Royal Gossip
October 23, 2018, 12:30:54 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 ... 41   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Prince George of Cambridge Thread X (Read post #1 before posting)  (Read 89810 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
gingerboy24
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 10088


« Reply #240 on: August 05, 2016, 10:45:04 pm »

Anyone notice how odd the hind leg of the dog appears, something not right about it.  Plus the bottom of the tree is blurred in an odd way.

http://www.celebitchy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/george1.jpg

Anothe photoshop job if you ask me. Sprog looking down at the ice cream, the dog is looking straight ahead, eyes glazed and stiff  Show me a dog with an ice cream in front of it like that would would not look all happy and excited and wanting straight at it.  Looks like to photos cobbled together again.
Logged
Lindsay
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 520


« Reply #241 on: August 05, 2016, 11:40:31 pm »

Did she mess up blasting George?  Yes.  Should they fire her?  I don't think so.  I don't think it will do the organization any good to do so.  Intervention, discipline and compromise is what any smart non-profit would do and that seems to be what they are doing in this Prince George business.

One of the three things employers are allowed to immediately terminate for in Great Britain is a gross breach of duties, another is extreme negligence. I do think that this would rise to that level. They are essentially an international public relations firm and her job is to promote the BRF. If Jason had a Facebook that the public could access and he was speaking negatively about Twit and Twat, he would be fired and rightly so. To me this is very similar.

The one thing I do wonder is how it was brought to their attention. To me it seems like their hand was forced in firing her. Twit wants to end cyber bullying (only against the four of them, he doesn't care about the everyone else.) We know he has had sites shut down and photos removed so I wonder if one of his Internet sleuths brought it to his attention. He deigned to help this lady's organization and she said negative thing about George (which is William's job.) You mentioned that a non-profit would be hesitant to let someone go, period, let alone over something this small and I agree. Plus, had they handled it in house it would have never made the newspapers. They had to know by firing her the were compounding the problem, now instead of a few her friends knowing it is everywhere. William though doesn't seem to have the ability to think it through that far and is vindictive and arrogant enough to demand she be fired. So I do wonder if he had a hand in this.


Are there companies who dismiss people for wearing pink on Thursday?  Maybe, but in reality, those aren't companies you'd want to work for anyway.

That was part of the Mean Girls joke. They wear pink on Wednesday and can only wear their hair in a ponytail once a week. It was just to illustrate that in the US if you are working under and implicit right to work and at will employment contract they can fire you for anything , including Facebook and Twitter posts, they want as long as it isn't illegally discriminatory. However firing people for silly reasons will eventually make it hard to find employees, it is expensive, and high turnover is viewed in a negative light by customers/clients/patients.

It also depends upon when you do something on your own social media as well.  If I am at home, on my own time, and get into a discussion about the election and say something against the Prez or his kids?  My own business.  I do not, however, list my place of work on my personal FB account and my privacy settings are like Fort Knox.  I have a professional FB page designated for business and business only.  Any smart professional does that.  Not sure if that applies here with PG and all of this.

Right, this could have been prevented if she had high privacy settings or even better went low tech and just told someone what she thought. If your company doesn't know what you are saying they can't fire you for it. If you use Twitter or Facebook and publicly post something that others deem offensive it could get you fired. They come to the conclusion reflects badly on the company on their own or like Ms. Sacco and others people call your employer and complain resulting in your dismissal. It is eas to get the Internet outraged and then people come for you and mess up your life in the name of justice. It happens quite a bit so you should always be careful what you say on the Internet, especially when it is a platform that encourages users to say who they are rather than message boards where you are just a username.

As for this site, we, as moderators, know all too well that we are also potentially moderated, that this is a public site, that IP addresses are required, by law, to be released if anybody falls within certain worrisome guidelines.  It's a tricky thing to find yourself completely protected in public and on the internet.  I advise any poster before coming on board that decency and consideration are the order of the day and I don't say that lightly and it bears repeating.  That's why we have a Members Only portion for certain subjects and why we are careful to pre-screen certain words and gently advise people to be careful with stating things as fact.  I'm glad to have the opportunity to remind our posters of that at this time.  It's not to be restrictive but for our own protection and those who post here.

All of this is also true but had she for example come here and said those things no one would have figured out who she was or where she worked. The police weren't going to get involved in this matter. I do really wonder if Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb had anything to do with getting her fired.
Logged
kolkomilko
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3197



« Reply #242 on: August 06, 2016, 08:30:07 am »

^^ Yes, it is very strange. Both of it. Lupo is a big dog but the body is hardly seen. Lupo doesn't look at the ice cream, I can't believe it. A weak photoshopping again.  
Logged

gingerboy24
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 10088


« Reply #243 on: August 06, 2016, 09:20:04 am »

I don´t see the fuss, people would have read it and moved on. Someone behind all this hulabaloo and yes, no doubt it was more than likely the lazy, ugly duo  She was telling the truth as she sees it, why should she not have an opinion.  IMO the whole rf is a charade, pr put out to make them look pleasant, blah blah blah.  The truth of the matter is they are only concerned for themselves, the free money from the taxpayer than funds an extremely expensive and most luxurious lifestyle.  HM said to have trillions, and yest she was trying to grab an subsidy to repair the roof at BP, having authorised public expenditure to the tuns of millions to be spent on KP and AH.  And yet here are the luzy, ugly duo, working behind the scenes to get someone fired because they did not the truth of what was said about the sprog.  It says a lot about them, and not of it good.
Logged
YooperModerator
Super Moderator
*****
Online Online

Posts: 14654



« Reply #244 on: August 06, 2016, 12:08:50 pm »

^It does sound a bit like a smack down of anything negative from the fear of bullying Bill Midd, to me.  But, oddly, to date, the woman has not been fired.  I'm willing to bet there's a lot more under the surface here than we know.  God forbid anybody should criticize the Cambridges openly and bring in "privilege".  I don't, however, think that publicly attacking a child is the right avenue to take but frustration has its limits.  Can you imagine how much drivel is forced upon anyone working for an org like this?  The real bottom line is that they are taxpayer funded so I'm waiting for this woman to be picked up by an anti-monarch publication or group.

The D/D have said some pretty unflattering things about their own son so they haven't exactly given the public any opportunity to really get attached to George.  They always seem to promote how wearying it is to be parents, how much of a 'handful' he is, how he didn't sleep, how tired they are with the whole thing, blahblah. The poor kid, really.  I've yet to see any truly loving photos of those two idiots with their own children so that trickles down into the public consciousness, like it or not.  The whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Logged


\\\"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.\\\"  Thomas Jefferson
Lindsay
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 520


« Reply #245 on: August 06, 2016, 08:56:38 pm »

thumbsup  For most parents telling people how amazing their child is is the easiest thing in the world. People constantly joke and complain new parents need like about parents just needing half a chance to tell you how adorable, sweet, smart, funny and a million other things that their baby is. It is an evolutionary necessity to get people through the challenge of having a newborn baby. However those two can't do it and when they do it is bizarre (like calling an infant lady like). The lack of connection, complete inability to talk about George in a positive way, and the types of people they have shown themselves to be does not bode well for poor little George. It is all very odd. If nothing else they should recognize getting people emotionally invested in George is essential to keep the monarchy going (although they don't seem to give flip about that) and if the want to keep using him to bolster their image when they invariably screw up again or want to justify another luxurious vacation people have to care about him otherwise it's just a picture of a kid. Their relationship with him, like every other thing regarding these two is bizarre.

When Gibbins was criticized for attacking a child she responded  “I have a multi-faceted political opinion. That’s not *despise*, and I *despise* no human being on this planet as an individual.”
“But I do disagree with the system that creates privilege of any sort. And I have a dedication to calling that out for what it is.”
“I’m sound in my socialist, atheist and republican opinions. I don’t believe the royal family have any place in a modern democracy, least of all when they live on public money. That’s privilege and it needs to end.”

She doesn't have a problem with him, she has a problem with what he represents. She was not attacking him because of who he is as a human being or his appearance. When they talk about George it is personal. It is also odd that the only time we hear negative things about PG it always comes from his parents - especially William. William was about George's age when he developed a reputation as a terror. He was nicknamed 'Billy the Basher' and loved lording his status over the other kids by making comments stating one day he'd be king and his father was better than other people's father because he was the POW. The public found out because parents of his classmates talked to the press, not because Charles and Diana went around criticizing him.

It is odd they seemingly went full court press and she still has her job. They did get people talking about this woman and not speculating about what is going on in France. They also have a ready made excuse for not participating in events with this foundation and a reason to decline it as a patronage as the Queen continues to reduce her list and assign them to other senior royals. They would not pass that up. Who knows with these two? Absolutely everything, no matter how straight forward, becomes sketchy. It is their shared super power. She has laziness and he has petulance. We can't even trust that their family dog is in a photo and considering their history it isn't even a crazy theory. They have lost all credibility and benefit of the doubt.
Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 37563



WWW
« Reply #246 on: August 06, 2016, 09:27:10 pm »

I sometimes think WK resent their kids because their kids area sign that they're no longer young, hip, or 'with it,' but just like any other parent. Their glory years are over and a new generation is coming that now has the spotlight. Kate in particular, since her kids won't have to do what she did to get into the BRF, they've been born there.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
Tessofthemiddletons
royal watcher

Offline Offline

Posts: 77


« Reply #247 on: August 06, 2016, 10:22:35 pm »

I sometimes think WK resent their kids because their kids area sign that they're no longer young, hip, or 'with it,' but just like any other parent. Their glory years are over and a new generation is coming that now has the spotlight. Kate in particular, since her kids won't have to do what she did to get into the BRF, they've been born there.

 flower
Logged
Lindsay
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 520


« Reply #248 on: August 07, 2016, 02:59:06 am »

I do not envy Charlotte. Kate has an unhealthy relationship with her mother and I think she will be even worse. She will want to live vicariously through her daughter just as her mom has, be a part of everything just like her mom and on top of that be jealous and resentful as soon as magazines start talking about how beautiful and stylish Princess Charlotte is and she is still Kate Middleton. Also, watch out if William keeps talking her up in the press or spending one on one time with her by his own volition. Then to throw the Diana name in with resentful parents in an unhappy marriage and being the spare.
Logged
india
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6639


« Reply #249 on: August 07, 2016, 01:42:50 pm »

There will never be anything beautiful about The Viperette.
Logged
Lindsay
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 520


« Reply #250 on: August 10, 2016, 02:14:21 pm »

^ They called Kate stunning, gorgeous, perfect, ect so between the hype and Photoshopping I am sure, at least for awhile, during the build her up phase they will refrence her beauty. When the media was still in love with Kate and heavily editing her photos she made and topped list of the most beautiful Royals/celebrities/British women. There is no objective criteria so the press gets to decide who they deem beautiful. "Her Royal Hottness" Pippa is another great example.
Logged
HRHOlya
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4435



« Reply #251 on: August 14, 2016, 05:39:08 pm »

Proof that the Crotchies do take freebies.

"[...] The business partners have been hand-delivering gifts for George and his sister Princess Charlotte to Kensington Palace since the former’s birth. Yet, until those Obama images went viral, they had no idea whether these had been well received. (The dressing gown had been given to George last year when Charlotte was born. ‘It’s a good thing we sent it on the large side,’ says Daniel.)

[...] Similarly, when Dannii Minogue had her son Ethan, the pair turned up in The X Factor audience and approached her during the interval, laden with gifts, including a blanket embroidered ‘Mummy’s got The X Factor’. Dannii embraced them warmly and tweeted about it later.

This is the sort of branding that money just can’t buy, but which, frankly, takes some balls. Jonny and Daniel are succeeding because of their grasp of how the game works today, and because of how cleverly and fearlessly they have harnessed the power of social media and celebrity endorsement.

When Beyoncé was on tour shortly after having her daughter Blue Ivy, they gave her a blanket that read, ‘The Little Miss Carter Tour’. She promptly posted a picture of it on Facebook. Sir Elton John’s son Zachary received one embroidered with, ‘Zachary, how wonderful life is while you’re in the world’ [after the lyrics of ‘Your Song’], along with a teddy bear with the words ‘Tiny Dancer’ [the title of another of Elton’s hits].

In 2011, the Beckhams took delivery of a gift box for Harper when she was born, with a letter asking for her to be the ‘face’ of the brand. ‘We knew she would never do it,’ says Daniel, ‘but the fact that we asked got the story into the press [they leaked it] and raised our profile. We are still getting letters from families saying, “Our daughter looks just like Harper Beckham. Can she model for your company?”’ Who next, I ask? ‘The Kardashians,’ Daniel grins. ‘We’ve got something big in store for them.’

[...]"

The business owners are clearly smart and know how to play the game these days, but how fun that the Crotchbridges are exposed now.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/you/article-3721330/By-Junior-Royal-Appointment-Prince-George-s-humble-dressing-gown-changed-one-business.html
Logged
gingerboy24
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 10088


« Reply #252 on: August 14, 2016, 06:48:25 pm »

 Nice to have proof, although no real surprise, they jut grab everything that is free.  Look at the Range Rover they were given, now it is up for sale, seriously!!  Bill medd, it would appear, is now a fully fledged medd, greedy, money grasping, tight fisted miserable *fool*.  Got to the stage where nothing that vile couple do surprise me, they just sink lower and lower.  I believe not a word they say and I personally think they are the dregs of the earth.
Logged
kolkomilko
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3197



« Reply #253 on: August 17, 2016, 04:22:19 pm »

I haven't seen these photos.

http://thecambridgees.tumblr.com/post/147093376532/prince-george-waves-during-a-visit-to-the-royal
Logged

i used to be a monarchist
courtier
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 450


« Reply #254 on: August 17, 2016, 11:17:37 pm »

^^^
I just noticed this post about gifts.

Well, there you have it.  That's the Middleton "lowering the tone" in a nutshell.  If she was well-bred she would have either politely declined freebies or she would have acknowledged them individually with a personal thank you note.  She would not have taken them and then ignored the giver.  How appallingly rude.  And it IS breeding...and good manners.  Those people disgust me.

Though perhaps she's been warned off handwriting thank you's on her own.  The tennis thank you from years ago was poorly composed, misspelled, and her actual handwriting looks juvenile as well.  It surprised me, the letter in its entirety, especially when we've been told she achieved an honors degree in art history.
Logged
HRHOlya
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4435



« Reply #255 on: August 19, 2016, 08:47:49 pm »

^ Well, there have been strong rumours and "eye witness accounts" of people who swear that Waity copied her stuff and got the degree for being Bill's girlfriend basically. And the British "first degree" "second degeree" and whatnot sounds better than it is, because the degree is really just called that and not the grade (that's what Brits say, haven't studied in the UK so don't know for sure, but if true they are just normal degrees, don't know what these firsts seconds and 2:1 are all about...).
She blatantly copied another student's work. So shod the "she has a degree", because she didn't earn it (and believe me, I have met some people who have excellent grades, because they study hard, but they are still as dumb as a box of rocks).

Anyway, sorry for the long detour, what I wanted to actually say (apart from her degree being a piece of paper only in her case) is that indeed a thank you note is the least to do, but then again that would be "evidence". Don't know if Kate thinks that far ahead, but maybe she didn't write one because of that. Still exposed though! Not writing didn't help..
Logged
gingerboy24
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 10088


« Reply #256 on: August 20, 2016, 03:33:26 pm »

Yes, and apparently the girl she always used to sit next to, to copy her work, cottoned on.  For the next assignment she did one for herself to submit and the one she wrote at the lecture (or whatever it was) she put all the wrong answers to.  Council cath diligently copied all the answers, which were all wrong, and submitted the paper.  laugh laugh laugh
Logged
HRHOlya
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4435



« Reply #257 on: August 20, 2016, 04:16:43 pm »

^ Yes! The girl also said that she gave some incredibly ridiculous answers as well, where anyone with half a brain would have realized they where wrong... Honestly don't think Kate is remotely intelligent because of her degree, because her uni mates tell differently and we have plenty times witnessed ourselves that she's not the sharpest knife in a box..
Logged
gingerboy24
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 10088


« Reply #258 on: August 20, 2016, 11:48:39 pm »

I think one of the answers the girl made up, knowing council cath was copying her, was when was Pearl Harbour  -  and she put down a date of 1492, or 14 something, and council cath copied it.  I mean seriously, obviously too busy copying someone elses work to take in what she was actually was very wrong.
Logged
Snowpea
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2432


« Reply #259 on: August 21, 2016, 04:20:38 pm »

Yes, think that item is posted here somewhere, but we are getting off topic here.  easter-James
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 ... 41   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines | Imprint Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!