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?

Anyway we've move on and are discussing Prince Louis's squidgy little cheeks 😀

I think Charlotte looks a lot like the Queen when she was a little girl

He is adorable. So joyful at that age. I saw Kate with girls more than boys, don’t ask me why, maybe because she’s one of two girls herself.

And a brother of course, I wasn’t forgetting James!

I never saw the ressemblance between the 2. I think Charlotte is 100% William

@Ninaplant writes "....... I find the Middletons behaviour in this regard, to be shameful.
They can afford to pay off their debts by selling their home and downsizing but they choose not to...............".

I agree 💯
But it was always like this.
The poorer people suffer.

It’s a good thing that no one is forced to sell their home when filing bankruptcy. There should not be special rules for any class of people. Those who choose to run a business and employee people should not have to take on that risk, either. It would create one more barrier to entrepreneurship that could be devastating for the economy and be very limiting individuals who aren’t extremely wealthy.

We have members on this forum that have been in the position of shutting down a business. I hope they are met with empathy in their lives rather than this type of judgement.

We have members on this forum that have been in the position of shutting down a business. I hope they are met with empathy in their lives rather than this type of judgement.

I am one of them and have had to close a business once, as mentioned, and I do not expect anyone to take on my debt while I sit comfortably in a mansion ( I don't own a mansion btw ). There are ways to make sure someone doesn't lose everything, even in bankruptcy you get to retain some of your wealth. The Middletons wouldn't ever go into bankruptcy, even if they paid all their debts from their personal wealth. I find it interesting anyone would defend a business owner maintaining considerable wealth while they open and close companies that end up leaving other people still owed money. Its immoral, even if it isn't illegal.

i think that being able to set up a business that can go bankrupt and leave people unpaid while still owing suppliers is one of the things that is wrong with the societies we now live in. That a person can do this and still get to live in a whopping big home is a really bad indictment on our society. The poorest people are the ones that are going to suffer as a result. I wonder if the small unpaid businesses were able to pay their employees as a result? Or able yo
psy their suppliers? There is a domino effect.

How many times has Trump gone bankrupt in his life? How many contractors has he left unpaid? From news reports I read, quite a few. That’s ‘entrepreneurship’ for you. Let’s not glorify it.

However, I don’t think this reflects badly on Kate. It does reflect badly on her parents though.

@Ninaplant writes "....... I find the Middletons behaviour in this regard, to be shameful.
They can afford to pay off their debts by selling their home and downsizing but they choose not to...............".

I understood that the Middletons lived in a detached 4 bed house - nice but not a mansion - until they had royal grandchildren who came to stay, with nanny and security.
They then needed somewhere with more space for all this and more easily defended. And the RF paid a good part of the cost of this. If so they can't really sell it

I’m sure the people who haven’t been paid feel reassured and a bit silly for wanting their money, when it would mean that William’s children will have one less mansion to visit.

Should everyone who ever benefited from a business that fails have to give back some of their own profits to pay off the current creditors?

Trump used bankruptcy as a vehicle.

I agree with you.

Not illegal but immoral.
Do right by people.

There’s no way I could leave people eternally unpaid but I don’t think anyone should have to leave their home.

Indeed!

It's all speculation anyway. It's quite possible the couple have paid their creditors from their own money. Or the assets have paid off creditors which is the norm. Only they know.

Except the people that don’t get paid when someone goes bankrupt might very well lose their home as a result.

What is fair about that? What is fair about going bankrupt and being able to hang onto your home and lifestyle, if people you haven’t paid lose theirs?

One of the people interviewed only recently said he had not been paid.

But yes, of course, give that couple the benefit of the doubt. While picking apart the lives of another couple and holding their feet to the fire for every imagined wrong doing.

I think that being able to set up a business that can go bankrupt and leave people unpaid while still owing suppliers is one of the things that is wrong with the societies we now live in.

Genuinely though, if people are personally liable for all debts of their businesses, then we would all have to be self employed and self sufficient. Because why would anyone take on the risk of setting up a business, buying stock/machinery, employing people etc if they’d lose everything they own if their business failed?

And businesses fail for all sorts of reason, sometimes nothing to do with their owners. Typewriter manufacturers and video cassette manufacturers had perfectly thriving businesses for many years…until they suddenly didn’t. So, you can do anything/make anything/sell anything and something happens and suddenly you lose everything. I doubt you’d find many people willing to take that gamble.

It could be the society we live in, of course. But you’d have to accept that it would be a society fundamentally different to the world any of us live in now.

Very informative @Serenster as ushal 👍

Are you addressing this to a specific poster?

1% of Britions own 70% percent of the wealth in the UK. And that 1% are growing wealthier by the day. Poor people are being left with very inadequate safety nets. Homelessness and hunger are growing.

In my country alone, a country with a population of just over 25 million people, 1.3 million children are living below the poverty line and are frequently going hungry, and we are doing economically better than the UK.

This societies we live in are not sustainable: The current societies will collapse. Because the wealthy have become so damn greedy.