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

The royal family

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

The sudden unusual turn on Princess Kate

1000 replies

Whatt · 29/05/2023 07:56

Today, I wanted to share something thought-provoking that has caught my attention recently - a noticeable change in the way the media portrays Kate Middleton.

Some publications that previously showed favor towards Kate (DM cough, cough) have started publishing stories that present her in a more critical light. It's an interesting shift.

Firstly, there's a story circulating about an encounter between Kate and a convicted murderer at a charity event. Additionally, there's talk of the taxpayer potentially providing support for her family's struggling business. This raises questions about the circumstances surrounding their business venture and the implications it may have for public funds.

What's intriguing is the parallel being drawn between Kate's current media treatment and the scrutiny faced by Meghan Markle in the past. It's worth discussing whether there's a connection or simply a coincidence.

Furthermore, there's some buzz on Twitter suggesting that Kate may have unintentionally upstaged the King during the Chelsea Flower Show. While it may seem like harmless gossip, it's interesting to consider the impact of such events on the monarchy's reputation. Some even speculate that Camilla might have been involved in the leak of these stories, adding an extra layer to the intrigue.

Taking a step back, it's worth pondering whether the monarchy should be concerned about being upstaged in this day and age. Are we witnessing a shift in priorities and expectations?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
37
Nono22972 · 12/06/2023 15:35

tigger2022 · 12/06/2023 15:31

Because the PT took over their liabilities and victims felt compensation was not enough

Exactly and I honestly believe Charles didn't think that the amount would be this high (£204,000 per person for more than 200 people)

callingeveryone · 12/06/2023 15:36

@tigger2022 Victims felt compensation was not enough? That is an awful way to say it. Victims were promised in court a certain level of compensation. The Prince's Trust said they had not set aside that amount, so the court significantly reduced it.

callingeveryone · 12/06/2023 15:39

£204,000 is not much for what happened to those people. Instead they will get about £20,000. It won't even pay lawyers fees.

Nono22972 · 12/06/2023 15:43

callingeveryone · 12/06/2023 15:39

£204,000 is not much for what happened to those people. Instead they will get about £20,000. It won't even pay lawyers fees.

No amount of money will erase the trauma that the victims have gone through.

277 victims need to be compensated so almost £57 million pounds in total.

callingeveryone · 12/06/2023 15:47

I agree no amount of money will erase their trauma. That is not an excuse to short change the victims.

Nono22972 · 12/06/2023 15:51

callingeveryone · 12/06/2023 15:47

I agree no amount of money will erase their trauma. That is not an excuse to short change the victims.

I agree but maybe it's just me, I don't know. I honestly thought that £204,000 was still okay. I don't know how much their legal fees are

Roussette · 12/06/2023 15:52

callingeveryone · 12/06/2023 15:47

I agree no amount of money will erase their trauma. That is not an excuse to short change the victims.

So agree

I wish I could remember what I saw about this. A programme or a documentary, it was heartbreaking what these poor kids went through

Serenster · 12/06/2023 15:54

The Middleton's business did fail because of covid, it was already in trouble. It made half a million profit in its best years and collapsed with around 2.5 million in debt.

Completely incorrect. Neither you nor I nor anyone else knows what the business made before it was incorporated in September 2019 because before that it was a partnership and it’s financial matters were private.

We know what its revenue was from the end of 2019 but since just a few months later the company’s trade fell off a cliff due to lockdown, clearly that revenue bears little resemblance to its “best years”.

callingeveryone · 12/06/2023 15:54

@Nono22972 £204,000 is what they were supposed to get. They will now only get £20k.

callingeveryone · 12/06/2023 15:55

@Serenster There were press articles about their profits in past years quoting the Middletons. So we do know, or the Middletons lied for good press.

Serenster · 12/06/2023 15:56

callingeveryone · 12/06/2023 15:55

@Serenster There were press articles about their profits in past years quoting the Middletons. So we do know, or the Middletons lied for good press.

Do show me where the Middletons disclosed what their business was making!

Nono22972 · 12/06/2023 15:58

callingeveryone · 12/06/2023 15:54

@Nono22972 £204,000 is what they were supposed to get. They will now only get £20k.

Omg, that's even worse

2bazookas · 12/06/2023 16:16

Do get a life. Your own life, not hers.

callingeveryone · 12/06/2023 16:17

@2bazookas Who is that rude comment aimed at?
I last came on mumsnet about 2 weeks ago. I am hardly a prolific poster.

RYGO · 12/06/2023 17:16

They never disclosed what they were making. Not one word. So only lying here is you no the Middletons.

callingeveryone · 12/06/2023 17:27

There were lots of articles about it.

polkadotdalmation · 12/06/2023 17:37

The barrel scraping that goes on to discredit the royal family goes on and on. So a dreadful episode which had nothing to do with the Prince's Trust who had nothing whatsoever to do with the mistreatment of these poor children, is accepting liability for something they weren't even aware of. Think I've just seen a white rabbit in a tophat I have to chase.

polkadotdalmation · 12/06/2023 17:38

Oh and the Middleton's business failed. So what?

callingeveryone · 12/06/2023 17:38

Legally the Princes Trust are liable. We are talking about the law here.

Elior · 12/06/2023 17:47

polkadotdalmation · 12/06/2023 17:37

The barrel scraping that goes on to discredit the royal family goes on and on. So a dreadful episode which had nothing to do with the Prince's Trust who had nothing whatsoever to do with the mistreatment of these poor children, is accepting liability for something they weren't even aware of. Think I've just seen a white rabbit in a tophat I have to chase.

Perhaps the legal and business issues are not understood well 😄

polkadotdalmation · 12/06/2023 18:17

callingeveryone · 12/06/2023 17:38

Legally the Princes Trust are liable. We are talking about the law here.

Of course they are liable, I didn't say they weren't. I said they accepted financial liability as any company taking over another would be, but certainly not morally responsible, as is the subtle (not so subtle) inference in the Guardian article.

Rapidtango · 12/06/2023 18:21

callingeveryone · 12/06/2023 17:38

Legally the Princes Trust are liable. We are talking about the law here.

Are they - I've tried unsuccessfully to find documentation. TBH I can't think why they would have legal responsibility for this at all.

Rapidtango · 12/06/2023 18:23

callingeveryone · 12/06/2023 17:37

And it was already reported in 2019 that the business was in trouble. Covid simply finished off an already failing business.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6836789/Starting-Middletons-shed-reportedly-worth-30million-Party-Pieces-far-over.html

Odd how certain posters accuse the DM of moral turpitude until they post something against the RF or the Middletons when suddenly they're worth quoting as a source of true fact.

jeffgoldblum · 12/06/2023 18:42

Indeed @Rapidtango !

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread