Catherine’s return to duties

[PrettyFlyforaMaiTai]

Catherine has returned to her public duties and has visited the Royal Marsden hospital today to “show her gratitude to the incredible team, but also highlight the world-leading care and treatment the Marsden provides".

It has been revealed that she attended her chemotherapy appointments at Royal Marsden. She thanked staff and visited patients for approximately an hour. It’s also been released that she will join William in becoming a royal patron of the hospital.

news.sky.com/story/kate-visits-royal-marsden-hospital-to-thank-staff-who-looked-after-her-during-cancer-treatment-13288556

It's a Jewish-owned company that was co-created by a Jewish man.

Yes @wordler I know that. But two things can be true at once. Coco Chanel is also associated with Nazi collaboration.

So some might think twice about using one of the bags before going to a holocaust memorial event.

She might have been give all that information and decided to go with it which is her choice but also would mean she was instantly criticised.

It’s a Jewish owned company

Chanel continues to be a privately held company, owned by the Wertheimer family. In recent months, Chanel has shown its support for Israel, pledging to donate $4 million to humanitarian relief in Israel following Hamas murderous rampage on October 7, 2023.

I don’t understand your tokenism comment at all, are you saying she should have rocked up in a new designer dress?

So she shouldn’t buy anything from Chanel, which is owned by Jews? Think about that for a moment.

@BigWillyLittleTodger no a re-wear would have been good. Or a remodel. Renting a dress once (as far as we know) I think just looks like a token gesture.

Nor am I saying she shouldn't wear Chanel. I'm saying on this occasion, for this event it might not have been the best idea.

Everything she does is scrutinised and sometimes it feels like she is badly advised.

Tokenistic? Wearing a rented dress? Wtaf ...

Yeah because it was a one off.

Maybe she rents dresses all the time who knows.

But it just looked to me like: environmental responsibility event - let's rent a dress, that's sustainable. Never happened since (as far as we know).

Is this a new script?

Or maybe it would encourage others to follow her lead and rent an occasion dress or a wedding dress rather than buying? So whether you think it’s tokenism is irrelevant if it makes people think twice about purchasing new outfits, it can only be a good thing, do tell us in your opinion what would have been the correct thing for her to have worn? and as for the handbag reaching nonsense maybe read @Serenster post.

But it just looked to me like: environmental responsibility event - let's rent a dress, that's sustainable. Never happened since (as far as we know).

What would have met your approval?

I seem to recall that it was a feature of that awards ceremony that guests were specifically asked to re-wear an outfit or rent.

So no tokenism about it.

It's a shame when people seem to be so eager to find something to criticise about a person or situation.

no a re-wear would have been good. Or a remodel

She did that the year before, I loved the hiring a dress idea it really fitted the ethos of the event.

I take it @CurlewKate has learnt nothing from her previous thread about forgiving herself for jumping on the bandwagon.

That's ok. We can agree to disagree!

@jeffgoldblum I’d forgotten about that! Maybe they need to go and read their thread again

We remember!

Well, hope noone criticising Kate has any Hugo Boss (Hitler's tailor, Nazi party member, designed the SS uniforms, used forced labour) or rides in a Mercedes, or owns a Beetle. There is a pretty long list, to be honest.

Coco Chanel was a collaborator. She's also been dead 50 years and her company is now owned by Jewish people. Kate wore a costume pearl necklace to the event from a small Jewish firm.

A sense of proportion is needed, I think.

Chanel wasn't just now owned by Jewish people - the current owners' grandfather was the co-creator of Chanel. From the start he owned 70 percent of Chanel. He had to sell his shares for safekeeping to someone he knew to prevent his company from being seized illegally during the war. He regained control after the war.

When his brother took over the company in 1948 after Paul Wertheimer died, he even negotiated a business deal with Coco Chanel to allow her to regain an interest in the company and return to France from exile.

You are quite right @wordler I had forgotten the history there.

I added this to the Prince Louis thread but for completeness it probably belongs here too.
Catherine is spending the afternoon with school children at the National Portrait Gallery to open a new interactive trail through a magic tree which supports the children to think about faces (via portraits) and emotions and story telling as part of joint initiative between the Centre for Early Childhood and the NPG

That sounds lovely!

It's getting harder for the 'Catherine's lazy' brigade to make their case, I guess.

Don't tempt fate @CoffeeCantata , they will find a way!

Meghan held hands with a small schoolchild once, so Kate is totally copying her sister-in-law. That’s the most they’ve got, so far.

It's a fair criticism. Holding hands with a schoolchild is a maverick move, a moment of astonishing compassion and loving kindness that no one before M had thought of. It's obvious Catherine was copying her; Brits are far too cold and standoffish to think of that all on their very own. They'd hold a horse's hand, and maybe a dog's, but that's it.

(It's cute that they paired her up with a child like she was one of them. I always love seeing little kids out and about on trips, holding hands in pairs.)

Yes she's definitely not holding hands with the little girl because they are on a school trip in central London.
(Fair play to her. I work in a school and try hard not to hold the little ones' hands! Plenty of hand sanitiser afterwards if I have to!)