To think William and Kate are currently over exposed

[greenandpinkbudgie]

Why do we need to keep seeing them everywhere? The more I see them trying to convey their perfect Boden lives the more I find it irritating. I think their PR people seem to have gone into overdrive

Not really.

Certain posters claimed to be monarchists when defending other members of the RF but now it turns out (what a surprise!) that actually they're not monarchists at all. At most, they're disrupters. At worst, they're people who revere US celebrity as the epitome of culture. And posters with those values will attempt to undermine the RF continually because the history, values and context are lost on them.
There is no middle ground with people who think US celebs are aspirational and consider a Disney princess (corporate, commodified, regressively stereotypical and restricting for girls and women) to be preferable.
The irony is, I'm not a monarchist, but making a political and financial case for change is a million miles away from these cult of personality, personal attacks. If anything, I think they push people towards the RF.

@Viviennemary

Not really.

Figures.

@TheGlassBlowersDaughter

Certain posters claimed to be monarchists when defending other members of the RF but now it turns out (what a surprise!) that actually they're not monarchists at all. At most, they're disrupters. At worst, they're people who revere US celebrity as the epitome of culture. And posters with those values will attempt to undermine the RF continually because the history, values and context are lost on them. There is no middle ground with people who think US celebs are aspirational and consider a Disney princess (corporate, commodified, regressively stereotypical and restricting for girls and women) to be preferable. The irony is, I'm not a monarchist, but making a political and financial case for change is a million miles away from these cult of personality, personal attacks. If anything, I think they push people towards the RF.

I agree totally

@ anyone thinking Hollywood celebs are the epitome of culture. Theyre all a bit dare I say it chavvy.

William and Kate?! They’re not everywhere. Do you mean H&M? I could see your point if you were.

Have just seen Kate having her jab yesterday - she's heading towards 40 - amazed she hadn't already been 'done'. Hopefully that bit of over-exposure will encourage others to get the jab.

@ShirleyPhallus

Yes, they seem to be on the news very often at the moment

I’m a bit bored of seeing Kate’s OTT, lovey smile at her husband just showing how in lurrrrrvvve they are, or that head thrown back, rictus grin of hilarity because something always seems hilarious. They’re beautiful photos but I fail to believe she’s so in lurve with her husband that she can’t help gazing up at him adoringly or finds stuff quite that hilarious

Spot on

@WisconsinRaw

The meeting with Gordon Brown was hardly secret, given that we all know about it

Like Watergate?

Something we only know because of a journalistic expose those in question tried to censor is the definition of a secret.

Some of you are really scraping the barrel for things to blame them for.
One of the largest broadcasters in this country felt the secret meetings and attempted censorship was serious enough that they had to issue a statement calling Kensington Palace liars.

One of the largest broadcasters in the country was pissed off because it didn’t get a story no other broadcaster or press got either. Here’s the facts (from the BBC site).

The couple's meeting with Mr Brown and his wife Sarah at the Palace of Holyroodhouse was not publicised, but was later mentioned in the court circular - which details official engagements undertaken by the royals

No secrets or lying there.

@KeflavikAirport

There are about 1 million reasons not to have a monarchy. Forcing someone with a communication disability into leading a public life is one of them.

Sorry not rtft but who are you talking about here? Just curious to know.

I'm not sure about over-exposed, I didn't like the advert-style anniversary video and I do find the huge Kate smile a bit much (it's a lovely smile, but seriously nobody is that happy all the time), but I don't think there's that much exposure. I wish they would both dress more stylishly though. Always seems to be rather literal (e.g. tartan for Scotland) and unnecessarily middle-aged. Even taking their position into account, why not look at the Spanish royals for a bit of inspiration. A lot less staid.

One of the largest broadcasters in the country was pissed off because it didn’t get a story no other broadcaster or press got either.

But they did get the story. They got the footage and the scoop no one else got. They're pissed off because they were suppressed from broadcasting it.

If the meeting was not a secret how come it was only added to the Court Circular later on, after Channel 4 broke the news?

Why did Kensington Palace lie in order to suppress news of the meeting, if the meeting was not secret? You don't make false allegations and engage in press censorship to try to keep non-secret meetings out of the press.

@WisconsinRaw

One of the largest broadcasters in the country was pissed off because it didn’t get a story no other broadcaster or press got either.

But they did get the story. They got the footage and the scoop no one else got. They're pissed off because they were suppressed from broadcasting it.

If the meeting was not a secret how come it was only added to the Court Circular later on, after Channel 4 broke the news?

Why did Kensington Palace lie in order to suppress news of the meeting, if the meeting was not secret? You don't make false allegations and engage in press censorship to try to keep non-secret meetings out of the press.

You’re contradicting yourself right, left and centre here.

If Ch4 broke the news, in what way were they prevented from broadcasting it? Perhaps the court circular is routinely updated retrospectively? Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.

If Ch4 broke the news, in what way were they prevented from broadcasting it?
Do you not understand that tweeting about not being allowed to broadcast a report, is not the same as actually broadcasting that news report on TV?

Perhaps the court circular is routinely updated retrospectively?
Is it?

Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.
I admire royal stans for trying, but there's really no way you can spin "one of the biggest broadcasters in the UK accused the Cambridges of lying and trying to censor the press" as nbd.

William is playing a dangerous game. Pissing off the press so frequently will come back to bite him.

Wtf is a “Stan”? All I’m doing is pointing out that you’re blowing something so trivial out of all proportion to suit your agenda.

@Blossomtoes

Wtf is a “Stan”? All I’m doing is pointing out that you’re blowing something so trivial out of all proportion to suit your agenda.

A Stan means a fan of, a la the seminal 2000 classic song Stan by Eminem (ft Dido) back when Marshall was still blonde and angry. Stan is a crazed Eminem fan who writes him ever crazier letters. Then he dies.

So unless you secretly have a William and Kate shrine, I think you’re ok.

Thanks @OwlBeThere! No shrines here!

What an interesting definition of trivial.

(Stan originates from the Eminem song but has become common Internet parlance to mean anyone who blindly supports and defends a particular celeb. The posts from both those who think H&M can do no wrong and those who think W&K can do no wrong are good examples of being a stan.)

Sorry not rtft but who are you talking about here? Just curious to know.

It was hypothetical.

Perhaps the court circular is routinely updated retrospectively?

No, never.

But it always comes out the working day following, published in the London Gazette and newspapers like The Times and The Telegraph carry it routinely. And it details oodles of meetings that do not receive advance publicity.

I agree with many of the arguments in favour of republicanism. But presumably abolishing the monarchy would mean implementing an elected head of state. And looking at what the British electorate has voted for in the last 5-10 years, that idea fills me with fear.

I think that’s what I meant @EdithWeston. There was obviously a gap between what I said and what I meant!

@MissChanandlerBong90

I agree with many of the arguments in favour of republicanism. But presumably abolishing the monarchy would mean implementing an elected head of state. And looking at what the British electorate has voted for in the last 5-10 years, that idea fills me with fear.

An elected head of state can be kicked out. The unelected royals can't and we're stuck with Buggin's turn.

If the result of a democratic vote scares you maybe you should consider that but for an accident of birth our next monarch would be Andrew...

you should consider that but for an accident of birth our next monarch would be Andrew

But he isn’t so it’s irrelevant.

But he isn’t so it’s irrelevant

Did you miss the bit about Buggin's turn?

If Prince Andrew had been brought up as heir, not spare, then I reckon he'd have turned out differently.