To think the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge need to work on their PR strategy?

[SamanthaBrique]

In recent months they've been accused of being work shy and what's their solution? To release photos of them and the children on a luxury skiing break! Now I don't begrudge them a holiday, but why make it so public? If they wanted to release photos of the kids then they could've just released a few shots of George and Charlotte at Kensington Palace or Anmer Hall. I don't know who is advising them on their PR but AIBU to think they need to engage someone a bit more in touch with public sentiment?

Aside from the point, but how does a family skiing holiday work with two very young kids?

The whole concept of having a monarchy is not only unfair but ridiculous, undemocratic and farcical.

Fine but they're not responsible for that and neither is it reasonable to expect them to personally end the monarchy by abdicating. They're only human. Blame a system, but don't take pot-shots at individuals. It isn't fair because there will always be someone dissatisfied so there will always be someone sniping. That's not a fair way to treat someone who didn't sign up for anything.

So there :)

People don't generally take potshots at the Queen's work ethic, TBF gone.

Fine but they're not responsible for that and neither is it reasonable to expect them to personally end the monarchy by abdicating.

of course they shouldn't. they are having money and privilege thrown at them. Who'd say no?

they aren't the problem. we are the suckers.

I don't expect they'll want to end the monarchy themselves. Why would they give up all that indulgence and privilege. (How they must laugh at all the suckers who pay for it all)
In view of all the recent and impending cuts to the disabled I find the whole concept of the monarchy obscene.

What about the sexism which says she should be handing them shamrocks etc, why not a man? Especially if he is the c-in-c.

iris

What a mean-spirited and limited understanding of human nature you must have. Abdicating would mean letting down and causing great hurt to many people in the royal family and, to older people, in the country. William would have a life of privilege without any connection with royalty. I think you're wrong to say he holds onto it because he wants it.

I work in a tourism related job in London and the royal family generate huge amounts of tourist revenue. Yes, arguably people would come anyway, but for many tourists there is a huge fascination with the monarchy. Those visitors spend money in hotels, restaurants, museums etc and this generates jobs. In particular many Americans are incredibly interested, but mostly in the Queen, William and Kate. There is mild interest in Charles and Camilla but little awareness of other royals.

I think William and Kate should recognise this, and I do think that they want to have all the trappings of royalty without the commitment that goes with it. Cake and eat it comes to mind. In my view William's commitment is not good enough and I'm afraid I'm in the 'waity Katy' camp. She could be, and should be, a better role model.

I have a friend who is a journalist who tells me that apparently Rupert Murdoch has loads of dirt on the Royals but will never publish during the Queen's lifetime as he is a great admirer of her personal commitment and contribution. But after she is gone the gloves will be off!

Has that Middleton one ever done a day's work in her life?

Hah Julius, Murdoch will be dead before her!

What a mean-spirited and limited understanding of human nature you must have. Abdicating would mean letting down and causing great hurt to many people in the royal family and, to older people, in the country
No, it's mean spirited to think it's perfectly fine to have so much going to so few, the haves get richer while the poor get poorer....but it's fine as long as we don't "hurt and let down " those poor older royals. What a ridiculous justification for keeping a monarchy....so we don't hurt or let them down.

If having an understanding of human nature means "not letting down and causing hurt to many people then really there shouldn't be anyone in this country going hungry or lacking a roof over their heads. Or does this understanding^ only apply to one super privileged family, purely because of the accident of birth.

Julius there is no proof that the royals increase tourism. People would still come and visit the castles and palaces without the royals, probably even more so. It's all about the history. The fact that Paris is the worlds number one tourist spot is proof of this.

I have a friend who is a journalist who tells me that apparently Rupert Murdoch has loads of dirt on the Royals but will never publish during the Queen's lifetime

People always say things like that. Apparently there's an infamous photo, involving Debbie McGee, locked away in a vault. Now that Paul Daniels, who seemed a nice enough man, has died, I doubt we'll be seeing it, or that it even exists.

You mustn't believe everything journalists tell you ;)

People always say things like that

Sometimes they're true. Both the Squidgy and Camilla-gate tapes were locked away in safes for some time before they were used. Ditto evidence about Mark Philips secret child and letters proving Anne's affair with Tim Lawrence.

The fact that Paris is the worlds number one tourist spot is proof of this.

I think it's London, actually. But I agree with the rest of it. I walk past Buckingham Palace every day and explained to a tourist that the flag flying on Wednesday meant she was in -which is rare because she has a lot of homes to choose from.

'Oh,' he said. 'Do you think we'll see her?' I said probably not, as she and Prince Philip don't come out on the balcony like a cuckoo clock.

He didn't seem that bothered.

I have to laugh because The Daily Mail have done an about turn and are now kissing Royal arse. Wonder what deals they made?

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3498569/Well-known-thrifty-Duchess-Cambridge-recycles-favourite-Missoni-coat-opens-charity-shop-Norfolk.html

I always wonder what the story they were threatening to print about Sam Cam was. They hinted it was very juicy but never printed it.

I agree Bill sometimes damaging things about the Royals have come out.

To add to your list there was Charles meeting a mystery blonde on the Royal Train shortly before his wedding that readers took to be Diana, but the journalists knew to be Camilla. Or the serialisation of the Andrew Morton book Her True Story, that the Royals and their supporters pooh-poohed, but which turned out to be devastatingly accurate.

Or the Fergie toe-sucking scandal, or Prince Harry wearing a swastika or being nude at a drunken party.

All in Murdoch publications. His editors. like all journalists, have various reasons for holding back, but the idea that it's because Rupert has a deep regard for the Queen doesn't stand up, otherwise none of these things would have emerged.

The Daily Mail have done an about turn and are now kissing Royal arse. Wonder what deals they made?

Absolutely none. The Mail have a set of pictures to caption up so they've chosen the slightly less boring angle of Kate wearing a coat a few times than that of her visiting a charity.

There is no big conspiracy here. When a set of dull pictures with no story crosses your desk, you write any old nonsense in 15 minutes, because that is what is required.

I fundamentally disagree with the writer that Kate had wrapped up warmly. I'd have pointed out that she looks fucking freezing. Without the fucking, obviously. I might have speculated on whether she was wearing anything under the coat; it doesn't look like it to me.

And then I'd have linked to those shots of her skirt blowing up revealing tantalising glances of her bare arse.

That would have made it a slightly more interesting story.

Yes, arguably people would come anyway

that's important isn't when we decide to support the RF in their lifestyle?

And the pictures of Princess Beatrice with Fergie's squeeze Steve Wyatt which were 'forgotten' and 'left behind in a move' for a cleaner to find on top of a cupboard and flog to the papers.

IIRC correctly Murdoch sat on these and used them as a control and leverage with the Royals. For example they couldn't complain too much about less damaging public stories being published about them when they knew that they were sitting on dynamite. Plus the Squidgy tape was withheld precisely because Murdoch felt it would create to much of an anti-Diana pro-Windsor sentiment. Even when it was initially released they redacted the worst bits eg her fears about getting pregnant.

Although I don't think the press knew it was Camilla on the train. There was a big stink over that because the press knew their source that a blonde had indeed boarded the train were impeccable but the palace were equally adamant it was not Diana and it developed into a stand off where the press were accusing the palace of lying which wasn't resolved until the Queen personally stepped in and stated Diana was not on the train.

They genuinely thought it was Diana and apparently Charles and his friends still claim it was!

limitedperiodonly

There is no big conspiracy here.

I don't believe this. The Mail have been posting story after story slagging off William and Kate, calling them workshy, and then today there are a bunch of stories about how wonderful the Royals are. Of course deals are done.

You're imagining that the the British Royal Family holds far more interest for Rupert Murdock than I suspect Bill.

He is an Australian by birth and an American by convenience. I find it hard to believe that someone like that, has much affection for the British Monarchy.

He is head of a global media company worth billions. At the moment, I guess his interest in Britain is in which way the EU referendum goes, because that will have an impact on his business.

He may like Elizabeth on a personal level, but I doubt if he'd let it get in the way of business. Just like if he hated her.

I don't think he has any affection for any of them. He is a Republican. But I think he's smart enough to know that sometimes sitting on a story gives him far more power over them than publishing.

Diana knew that the press had the squidgy tape for a long time before they ran with it. It made her much more likely to cooperate with them them and not complain too much about them or be too difficult.

Believe what you want NightWanderer.

Diana knew that the press had the squidgy tape for a long time before they ran with it. It made her much more likely to cooperate with them them and not complain too much about them or be too difficult.

Diana complained all the time about press intrusion while courting it. She co-operated all right, but it wasn't under duress.

A posh young woman used to regularly ring newsdesks to tip them off to where Diana could be found ministering to the homeless or once memorably claiming to have seen her saving a drowning man from the Serpentine .

The Squidgy tape was undoubtedly picked up by the security services and released with the pretence of it being stumbled across by a radio ham. But its eventual release did not hurt Diana.

The biggest problem the Royal Family had at that time was Charles and Diana briefing to the press against each other and Diana being better at it.