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?

No, I’m not.

Is that addressed to me?

The Middlestons sold their last house, which had substantial upgrades (which boosted the purchase price) paid for by the RF. For example the RF paid for their house to have a new driveway and some other work on the grounds that William used to stay there sometime and it was necessary for security, then the Middletons turned around and sold it. So the fact they accepted royal money wouldn't prevent them from selling it, as they have done so before.

Of course Will and Kate spend over a million pounds of taxpayer money having their driveway redone, and God knows how many millions of taxpayer money having their kitchen ripped out and re-done three times, and having their tennis court moved a few feet to the left. So they don't seem to regard that as a substantial cost.

It is very surprising that William hasn't offered to at least pay the debts to local small business. Obviously William isn't obligated to pay the Middlestons debts for them but seems strange to be happy to pay millions for a new driveway and new kitchens and stuff but not a couple of thousand (which is pocket change, especially considering William just inherited the vast Duchy fortune) to a small business who might be financially crippled by an unpaid bill. In the past the Middletons were always protected, especially over stuff like Pippa's gun scandal or James' failed business (especially the Nazi "scandal" which IMO was manufactured by the tabloids), but they're clearly not being protected any more.

In the past the Middletons were always protected, especially over stuff like Pippa's gun scandal or James' failed business (especially the Nazi "scandal" which IMO was manufactured by the tabloids), but they're clearly not being protected any more.

I wonder why

Were they actually protected before though? I don't really remember the period right after the wedding but I know that the narrative in the media in 2005-2011, they were criticised a lot for their social status and the narrative was that Carole was just this overly ambitious social climber who "groomed" her daughter to be William's future wife. (I have my theory on who was behind these stories though).

The fact that we know about these things seems to indicate that they weren’t protected at all, as every potentially negative story about them was published by the media - then and now.

@pinkgrafittirat · Yesterday 20:28

You mention things bought for the Middletons with "tax payers money", and further on that William has "inherited the vast Duchy fortune". As if he is not really entitled to either. Would you be happier if he wasn't so rich? Do you just dislike rich people?

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?

even in bankruptcy you do not lose everything. In the Middletons case, they could pay their business debts and still be privately wealthy. That's what a decent person would do. It's relevant to the public that the future Queen comes from a family that hasn't done the right thing here.

@Iwantcakeeveryday writes ".......It's relevant to the public that the future Queen comes from a family that hasn't done the right thing."

Her in laws haven't always done "the right thing".

Agreed. I said that because a few posters think we shouldn't;t be discussing her family.

Iwantcakeeveryday · Today 09:53
even in bankruptcy you do not lose everything. In the Middletons case, they could pay their business debts and still be privately wealthy. That's what a decent person would do. It's relevant to the public that the future Queen comes from a family that hasn't done the right thing here.

They have apparently done everything the Bankruptcy Law requires of them. Do you think they should go over and above that because of who their daughter married?
Hardly surprising that a company selling "party goods" should fail during extended lock-down.

@polkadotdalmation exactly.

I agree… MN may not, but I don’t think berating people for what topics they want to discuss leads to a happy forum. Everyone is here because they are interested enough in some aspect of the RF. If someone posted X on Day 1 and X on Day 30 doesn’t it just show their opinion is consistent? M&H are relevant to the topic because it was them who promoted the idea Kate only ever gets positive coverage, which means that when she doesn’t it seems like the press has turned against her. Only they haven’t because Kate has always gotten mixed coverage. Expressing a different view is fine, but expressing a view on what people should and shouldn’t talk about is always going to lead to an argument imho. Also some of us really struggle on this board due to neurodivergence and I think people should be mindful of that.

@tigger2022 Thank you. It should never be brought into the conversation that 'you are always posting', 'you said xyz 2 months ago' (then incorrectly quote what you actually said), 'you're changing the subject from my chosen one and you're not allowed because I say so' (paraphrasing that!).

Say what you have to say. Disagree with the content of the other posts and be honest. Nothing else is relevant.

So why aren't you responding to the post Polka made saying it wasn't ok to criticise the Middletons. That's how this started:

Unfortunately this isn't a discussion about Kates family, it's a hatchet job on them in an attempt to throw shade on her. It's quite sad that people feel the need to denigrate her family because there's precious little to complain about her.

The comments from myself and others are being accused of 'denigrating' and obviously the implication is we should;t post. I think its entirely relevant to respond to that accusation by pointing out the same poster has engaged in discussions about Meghan's family. I don't think I have 'berated' that, I am using it as an example because I am being berated for posting about the Middleton's.

And the thing about posting a lot on the same subject… I can hyperfixate on topics because of my autism. It’s not a bad thing, just means my brain works differently. People should be mindful that others have very different life experiences and challenges.

I have autism tigger. I am quite surprised you've used that in this context. its fine to point out inconsistencies and unfairness and neurodivergency has nothing to do with it.