The sudden unusual turn on Princess Kate

[Whatt]

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?

The information in the link is really interesting and explains a lot for me. I could only skim read some of it because the article starts with its formation in 1909 and brings us up to the present day. A lenghty read!
(Do read Points 3, 64, 69 and 71 as it references Princes Trust)

No, you don't. It depends entirely what's in the contract.

I already give a far higher proportion of my income to charity than Charles does. I would compensate the victims in full.
And being cynical, the pr for Charles would be enormous if he did this.

Are you allabouttheboy? Is this a name change fail?

@Morestrangerthings So it's ok that a charity that's helped a million kids and will help thousands more in the future, folds because of abuse that had nothing to do with it?

I've seen some convoluted 'reasons' the RF are blamed for everything, but this is a new low. We have no idea what Charles supports quietly with his own money. Maybe H&M should repay the money he gave them for the first year following their resettlement abroad? His tax returns shows he did, despite Harry's lies of being 'cut off by his father'.

It wouldn't;t fold if Charles covered the costs. You know you don't need to worry about Charles' money, he's incredibly wealthy. The people that were awarded the money are also in need of help and have been for some time, why should they not get what they were awarded? I don't know why you get so incensed on their behalf, as so many say to Harry defenders, they're wealthy and don't need you to worry about their wealth at all. These people who were abused certainly deserve the money don't they?

The sad thing is, the numbers get less and less as they die. But no doubt it's affected their children too
Why would the Princes Trust fold, is there anything out there to prove that?
If so, I would think again but personally I think it is extremely unlikely given Charles's massive wealth

This charity took on a role in lieu of the government (looking after the welfare of children) and did its work in full view of the government, who stood by. Why is the government not paying for compensation?

@polkadotdalmation The tax returns shows Charles gave them money the previous year.

You could argue that the Catholic church should pay out compensation to every victim that was sexually abused. Which has £$73 billion in assets.

Why would it even be helpful or desired to be given money by a party that wasn’t responsible for the abuse? That isn’t retribution. I wouldn’t feel better or like it was adequate compensation. More like “here, shut up now.”

Yes , I think those responsible should be prosecuted, and a enquiry into how it was allowed to happen, those responsible should be named and shamed.

The Independent says they were paid a substantial amount of money until summer 2020, long after Harry said they were cut of financially. So he was lying to Oprah.

Make it make sense Alice!

@polkadotdalmation All kinds of stories have been published by the Royals that are later shown to be untrue. That includes that newspaper.
The tax returns show that a payment was made the previous year. You first quoted the tax return as proof pf what you are saying, but are ignoring the fact that it applied to the previous year.
I have seen zero evidence either way of whether Charles did pay any money to Harry after he left the Royal family. I like evidence.

@justasking111

i agree about the Catholic Church, but they took on orphanages, schools, hospitals on behalf of the government so the government remains ultimately responsible, I think the Catholic Church should pay more personally, but lay people who took over roles from the church organisations shouldn’t be held responsible for abuse by priests

Otherwise isn’t it just a cover up and hush money?

Yes @AliceOlive , completely agree!

King Charles has been urged to intervene after the Prince’s Trust, the youth charity he founded, said it would pay compensation of just £2,000 each to child survivors of sexual abuse.
The settlement has been offered to hundreds of British children who were removed from poor working-class families or care homes by the UK government in the last century and sent to “farm schools” in Australia and Canada for “opportunity and education” and then suffered sexual abuse.

The Prince’s Trust is legally liable for the survivors’ claims because it took over Fairbridge, a UK-focused charity whose previous iteration ran the farm schools, in 2012.

Although the UK high court last year put the value of the Fairbridge survivors’ claims at around £204,000 each (A$382,000), administrators for the redress scheme have told survivors they will receive about 1% of that figure because “insufficient moneys” have been set aside for the claims by the Prince’s Trust.The payment was called “outrageous and grossly unfair” and an “insult” by survivors’ representatives.
This is the beginning of one of the articles linked to earlier - The Guardian.

But anyway only £2,000 (1% - could it be any more heart breakingly insulting and callous?) has been offered to each victim. Although high court awarded each victim over 100 times that - £204,000 The princes trust is legally liable. And the victims want compensation.

Someone on here asked why they would want the money? I think iit could be to to do with concrete recognition of what they suffered in the form that usually bothers people to part with. Maybe they never had a chance at having a nice life, steady work etc due to what was done to them.

(God knows the Catholic Church values it’s money so much it uses all sorts of devious methods to get out of paying recompense for child sexual abuse victims).

But truly, there’s books written about this by survivors so if you are really questioning why they’d want financial recognition I’d suggest reading David Hills book.

They’ve asked for compensation (and the high court said yes) so they should get it. Charles could raise the money, or perhaps Charles could lobby the UK Govt for the money. Paying victims 1% only is just wrong. Surely.

Nothing remains covered up. It’s been exposed. This is not hush money. It’s compensation for grief and suffering.

Why isn't the British government paying the compensation? It was the government who sent these children away, without that none of the rest would have followed.

I knew a woman who was in a home as a teenager, I think it was Salvation Army but can't be sure of that. She was due to leave on one of the last boatloads of children but she refused to go and was being awkward and old enough to say how she felt. A local family offered to foster her, I think one of their children knew her from school, and then she was adopted by them. It was probably the last 60s but might have been as late as the 70s, I'm trying to work out how old she was when I knew her.

The British govt needs to face up to what they did.

Yes we have no idea how Charles uses his enormous wealth privately in a quiet way. That’s part of the issue. He’s allowed to make private donations of course but the dividing line between his public and private wealth - the income from the duchies etc - and the tax situation relating to all of it - is beautifully opaque.

And I suppose that’s fine in one way if the institution of the monarchy is known to be trustworthy and act with probity.

But there have been too many worrying instances in his household lately such as the following:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/23/two-men-questioned-cash-for-honours-inquiry-linked-king-charles-charity-princes-foundation

Remember Michael Fawcett, one of Charles’s closest aides, having to step down because of allegations about offering citizenship and honours to a Saudi national in return for donations.

Charles’s own charity investigated but are we meant to believe that one of Charles’s closest aides was acting (allegedly) without the knowledge of his boss? Maybe he was? Maybe he wasn’t? Will we ever know the truth?

Does it matter? You bet it does!

Posters keep claiming the Princes Trust is legally liable to pay the court awarded compensation to victims of Fairbridge. Where is this stipulated? Most companies on taking over any other body, one of the main stipulations in the contracts is that there is no responsibility for actions, debts etc of the previous owners. This is completely normal. Those suggesting that Prince Charles should pay, honestly, why should he? Why? Those stating it's an ethical and moral obligation - of course it isn't. If he had perpetuated the crimes against the victims himself, then sure. But he didn't. So why, all of a sudden, does he become personally responsible?

It really is deranged how far some posters will go to blame the RF for anything and everything.

It really is deranged how far some posters will go to blame the RF for anything and everything

That's a bit strong surely? Does that mean the reporting on this is 'deranged' too? There are many articles out there from a broad range of reporting. We, on MN, are 'deranged', but only us?

Are the victims 'deranged' for expecting what was promised to them?
They are receiving 1% of what they are due

www.smh.com.au/world/europe/child-sex-abuse-survivors-offered-1-per-cent-of-original-settlement-amount-20230525-p5db3e.html

When you take on a company you take on its assets and liabilities, that’s normal. Someone has to pay the charity’s liabilities. If they were too great to cover, the charity would have folded and there’d be no compensation for the victims at all. The original owners are unlikely to have had a few hundred million down the back of the sofa. So it got taken over by the PT in order to save the charity, but the PT said they didn’t realise the size of the liabilities and applied to have them reduced. So it’s not exactly fair on the victims who are not getting what they were promised, but if the charity was not kept going by PT they probably would have got much less. I don’t think they ever would have actually got 200k each. This isn’t unusual unfortunately.

Interestingly though nobody made the same point for the Middletons… that actually having sold their company, the new owner is responsible for its liabilities. Perhaps he also shouldn’t have bought the company if he couldn’t pay them!