Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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
Samcro · 16/07/2023 17:07

I can’t imagine either of them giving up a life of luxury, where work includes going to sports events they love.
their children are part of their brand. It’s the way celebrity works

AliceOlive · 16/07/2023 17:22

Samcro · 16/07/2023 17:07

I can’t imagine either of them giving up a life of luxury, where work includes going to sports events they love.
their children are part of their brand. It’s the way celebrity works

Well someone gave it up. Someone who has made whining a part of their brand.

Samcro · 16/07/2023 17:23

I thought we we talking about Kate and will.

AliceOlive · 16/07/2023 17:25

You introduced the idea that no one would give it up. There’s recent evidence it’s not the easy life are suggesting.

Samcro · 16/07/2023 17:32

William is heir to the throne. He will be king one day. Very different.

AliceOlive · 16/07/2023 17:38

Yes, much more responsibility and duty. Much more difficult to walk away when it’s not fun.

AliceOlive · 16/07/2023 17:39

But hey, free sporting events.

Samcro · 16/07/2023 17:54

You just seem to want to pick a fight

AliceOlive · 16/07/2023 19:24

I’m proposing a different perspective to your snarking about people in the public eye.

Samcro · 16/07/2023 19:44

Snarking?
as I said trying to pick a fight

AliceOlive · 16/07/2023 19:54

Yes.

“critical or mocking in an indirect or sarcastic way.”

LimeCheesecake · 16/07/2023 20:20

Not to barge in on your fight - Harry was giving up a lot less than William would be.

CathyorClaire · 16/07/2023 20:56

Yes, much more responsibility and duty

Workshy Willy got a free pass on 'responsibility and duty' until he was 35 (35!) He still only scored 5th in the laughable list of royal workengagements as recently as 2022.

Still waiting for evidence of his work ethic.

AliceOlive · 16/07/2023 21:03

Very vested. @CathyorClaire

CathyorClaire · 16/07/2023 21:11

But unarguable.

Mirabai · 16/07/2023 21:14

Trez1510 · 29/05/2023 08:21

I seem to recall that manchild being similarly jealous of his first wife's popularity. That element of the current rumour may well have legs imo. He's waited 70+ years for his supremacy (lol) and is unlikely to take kindly to anyone upstaging him because that's the sort of pompous prick he is.

Yep.

AliceOlive · 16/07/2023 21:15

Everything is arguable. I’m just not that invested at the moment. Or maybe at all.

It was a measure by comparison, though.

Throughalookingglass · 17/07/2023 02:14

You aren’t thinking logically.
The children wouldn’t be being commented on if the parents weren’t (increasingly) using them for PR. There is no need at all for any of them to be seen at any event never mind the ( weird) day out to see the plane grannie’s coffin was in ( hit a bit of mournathon pr at the same time)

The children are being used now and prepared for their possible future roles as tabloid fodder . It is all part of the nonsense that selling a family as head of state entails

I agree they are being wheeled out for PR purposes far too much. I don't buy that they are being trained for future roles. There is plenty of time for that when they are teens. They are being used by the RF for the RF. People were happy enough to see the photos of them on their birthdays and walking to church on Christmas Day. There is no need for their parents to wheel them out for publicity.

clyspa · 17/07/2023 05:52

I disagree

Mylovelygreendress · 17/07/2023 07:10

Throughalookingglass · 17/07/2023 02:14

You aren’t thinking logically.
The children wouldn’t be being commented on if the parents weren’t (increasingly) using them for PR. There is no need at all for any of them to be seen at any event never mind the ( weird) day out to see the plane grannie’s coffin was in ( hit a bit of mournathon pr at the same time)

The children are being used now and prepared for their possible future roles as tabloid fodder . It is all part of the nonsense that selling a family as head of state entails

I agree they are being wheeled out for PR purposes far too much. I don't buy that they are being trained for future roles. There is plenty of time for that when they are teens. They are being used by the RF for the RF. People were happy enough to see the photos of them on their birthdays and walking to church on Christmas Day. There is no need for their parents to wheel them out for publicity.

Has it occurred to you ( and others) that K and W want to spend time with their children ? The Family Time that is endlessly discussed on threads ? Or that the children want to go to Wimbledon? George and Charlotte certainly seemed to enjoy the match yesterday . I took my 3 when they were younger and they loved it . I also took them to golf tournaments, air shoes etc . Why ? Because I wanted to spend time with them and I wanted them to enjoy the experiences.
Or is all this just another way to criticise W and K ?

pilates · 17/07/2023 07:22

@Mylovelygreendress agree 💯

All I see is a family out enjoying themselves- weird to see anything different really.

MrsFinkelstein · 17/07/2023 07:40

LimeCheesecake · 16/07/2023 15:56

Normally I’d agree with you @BadgerB - but interestingly, noticed photos of Harry and Meghan had the faces of their dcs blurred out in recent press article, was rather, “the parents are now celebrities, not proper royals so their kids are to be treated like kids of celebrities, not royals”.

if they did abdicate and be normal (albeit rich) family, unless they continued to court public interest, they would generally be left alone. As long as they didn’t need to work, I don’t think Kate and Will would strive to be famous and interest would drop.

I believe the reason the photos were blurred is due to Californian law - in other states they wouldn't be.

Mylovelygreendress · 17/07/2023 08:35

MrsFinkelstein · 17/07/2023 07:40

I believe the reason the photos were blurred is due to Californian law - in other states they wouldn't be.

They weren’t blurred on the photos I saw as I thought how Lilibet is like the Markle side.

EdithWeston · 17/07/2023 09:04

Prince William was about the same as age Prince George when he went to Wimbledon with his mother for the first time.

Prince Harry about the same age when pictured at some military show he'd been taken to.

Diana was also pictured taking them to a theme park.

So it's really not unusual to see the royal bairns on a few outings a year (plus Sandringham at Christmas, the set-piece things like Trooping the colour, and photos at birthdays, starting new schools and Christmas card)

I don't think they're doing more than previous generations, and the DC are pretty much left alone the other 350-ish days of the day

Serenster · 17/07/2023 09:14

I believe the reason the photos were blurred is due to Californian law - in other states they wouldn't be.

The pictures were blurred in UK publications, but not in US publications. This is because the Press Regulatory Guide states that the privacy of children should be protected. Most UK media companies then have guidelines based on this that state that they need the permission of the parent before identifying a child under 16. If they are in doubt, they will protect the child’s identity, often by pixelating the image.

These are guidelines though, not rules, so you’ll see in pixelated images of celebrities’ children as well. The editorial team will apply their judgement. When dealing with a litigious celebrity, they will probably adopt a cautious approach!

The law in California prevents photographers from harassing children to take photos, but if they are in a public place then a photo can legally be taken and published without the law being broken. So they don’t need to be pixelated in California. Other states will have their own rules.

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.