Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To be disappointed that Kate Middleton has posed for Vogue cover

186 replies

DoesFlossfloss · 01/05/2016 09:16

I'm ambivalent to the Royal Family but like the way Kate has taken a relatively low key approach since marrying William. I think it's a shame she's decided to pose for Vogue. Liz Jones writes:

'But here is my important problem. You only grace the cover of Vogue when you want to become an icon and have your ego massaged. You are joining the fashion elite.

Like Diana, who wanted to be a mother, a Princess, a charity worker, an everywoman, a pin-up, Kate has sold her soul to the devil that is vanity and elitism, and those fashionistas who judge others only by their BMI.

Kate, who up to now has protected her privacy and that of her children ferociously, has opened the floodgates to the sort of forensic scrutiny her late mother-in-law endured'.

To be disappointed that Kate Middleton has posed for Vogue cover
OP posts:
Cerseirys · 02/05/2016 08:46

Just realised that was a poor choice of metaphor, sorry.

EponasWildDaughter · 02/05/2016 08:54

But an accurate one, sadly.

SoupDragon · 02/05/2016 08:59

...And why it seems so odd that Kate would chose the exposure of a Vogue cover.

I thought it was exactly why she would agree to do this as I t is controlled exposure on her terms. I thought this is what they generally do - in return for being left alone, they agree to do selected things for the press.

thebestfurchinchilla · 02/05/2016 09:05

Must admit I was surprised to hear she had done that. I like her and don't envy the pressure she is under but I did wonder why someone who complains about intrusive photographs would choose to be photographed in such a high profile way when she is not carrying out a royal duty. Having said that , it was a moment's thought and then I moved on and forgot...until I saw this.

megletthesecond · 02/05/2016 09:26

Better Kate Middleton for their centenary than another Kate-bloody-Moss cover again.

Pico2 · 02/05/2016 09:58

The Liz Jones article seems to say "KM is fair game and brought it on herself, so don't criticise the DM for being nasty, it was KM's choice". That's quite an unpleasant sentiment.

andintothefire · 02/05/2016 11:13

The DM wrote several articles at one time claiming that Williams posher friends called Kate "doors to manual" behind her back. I have always thought this was a load of old shit they invented themselves. Truly UC people wouldn't have given a fuck to even enquire what her mother may have done prior to marriage.

Sadly my experience is that there is still a surprising amount of snobbery among some of the public school alumni who are (or at least were) in William's crowd, so I can imagine at least some of them saying things like this. There is a particularly strange snobbery about the hierarchy of private schools and prep schools, for example!

It actually makes me warm to William more because he clearly didn't take a blind bit of notice about any of the jibes about his girlfriend's background. It's all a bit odd for the DM and others to suggest she isn't from a privileged background anyway - she came from family money and had an expensive education. The fact that she wasn't "old money" would only really have been noticed by the kinds of people who still cling onto their family name and history to excuse the fact that none of them have achieved anything remotely interesting on their own merit in the last 50 years.

Tbf, I found the Liz Jones article a bit bizarre. I didn't think the leaps she made were at all logical!

liquidrevolution · 02/05/2016 11:21

couldnt care less either way.

but YABU to call her Kate Middleton. As far as I am aware there has been no statement to say she retained her maiden name after her marriage.

I wish people would stop calling her that - its a very pa way to put her down and she cant respond back.

squoosh · 02/05/2016 11:24

A very pa way to put her down?

Oh please.

andintothefire · 02/05/2016 11:33

wish people would stop calling her that - its a very pa way to put her down and she cant respond back.

Personally I don't believe in hereditary titles or those gifted on marriage so I always feel odd referring to the "Duchess of Cambridge".

I know it may seem silly, but I just feel as though using those titles makes me complicit in something I really don't believe in. It isn't supposed to put her down in any way - I feel just as uncomfortable referring to William as the "Duke of Cambridge".

squoosh · 02/05/2016 11:39

How would people prefer she was referred to? I'd feel like arch royal bum sniffer Nicholas Witchell if I started calling her the Duchess of Cambridge.

Fergie has always been Fergie, even when she was married to that twat Andrew. Diana was referred to as Lady Di long after she's married Charles.

Abraid2 · 02/05/2016 11:44

Kate's father's side of the family is actually quite county. Landowners from Yorkshire, or something.

annandale · 02/05/2016 11:48

I feel more sympathetic to this person [very uncomfortable calling her anything now] looking at these photos. Looks as if she will not pose in any way that could outline her figure, or at least not in pictures that people can get online. Not sure if that's canny given the history or indicative of deep self-consciousness.

TBF I find it quite distressing that she feels she has to pose for anything - I'm a republican because I think being in the royal family is a curse. Hope it was a choice she made.

MyMurphy · 02/05/2016 11:50

Diana's picture was so beautiful though!

To be disappointed that Kate Middleton has posed for Vogue cover
SoupDragon · 02/05/2016 11:51

there has been no statement to say she retained her maiden name after her marriage.

And none to say she didn't.

Valentine2 · 02/05/2016 11:58

Yawn

AugustaFinkNottle · 02/05/2016 12:20

there has been no statement to say she retained her maiden name after her marriage.
And none to say she didn't.

Yes, there has. On her marriage it was announced that she formally became Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge or Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge.

AugustaFinkNottle · 02/05/2016 12:21

I think the easiest title to use is either Princess Catherine or, quite simply, Kate.

SoupDragon · 02/05/2016 12:26

Those are titles, not names.

MitzyLeFrouf · 02/05/2016 12:26

It's easiest for me to call her Kate Middleton as that's the name we hear most in the media. I'm sure she won't be too cross with me for this!

SoupDragon · 02/05/2016 12:27

I think the easiest title to use is either Princess Catherine or, quite simply, Kate.

None of those are in your supposed official list of what we are allowed to call her. Is she actually a princess?

SamanthaBrique · 02/05/2016 12:54

Kate's father's side of the family is actually quite county.*

True. It's only Carole's side of the family that's working class, though of course that's what the Mail etc like to focus on. But all credit to her for building up her business through hard work, though I suspect that they weren't exactly short of capital to begin with.

Odder still are the conspiracy theorists who think Carole is secretly Jewish but that's best saved for another thread...

Gobbolinothewitchscat · 02/05/2016 13:29

She's not Princess Catherine. Only females born j to the Royal Family are Princesses in their own right - eg Pribcess Anne/Charlotte etc.

She would be Princess William

CuntyMcCuntface · 02/05/2016 13:40

If Diana had still been on the go it would have been her pic on the cover most likely.

EponasWildDaughter · 02/05/2016 13:47

Freedom of speech means we can call her what ever we like.

Or should we be dragged off to the tower? Grin

Swipe left for the next trending thread