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?

'When you take on a company you take on its assets and liabilities, that’s normal.'

It really isn't.

…what do you think you are buying when you buy a company?

Whatever the contract states you're buying - infrastructure, goodwill, land, etc etc. Any purchase contract that doesn't specifically state the new owner will not be responsible for historic issues has likely been drawn up by an incompetent.

It’s only linked to Charles because of the PT it really has nothing to do with him…

I think posters want him to step in with his own money but they have already spent that many times over on various failing charities and businesses loosely linked to the RF

Any purchase contract that doesn't specifically state the new owner will not be responsible for historic issues has likely been drawn up by an incompetent.

Totally correct. And if you do agree to take on any past liabilities, they will be backed up with a warranty from the original owner that all liabilities have been fully disclosed and accurately estimated.

(Also, I thought the claimants were being offered 20,000 rather than the 200,000 awarded? That’s 10% not 1%…)

Realistically they are not going to get 200k - I am not sure how it works, I think they are also in negotiations with the Australian government

Other media suggests just that.

Deranged, no.

And it is 1% not 10% as many articles say.
Unless they're all wrong

Sorry...to qualify my post, the articles say 1%, £2,000 or much less in some cases

*In light of these damning findings against Fairbridge, the Prince’s Trust pledged to pay compensation to survivors of the farm schools in 2018. It established a company called Fairbridge Restored and immediately put it into receivership – giving joint administrators Chris Laverty and Alistair Wardell of Grant Thornton UK LLP the task of paying compensation.
In November 2022, the High Court of Justice determined a reasonable amount to each claimant was £204,000 (380,000 Australian dollars).
Administrators have now told survivors they will only receive about 1% of that figure – which would work out about £1,000-£2,000 each.
In a letter sent to 277 claimants in May that has been seen by the PA news agency, Fairbridge Restored’s joint administrators said they had been provided with “insufficient monies to pay all admitted claims in full”.

“For the avoidance of doubt, I would like to highlight that the amount that will be paid will be a small proportion of each admitted claim,” administrators said.
“This is because there are insufficient monies to pay all admitted claims in full, so every creditor with an admitted claim will receive the same small percentage of their claim.
“Our current estimate is that it may be in the order of around 1%.

and from the Guardian-
The Fairbridge Society was one of the most prominent operators of the UK child migration programmes. It was set up in 1909, and was an enthusiastic – and well-connected – promoter of the schemes, which it believed would save youngsters from the corruptions of domestic poverty while restocking the empire’s white populations.
Its early supporters included the then Prince of Wales – later King Edward VIII – who donated £1,000 to Fairbridge in 1934, declaring: “This is not charity. It is an imperial investment.” Princess Elizabeth, later Queen Elizabeth II, donated £2,000 of her wedding gift to Fairbridge in 1948.
Reports of abuse and maltreatment at Fairbridge and other homes and schools for migrant children began to emerge after the second world war. The UK Home Office attempted to blacklist some of the schools in the mid-1950s, but its plans were sidelined after lobbying by powerful individuals, including HRH the Duke of Gloucester, at the time the president of the society.

The Middletons buyer did not agree to take on liabilities, they couldn't;t find a buyer willing to do that, it just wasn't worth it.

In November 2022, the High Court of Justice determined a reasonable amount to each claimant was £204,000 (380,000 Australian dollars).
Administrators have now told survivors they will only receive about 1% of that figure – which would work out about £1,000-£2,000 each.
In a letter sent to 277 claimants in May that has been seen by the PA news agency, Fairbridge Restored’s joint administrators said they had been provided with “insufficient monies to pay all admitted claims in full”.

Looking at that, £200,000 x 277 claimants is £55m.

Clearly the party actually responsible can’t pay that. The Prince’s Trust’s most recent financial statements show they only have current assets of £38m. So they can’t pay it either. I don’t see a social utility in cash-stripping a valuable charity to pay someone else’s liabilities. Plus, it’s probably not in line with their constituent documents to do so in any event.

It’s worth bearing in mind that in the normal course of events Fairhaven would just have wound itself up and the victims would get nothing. Something is presumably better than nothing. It’s still a commitment of more than £1.3m by the Princes’ Trust.

(and apologies, Roussette, I misremembered the £20,000 figure and can now see from the links posted that it was only £2,000)

I’m sure their legal reps must have told them they would probably never get the full 200k? It seems like the kind of thing they should do.

No problem

The victims deserve the full payout. but then, that woud bankrupt the Princes Trust and fail other young people.

So its about the best balance in the very sad situation.

Lots of children are abused without any recompense, sadly. Because the recompense doesn't come from the abusers. So it ends up deciding whether to rob Peter to pay Paul. Compensation comes from services to prevent and respond to current abuse.

The Middletons were trying to cash in on their royal connections but clearly these connections aren't worth much.

They didn't just suddenly go into bankruptcy or administration overnight, so if the company wasn't doing well, whose bright idea was it to try and expand into the USA? With plans for international expansion?

It's ridiculous and I can understand why people are pissed off. They should pay back their debts like any other would be forced to.

It's no wonder K's been out and about lately. Trying to distract from multiple things me thinks.

Where's W gone since the coronation? He's been out like 4 times, it's mostly been K.

I wonder how they feel about what's going on with K's parents finances.

He actually wasn't as their fiscal year would run from summer 2020 to summer 2021.

Which would be after March 2020. Oprah was in 2021. They reports come out a year later.

But don't let facts stop you.

I think the US expansion was an attempt to build up the trading prospects to allow them to sell the business as a going concern. Obviously a failure.

I haven't noticed a turn on Kate lately at all. Both W and K seem to be getting on with their jobs with their usual pleasantness and professionalism.

The Middleton's business is nothing to do with Kate, and I don't think many people apart from those affected are interested anyway. Plenty of businesses folded after covid.

It's not 'to do with her' in that she doesn't work there, but blimey it is her parents, so really don't feel it's nothing to do with her! If my parents business folded owing a massive amount of money I would feel involved.

I just feel sorry for the small businesses this has affected.

We know princes trust don't have the money. But Charles could pay it.
There are more negative press articles about Kate, it is noticeable.

Charles isn’t liable or responsible for it though

And if the RF did help them, there would still be the same usual suspects on here complaining about ‘our money being used to bail out Kate’s parents’

its just a useful new angle to stick the boot into Kate for some

The RF patronise something like 3,000 charities, plus 800 businesses are royal warrant holders, and that’s before you get into businesses and charities run by various in-laws and distant relations. Expecting the monarch to bail them all out as needed using private funds is not reasonable.

Other than the fact the Prince Trust agreed to pay and absorbed a charity with a well known history, this also adds to a moral obligation:

Its early supporters included the then Prince of Wales – later King Edward VIII – who donated £1,000 to Fairbridge in 1934, declaring: “This is not charity. It is an imperial investment.” Princess Elizabeth, later Queen Elizabeth II, donated £2,000 of her wedding gift to Fairbridge in 1948.
Reports of abuse and maltreatment at Fairbridge and other homes and schools for migrant children began to emerge after the second world war. The UK Home Office attempted to blacklist some of the schools in the mid-1950s, but its plans were sidelined after lobbying by powerful individuals, including HRH the Duke of Gloucester, at the time the president of the society.