids. Analyzing the mind frame of a tabloid doesn't make you a tabloid, yourself. The Guardian does not care if they are provided with regular pictures of The Cambridges and Harry.

 

[Rudolph]

Here is a twitter link to what Richard Palmer thinks his job is. To make 'mischief'

So someone who likes to take shots at William and wants us to believe his 'sources' says his job is to make mischief? Its just too funny

https://twitter.com/royalreporter/status/685227529079263232

 

[Osipi]

"He deliberately based himself, wife Kate and their children — George, two, and nine-month-old Charlotte — out of the public eye at the ten-bedroom Anmer Hall in deepest Norfolk."

Quote from the Sun article.

What a big difference a few more words would have added to that quote that would have blown Emily Andrews' article into the trash bin where it belongs.

The quote above should perhaps should have been stated as:

"He deliberately based himself, wife Kate and their children — George, two, and nine-month-old Charlotte — out of the public eye at the ten-bedroom Anmer Hall in deepest Norfolk which was given to him to use by HM, The Queen".

Remembering to include that William was gifted the use of Anmer by "The Boss" with expectations that he would use it wouldn't make much of a story though.

 

[royal rob]

The Guardian's not a tabloid, see the link above. I just think, as I've said before that KP can't ignore this. I lived in Britain for over twenty years and then some more in recent years, so I do know what I'm talking about. The tabloids have a greater effect on shaping British public opinion than you'd think, whatever our opinion of them here.

???. Totally agree


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[GracieGiraffe]

I read the Sun and the Guardian articles. Not sure what to make of the Sun article - everything in it echoes what you would read on some of the less decorous royal boards, which could mean one of two things; Emily Andrews reads them and based her story on what they say, thereby bolstering her own story in the minds of the public, or the other boards guessed right and she does have a source.

By far, the more interesting and thought-provoking article is the Guardian, with its assessment of the Cambridges and their relationship with the media, particularly the last sentence, "I may be reading too much into the Sun’s broadside against Prince William, but I detect a change of heart that could turn into a change of strategy. Is it to be open season on the huntin’, shootin and fishin’ prince and his family from now on?" I see this last sentence as more an amused observation than a warning to the Cambridges, as the Guardian does not sell papers based on shots of George and Charlotte.

Perhaps it's not just Richard Palmer who is frustrated at Will's relationship with the press. The end result of this frustration is anybody's guess, but I don't see this war ending soon. No matter who is the victor, I think that the victims will be the two children, and I take no pleasure in saying that.

 

[Rudolph]

Princess Diana had the cosiest relationship in the world with the press and it came back to haunt her.

The tabloid press and it's only the tabloid press wants as much access to William and Kate as possible and it's William and Kate's job to set boundaries.

It's kind of funny people say William has a bad relationship with the press just because he doesn't play games with them.

William can parade his children in front of the cameras every other day and the papers will still write rubbish because that's what tabloids do.

 

[miss whirley]

Princess Diana had the cosiest relationship in the world with the press and it came back to haunt her.

The tabloid press and it's only the tabloid press wants as much access to William and Kate as possible and it's William and Kate's job to set boundaries.

It's kind of funny people say William has a bad relationship with the press just because he doesn't play games with them.

William can parade his children in front of the cameras every other day and the papers will still write rubbish because that's what tabloids do.

Exactly. They will trash talk William and his young family no matter what he does, Diana worked hard to befriend the media and make them into her cohorts, and they were still often ruthless towards her. William knows there’s no benefit to dancing with the devil, but there is a benefit to preserving his children’s privacy, dignity, and sanity. I hope he continues the good fight.

In the words of Eleanor Roosevelt - "Do what you feel in your heart to be right- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't."

 

[Ana Von Cleves]

Spot on!

I think William's lifestyle at the moment rather echoes that of King George V when he was Duke of York and his children were small. George very much lived the life of a Norfolk country gentleman, interspersed with Royal duties, until his father became King.

I think you are exactly right in the comparison. I think every GV biographer has complained that the king seemed to do nothing for 20 years but work on his stamp collection (now reckoned to be one of the most valuable in the world).

William AND Kate will be fine.

Ana

 

[Iluvbertie]

George V however made one major change to the way the monarchy operated AFTER WWI - in other words as King. He made it a policy for the BRF to actually make an emotional connection with the people having seen so many relatives lose everything due to not having any real connection to the majority of the public. That is way he introduced the big royal weddings and then encouraged the images of the York girls with their parents and with him and Queen Mary - and later the film images. William wants to take the BRF back to a period before WWI with his attitude and that isn't going to go down well - the public need to feel a part of their lives if they are going to continue to support them. If William isn't careful he may get his wish - and have a 'normal' life with no titles or government hand-outs and having to pay death duties etc - in other words he may lose it all if he isn't careful.

 

[Osipi]

I think William is trying to find a very delicate balance between being seen as being part and parcel of everyday British lives and that as a royal, he cares immensely about the quality of life, the preservation of species, and the importance of the monarchy being involved in the things that matter to the people. He is also trying to put some aspects of the media and public curiosity back into Pandora's Box that was created during the 80s and 90s where intimate, private matters of members of the royal family were splashed on front pages everywhere and dirty laundry was the cash cow of the day.

In this respect I admire W&K for staunchly drawing the line of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable when it comes to their private lives and their children. To find that balance and maintain it isn't an easy task but it does take a firm resolve that it needs to be done.

 

[miss whirley]

George V however made one major change to the way the monarchy operated AFTER WWI - in other words as King. He made it a policy for the BRF to actually make an emotional connection with the people having seen so many relatives lose everything due to not having any real connection to the majority of the public. That is way he introduced the big royal weddings and then encouraged the images of the York girls with their parents and with him and Queen Mary - and later the film images. William wants to take the BRF back to a period before WWI with his attitude and that isn't going to go down well - the public need to feel a part of their lives if they are going to continue to support them. If William isn't careful he may get his wish - and have a 'normal' life with no titles or government hand-outs and having to pay death duties etc - in other words he may lose it all if he isn't careful.

I think William has embraced the post-WWI philosophy. He had the big wedding, he posed with his newborn children in front of the hospital, he releases regular pictures of them. He has George educated at a public preschool, instead of inside the castle with a tutor. William gives regular interviews, he goes on tours. His press team works hard to connect with the public through social media. Like George V he understands he has to connect with everyday Britons. He doesn’t understand trying to connect with self-serving tabloid conglomerates.

He not trying to take the BRF to pre-WWI. He’s trying to take them back to pre-Diana. Even Diana herself knew she had created a monster.