To think the Princess of Wales is wrong and the years that need more support and funding are the teenage years with the 18-25 year group being the most needy.

[Alice1land35543]

Having access to private mental health support , education and all that being rich entails alongside having not experienced the teenage years I don’t think the P of W is fully informed or right.

Teens are facing huge pressures( more than ever before) and mental health struggles are soaring. Services are beyond stretched and what little there is is broken and unable to cope. Schools are struggling, paediatric wards bursting, families are on their knees and continuously battling. When unwell teens reach 18 there is nothing but a cliff edge into zero support and they are abandoned. The brain doesn’t finish developing until 25.

“If we are going to tackle the sorts of complex challenges we face today like homelessness, violence and addiction, which are so often underpinned by poverty and poor mental health, we have to fully appreciate those most preventative years and do everything we can to nurture our children and those who care for them”.

No Kate we need to focus on the years children are struggling the most, fund mental health treatment and support properly and ensure that provision for 18-25 year olds is mandatory in every trust. Early years get plenty already. Teens and parents of teens get next to nothing so why the focus on early years yet again? Maybe the teenage years and 18/25 group aren’t so media appealing.

As an aside rich celebrities jumping on the mental health bandwagon saying let’s talk about mental health and just reach out is not the answer. Those struggling with mental health can’t reach out because there is nothing to reach out to and it’s not that simplistic. That however is a whole other thread.

But it does mean other age groups have more need.for support from royals particularly when they’re continuously overlooked and clearly less media friendly.

NRTFT, but imo, PoW chose early years, because she’s been through it - if she is listening to a mother, talking about problems with her toddler, she might be able to say “Oh yes, George was like that!”

As the mother of young children, I had no conception of what the teens were really like; and Kate probably knows she doesn’t either. There’s enough criticism of her on here, about wealthy white woman with servants and nannies, along the lines of what did she know about wfh while home educating the children! It would be even worse, if she were attempting to talk about teenagers, with

”What does she know?”

Imo, she’s using her position in an attempt to do some good, and she gets criticism, when she could spend that time, looking after her own children, which apparently she wants to do. She can’t win! ----

But it does mean other age groups have more need.for support from royals particularly when they’re continuously overlooked and clearly less media friendly.

How do you know what they do every day? My DD is disabled. The Countess of Wessex was patron of her specialist secondary school - she used to go on visits to it, and DD saw her. She went to visit the specialist school (a different school) and college at the centre where DD lives, as an adult, a few weeks ago. DD went to see her.

I used to work for a charity, supporting disabled children and young people - the Countess of Wessex came to see us. It was only a small charity and it wouldn’t have made the news!

I’d say the Countess of Wessex does far more, than is apparent in the news for disabled children and young people - she certainly doesn’t overlook them!

YABU on the topic of support.

YA also BU to think that the PoW's opinion on anything matters.

As an Irish person currently living in another republic, I find the idea of the poor taking comfort from the 'support' of 'the Royals' very odd.

If you vote in Tory governments you get Tory policies in education and social services.

Stop voting against your best interests.

Stop accepting large class sizes in schools. Class sizes in local public elementary schools where I live are usually 17-20. Stop accepting no pastoral care and very little SEN provision in schools.

Kate is only focusing on younger years because her own kids are that age. Once they are teens she’ll pivot because I don’t think she can care much about something without a personal link. My opinion anyway

Figures please. Literally every, single, one, of DD's cohort of friends has diagnosed mental health problems. Most are from wealthy, healthy, stable, loving families

Jesus. Unless it's a very small group and coincidence that's very odd and concerning. It's not the norm at all because the majority of children don't have 'diagnosed mental health problems'.

If you're talking anxiety, depression, OCD etc and it's a whole group of friends then I would be extremely concerned and looking closely at any history of shared classes/clubs/experiences just in case there was shared abuse or trauma there.

I agree with PP. The royals aren't our saviours. This is an issue that the govt, and only the govt, can fix because it's all down to funding. It is government policy to underfunded these services. They may not phrase it like that, but that's what it amounts to. 12 years of tory rule have been disastrous for our young people because of cuts to the NHS, education, welfare and local authorities.

There's nothing the royal family can do about that. They are decorative figureheads with very little influence. When they do speak out they have to be mindful not to be critical of the government. As I said earlier, you're right to be outraged about the situation. I am too. I just think you're directing it at the wrong group of people.

I think there doesn't need to be a root common issue. More that sometimes like finds like. My DD had a group of friends at school, they pretty much all had their 'quirks' and were tolerant of each other (ASD, dyspraxia, anxiety to name but 3).

The Countess of Wessex was patron of my daughter’s special school too, wonder if it’s the same one. My husband was a trustee and met her a couple of times. He said she was always well informed and genuinely interested in the work of the school. He was very impressed with her. He was also a trustee of a charity supporting disabled children and young people and their families - seems the pair of you have shared interests!

Teenagers aren't as cute tho, nor do they enhance the idealised mother image so carefully crafted for our future queen. It's about optics; need has nothing to do with it.

Yo're very cynical.

William & harry have done things about Mental Health
Prince Philip had the DofE scheme for teenagers, Prince Charles had the Princes Trust. Camilla has Domestic Violence. Why shouldn't one of the royals champion support for pre-schoolers?

Yes, i am very cynical. The future of the Royal Family rests on this woman's shoulders - they're pulling out all the stops and nothing less than immaculate mother and child will do.

Williams's big thing is Earthshot - trying to jump on the climate change bandwagon.
Camilla's is domestic violence - an attempt to win over the women who were Diana fans. Camilla's rehabilitation through PR has been a masterclass.
Kate's is early years because she is supposed to be totally non-controversial. So this allows photos of her cuddling babies and saying she feels broody. The mother figure PR wise.
Charles Prince's Trust is a real charity that makes a difference to young people.

I look back and would swop those children’s centres in a heart beat

Because you personally didn't need them. But thousands of other families did - the ones who didn't have the benefit of secure, well paid professions, more secure housing, more secure relationships, higher levels of education and cognitive ability.

You've sadly experienced difficulties now your children are teens.

Pulling the rug out from under children who didn't have any of those advantages you describe would only ensure that they bore the brunt of their circumstances to a far greater extent sooner; to adapt a popular phrase these days, you'd be shoving other, poorer, more likely to be of other ethnicity, women's children right in front of the number 47 bus so that you and your children didn't face as much competition for support in their teens.

YABU- it doesn’t have to be either/or - it can be support and resource is needed for all years of childhood.

It’s proven that the first two years and up to the age of five are THE critical years for giving a child a healthy blueprint. If they’re raised well in those years then they’ll be far more secure, attached; resilient, stable and less susceptible to knocks in the teen years and beyond. Eg, a loved, cuddled, supported baby will be far less likely to end up an anorexic, depressive or drug addict. That’s what the Princess is getting at - prevention is better than cure.

Jesus some of the absolute rubbish spouted on here. Anorexia has nothing to do with being loved and cuddled as a baby( which the majority of parents do), ditto depression….

It's another significant Adverse Childhood Experience - and the research shows that the more ACEs you rack up, the greater the likelihood of EDs specifically and MH in general.

Don't assume that affection and physical contact is as certain a thing as all that, either - that's where the higher rates of MI and other disorders in children from other demographics at earlier ages (when yours were still at least to some extent, insulated from such things) come in.

www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/anorexia-nervosa/symptoms-causes/syc-20353591

Nothing to do with bring cuddled as a baby.

If we teach and support children/uounge teens then there wouldn't be the cliff at 18. All services are underfunded. Schools are on their knees as is the nhs.

If my childrens primary hadn't been so amazing at patrol care and sen support, they wouldn't have had the emotional tools to cope with secondary school. Now they are there their secondary is supporting them to the best of the limited resources avaliable.

That would be the early years group where it is impossible to find the names if the so called experts on line and every person in the news report was male !

But it does mean other age groups have more need.for support from royals particularly when they’re continuously overlooked and clearly less media friendly

you are purposefully ignoring The Princes Trust, mentioned upthread.

Does the Countess of Wessex bring six figure cheques made out to the schools she visits?

If not, then what value does her visits bring?

I'm with you OP

Having two kids with a lovely normal primary and nursery years Went to to nurturing schools

Now as teens we are having lots of issues as are many of our friends kids.

Blame the pandemic if you like but there is literally NO help unless you can go private.

It's a disgrace.

*Does the Countess of Wessex bring six figure cheques made out to the schools she visits?

If not, then what value does her visits bring?*

I can’t speak for any other schools she visits; but the two I know she visited are non maintained residential specialist schools for disabled children. The schools might like a 6 figure cheque to put towards new facilities; but they don’t need it. They are run by charities; they are not state schools; and they are well resourced. Local authorities pay their fees, because no state school could meet the needs of those children.

It makes the children and young people excited; they already have complex disabilities and face great challenges in life. It’s like asking why do you anything, like go to the cinema or the theatre or a restaurant or a holiday or whatever you do, that brings you pleasure in life?