If you were thinking to yourself, “It’s been months since Poor Jason forced the British tabloids into writing a puff piece about how the Duchess of Cambridge plans on working really, really hard,” you would be right. It has been a while. So Poor Jason has the remedy! The Daily Mail published a lengthy piece over the weekend, featuring quotes from an unnamed royal aide (Poor Jason), all about how Kate was really going to work so hard this time, you guys. 2016 is The Year of Kate’s Amazing Schedule. 2016 is the year that she becomes just like Princess Diana! 2016 will be full of events in which Kate does so much work on behalf of children’s mental illness. This piece is actually a fairly mundane hack piece that took more effort from Poor Jason than Kate will put into her charity work all year. Some highlights:
Kate’s complex issue: Kate “is preparing to launch herself in a similar role,” like Diana’s work with HIV, when Kate “embraces the complex issue of children’s mental health…’Crusading Kate’ will hope she can banish prejudice and raise awareness just as the Princess of Wales did for HIV sufferers in the 1980s.”
More time for work? “With her seven-month- old daughter now settled into life at Anmer Hall and two-year-old Prince George starting nursery in Norfolk this month, she has been able to carve out more time for work. As a result she has ordered aides to fill her diary for 2016 and is keen to demonstrate an increased commitment to the charity sector.”
More time for work… in February. “She will begin her crusade by making a rare video appeal to promote Children’s Mental Health Week, which starts on February 8. Her aim is to teach young people the importance of ‘bouncing forward from life’s challenges’, The Mail on Sunday can reveal. Unlike some other members of the Royal family, Kate is rarely interviewed on camera, making next month’s high-profile appearance an important step in her Royal career.”
More private visits. “It seems the Duchess has been making private off-camera visits to meet children and organisations affected by the issue.” A source said: “From her own research, meetings and visits to a number of charities over the last couple of years, one message has always stood out to her – that early intervention can dramatically change the likelihood of poor life chances further down the line.”
Her other patronages probably won’t see her this year: “While the Duchess has pledged to continue her work on behalf of her other charities, which include The Art Room, SportsAid and East Anglian Children’s Hospice, she is determined children’s mental health will be her focus.” An aide said: “The Duchess spent a large chunk of last year on maternity leave. She will continue to focus on her family but this year she will be doing more engagements and mental health is going to be a big cause.”
If this seemed like an excuse for the Daily Mail to just post a lot of photos of Kate and Princess Diana, you would be right. It was also an excuse for Poor Jason to justify his job. He spends so much time telling the British papers about what Kate will be doing, and then months pass and she ends up doing one or two events and then she calls it a day. Kate and William really, really do not make Jason’s job very easy. And notice something funny: she’s going to working SO HARD you guys… starting in February. I’m assuming she and William are heading off to Mustique soon? Probably. I also think it’s funny that she’s making yet another stilted video on behalf of a charity and that has to be fluffed up and made to sound groundbreaking, like it’s never been done before. Oh, and more “private visits” of course.
Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet and PCN.
“bouncing forward from life’s challenges”
Oh, just kill me now.
It took her (and them) 4 years to realise she does nothing. I’m amazed at their blindness.
They’re not blind, they’re just afraid of pissing off William.
I’m disturbed by the way this subject is being handled by her & her aides. I posit that most of childrens’ “mental health issues” are a result of family/societal dysfunction, which is not limited to poorer families. What does she mean by “early intervention”? Putting children on prescription meds? Telling them to buck up, suck it up, put on a smile & sally forth?
ITA. They didn’t even define what mental illness involves, its parameters. There is no research, nothing of substance. She should hire psychiatrists and psychologists to help her with this task because it is an important one. But it seems it’s not being taken seriously.
@TheRoyalReporter said on Twitter that Kate is in fact rather smart. Problem is she doesn’t come across as smart. Just going on her work as a member of the RF to me she seems vapid, unprepared and fickle. It’s all about IMAGE and PERCEPTION.
Kate is as intellectually sharp as a blunt tack. No matter how many times reporters tell us that she’s ‘smart’ she proves otherwise. She’s already proven how much of a slow learner she is – it takes her quite long time to grasp the basics such as taking almost 4 years to realise that you shouldn’t be flashing the royal biscuit at the people that you will one day represent and pay for your badly tailored designer clothes.
She’s an empty headed, vain vacuous woman who will never be taken seriously.
“early intervention” simply means making sure children have access to services at the earliest age possible. For example, when children on the Autism Spectrum are diagnosed early on (as opposed to once a child starts elementary school) and therapies can start early (speech therapy, behavioral, etc) it can have a HUGE impact in how high functioning the kids can be. That’s considered “early intervention”. Basically it’s a way of saying ‘lets make sure kids don’t have the opportunity to slip through the cracks’. And while it can also include any sort of pharmacological help necessary, the phrase tends to connote Occupational Therapy. It’s a phrase that’s used A LOT, and certainly isn’t specific to Kate and Jason.
I’m sure I left a comment here earlier. It had a link in it so perhaps it didn’t get through. Sorry for the link, Celebitchy! Anyway.
Yes. I said this on the last thread. What she has said so far on this topic has been worrying – basically implying that child mental ill health is caused only by bad parenting on the part of poor people.
I think we all know it’s a lot more complicated than that.
I couldn’t agree more. However, I guess you have to start somewhere, and perhaps they could use this guest editing stint to put a focus on something — whether it be organic mental disease (isn’t that actually rare in children? Seems most develop in adolescence?), support for children with a mentally ill parent, or children with disorders like autism, Aspergers, ADHD.
They’re supposed to be requesting articles, correct? Let’s hope some of them actually have some substance.
ETA: Thank you for the context on “early intervention” Sixer. Here it’s used in a personal sense — an early intervention would be targeting someone with potential problems in order to mitigate or avoid them.
Bridget – the problem here in the UK is that “early intervention” is also often used in a social sense. In fact, is MORE OFTEN used in a social sense. It’s used to refer to things like children’s centres and parenting classes offered in deprived areas. The choice of words is highly politically charged in a UK context. The Prime Minister has just this week been using the term in the context of poor people.
It is very worrying that her team is so disconnected from the area it is wading into, that it doesn’t even realise that.
That’s interesting because again, here within the context of children’s mental health “early intervention” doesn’t have that context at all. In fact, here “early intervention” is a good thing – the earlier that children can be diagnosed and begin to receive services, the better off they are (and frankly, the easier it is on parents). And here, children’s mental health also encompasses ADHD, Autism, etc – to get my child diagnosed with Autism, we had to see a child psychologist. In fact, a lot of healthcare providers/teachers/people that work with children are being encouraged to be better able to identify signs of children that may perhaps be outside of the ‘normal’ development, again because there is more of an emphasis on early intervention for when children need services like speech therapy, behavioral therapy, feeding therapy, – vs. issues not being identified properly and children being labeled as “problem” kids and not getting the help they need.
@Bridget – I couldn’t agree more with you. When my brother was in Kindergarten 5 his teacher diagnosed him ADHD (back in 1993). Her diagnosis was wrong but everyone was ready to start giving him meds. Thankfully our mum is a psychologist and was able to counter the misdiagnosis. Hopefully teachers now a days are better informed and able to help identify problems and behaviours.
Sixer,
Interesting explanation on the socio-political connotations of this particular type of language in a very specific context. It makes me wonder if Jason made a blunder here, him being American. It is quite possible that he is ignorant of this particular connotation in a UK context.
Bridget (and everyone)
Certainly “early intervention” is also used medically here – for any condition in which early treatment brings benefits. But its main meaning is within the context of social policy. Here’s a brief overview (hope the link gets through; it’s a harmless one) – http://www.eif.org.uk/what-is-early-intervention/
She’s already said in a speech that if children come from a nice family with supportive parents and go to a good school, they are unlikely to suffer from mental ill health.
So um… it all seems very unclear to me. What is her focus? Mental health issues as one facet of problems arising from deprivation and so-called troubled families? Or child mental ill health generally, as we keep being told? Because plenty of kids from non-deprived backgrounds suffer from mental ill health.
All this stuff is hotly contested here. Honestly? I actually hope she does drop it and move onto a new passion after a period of inactivity. Because I can’t see it ending well.
Recall the charity that gets urban kids out into the countryside for camping. She arrived and spent less than an hour. During that time she gave them a lecture about not watching tv and going to the country instead. The point of the charity is they do not HAVE the money to go to the country, Kate. After that, she got in a helicopter and flew to a polo match.
I cannot see complex mental health issues being treated any better.
I agree with that part, Sixer – what Kate (and of course, Jason) has actually said is very, very murky. “Bouncing forward”? Yikes. Not to mention that they keep referring to it as “children and organizations affected by the issue”. How so? Any concrete statistics, figures, reasons? The statements themselves are silly, and do make it sound as though ‘children’s mental health’ is code for ‘poor people issues’.
NOTA – exactly.
Bridget – also exactly. If she wants to concentrate on issues arising from deprivation then fine. Just say so. Don’t call it what it isn’t. And don’t pathologise poverty. Because that’s political, not charitable.
I’m already dead. This is simplistic, glib nonsense and may be more harmful than helpful if that’s the way they’re planning to go.
“bouncing forward from life’s challenges”
I just want to ounch the one that came up the that line to describe mental illness. Talk about being clueless!!!! *angry face*
I mean I want to punch the one who can up with this particularly insulting description of how to handle mental illness.
It’s bothering me too. The wording is unfortunate to say the very least. I’m swallowing my rage on this.
Clearly, the difference between poor kids and rich kids is the ability to “bounce forward”
Mentall illness is a very serious issue and it is often bound up in other social issues as well, like drug abuse, etc. – it needs people that are passionate, intelligent, articulate and most importantly, empathetic. Dillettantes need not apply – and Kate and her PR team are most definitely dillettantes here. She can do more harm than good in terms of public perception if her engagement isn’t wholehearted and if the way she engages in the debate isn’t precise and to the point. Vauge, non-committal PR speak is not helping the cause – because information to the public is a key point to combat stigma, that needs facts, nuance and a very use of precise language.
I feel very very strongly about this issue because my mother’s mental illness has shaped my life in a profound and often traumatic way. Thus I get really stabby when high-profile people speak out of their asses on this subject – and her speech was unfortunate and ignorant.
If she isn’t in it for the long haul and if she isn’t going to put in some serious work, then I’d prefer her to leave this to the people who care and go find something in her own (feather) weight-class.
ArtHistorian
This is far too serious an issue for her. Unless these PR words are true and she really does carethey should all back away. This is not a vehicle for fairweathered use,
IF/When she backs away from this for a new cause there will be larger imo backlash because this affects so many.
It pisses me off too. Kate IS truly a dilettante and she is so ill-suited for this sort of work. Not to say that an effective spokeswoman would have to have first-hand experience with the topic at hand, but Kate just doesn’t cut it……AT ALL.
I don’t care how “keen” she is, she needs to find another cause more in line with her personality.
Multi-tasking does not appear to be her strong point, does it?
She can’t even single-task. Despite having a full staff.
What happened to the hectic whirl?” She was supposed to have a hectic whirl last autumn! Was that it?
Did anyone but me notice William got three weeks off at EAAA for Christmas? Three weeks! I wonder if everyone at EAAA gets that amount of time off. Does anyone know?
I didn’t notice. But I’ve just been assuming the state of that “job” is doing the odd three weeks here and there, rather than having three weeks off here and there!
No, no don’t knock the hectic whirl, obvs it was so hectic and so fast none of us noticed! That’s how good she is, how hectic, how very, very fast. I think I’ve lost the will to live as well.
Wait….wasnt ‘hectic Whirl’ the name of our band? Did we not hold meetings and that’s why no one saw it? 😉
Yes it was – we even started a set list.
What? Hectic Whirl is supposed to perform in PUBLIC? 😀
It’s a hectic whirl all right- also called, “spin”.
Good one!
LAK yes Hectic Whirl is the name of our Band and she’s stoled it. I’m complaining to the band- name stealing and no fair authorities immediately. Bluhare will be Livid, she’s on lead vocals if I remember correctly.
I think technically we stole it . . . but let’s not let that stop us from complaining! I hope the Sixlets have been cycling so they can run the power amps. I really don’t want to do an acoustic set; people would realize I can’t actually sing.
@ bluhare
Read the article, Her hectic whirl of activities were done for her secret visits and meetings to her charities. Nobody ever said it had to be noticeable by anyone in the public. 😛
And funny how when William finally does show up to his EAAA work, he ends up in some children’s school’s cafeteria eating a free lunch [that would have otherwise gone to a child sometime in the future]. Maybe food is his weakness, like cheese and toast by Carole. You can bribe him to work with promises of food like you can bribe Kate to work with promises of more expensive clothing and accessories.
But it was cheesy cauliflower, anne!! CHEESY CAULIFLOWER!!
@ bluhare 😀
Omg. You’re right! It was CHEESY cauliflower. Anything with cheese… CHEESE GROMIT!!! CHEESE!
Full disclosure: I happen to love cheesy cauliflower. And cheesy broccoli. But I really love both with Hollandaise or Béarnaise. And I hardly eat it any more because of all the calories. But I’d have elbowed those little kids out of the way to get to it!
The Catholic school kids who took photos of him eating lunch have not been sued for invasion of His Majesty’s privacy. What’s up with that?!!
@ MinnFinn
Poor Jason wasn’t around to confiscate the kids’ cell phones.
Bluhare
Hahaha! The caloric intake in a plate is a days worth if you have all those things 😀 A delicious days worth of eating. I bet you love cream based soups too! So do i;)
There was a great tweet from someone at the school who said that she wasn’t sure whether she was more excited about William’s visit or that there had been cannelloni for lunch.
Cannelloni is def more exciting than William 😉
FLORC, with the notable exception of a great minestrone, I don’t think I like any non cream based soup! I like thick soup. Forget that broth stuff. Bleah.
Bluhare
LOVE Broth! I load mine up with heavy flavor though. Lemon, olive oil, half a cup of oregano, parsley, garlic, onion, savory, thyme….. Pretty much unload my spice closet in broth and add the rest later.
I do love a thick soup too.
Actually not only that, but did you notice how she won’t have time to pay as much attention (a thimbful) to her other charities???
They only seem to report when William goes back to work, which is so rare that it seems he has far more than three weeks off at a time. I agree that it’s more a case of three weeks on, here & there.
As for Kate — sigh. Poor Jason is only compounding the problem, making promises on behalf of his clients that they never fulfill. People remember that, it leaves a deep-seated mistrust.
And, yeah, why didn’t the RPOs grab the kids’ cellphones?!
Yes to this all Hazel
That last photo, in the black hat, makes her look like Scarlett Overkill with an eye on the queen’s tiara. Yikes. Ruthless.
Yeah, it looks like she’s thinking ‘One day, one day…’
That look is nothing. I saw a clip on you tube of Willie at a function surrounded by about 6 women, young and old and Kate Bucket was circling the group like a bloody great white. The look on her face was beyond ruthless. She was like a shark terrified other fish would take her meal – ticket. It was the coldest thing.
Great white, LOL! Now I’m seeing “Jaws” with a poofy brown wiglet and ginormous chiclet teeth.
…and a tiny saucer hat with a perky flower. Like Snape in Grandma Longbottom’s vulturehat.
ArtHistorian, you are on fire tonight! Lovin’ it.
Cold and ruthless are the best words to describe the Middleton women – they take after their mother. That woman oozes a coldness. This is why she has no empathy – she’s was trained to land Willy at any cost and to do that she had to fight off the competition (i.e. his bits on the side, the ladies he shags in the fire escape of nightclubs etc..). It was a long and bitter campaign fought with her mother and sister at her back.
So, she will only focus on ONE subject and the rest of her charities can forget about her? That’s what I got from this.
I don’t mind the private visits if she did twice the public ones. She’s not important due to her expertise or knowledge, but because her position allows her to shed light on charities and help them fundraise and garner attention and support. What’s the point of sooo many private visits?
Why can’t she make mental illness her BIG THING while still making time for her other charities? It’s not like she’s a patron of so many. She keeps disappointing but I guess the bar is so low we must take baby steps.
Last year it was hospice. Or was that the year before. Can’t remember. But she was keen to make an impact in children’s hospice care. I guess her work is done?
Like death and taxes, the bi-annual or is it thrice-annual article about what a keen worker Kate is and interest (insert cause here) has arrived.
Don’t forget the Diana invoking and the Princess of hearts title.
Usually written by Katie Nicholls who by now is simply changing date and X cause before posting the article.
We’ve had the same article on Hospices, Palliative care, Kate as a solo royal star.
Come to think of it, this same article was sent out when the engagement was announced and frequently during the engagement period, except we actually believed it that time.
Now we know better.
….but I do enjoy it’s regularity. They don’t bother to change the wording, except for the cause she’s suddenly keen on. No mention of the previous causes she was equally keen on in previous articles.
@LAK – considering she had done absolutely nothing during their 10 year relationship I doubted she would step up and suddenly work. However, as I don’t pay for her upkeep and residences, I didn’t think anything of it. But 4 years have gone by and Kate still remains who she’s always been – idle. She’s in a constant ennui.
@ bluhare
Yes, she fixed it, whatever ‘it’ is and that’s why she’s moved onto something new this year. She’s now going to fix prejudice of childhood mental illness. By the end of this year, there’s going to be no more of that.
She reminds me of a 17 year old who can’t pick a college major and keeps trying on new hobbies only to move on after she’s bored
burnsie, that is practically the definition of dilettante which is what she and William conjure up for me. She doesn’t stick with anything — except landing William I guess.
I’m totally OK with one focus. However, she shouldn’t just drop everything else. And, for what it’s worth, I think all this Kate is keen to work, and Kate’s going to guest edit HuffPo (making it sound like Kate’s poring over articles to include and writing “stet” all over everything and slaving over her desktop at KP) is to deflect from the fact that they’re probably going to take their holiday in the next couple weeks. Right after William had three weeks off the job he cares so much about for Christmas.
She should stick to things that don’t have potentially harmful social policy implications. I think women’s sport would be a good one. All she’d have to do would be to turn up to all the international women’s sport fixtures and the finals of the domestic women’s sports. Column inches generated. Sport more on the radar for young women. No talking out of one’s silly arse about contentious social policy issues.
Sports would be perfect for her. She always comes alive during those engagements and she is truly athletic. She could look at Michelle Obama and her work to get children into sports and healthy habits. How many at risk children could benefit from sports as an alternative to other activities? She could actually do something that matters.
But I guess her team decided that CHILDREN = SUCCESS, but not in her case.
@ Sixer
You’re completely right about it all.
She should do what Michelle Obama is doing, health foods and exercise. Michelle is a lawyer and even she didn’t take on such a complicated subject like childhood mental illness. So Kate doing it is that much more beyond her intellectual capabilities. And yes, I know she reads scientific journals all the time, but still…
Sixer, I agree.
And I have to say this: is a modern-day woman who spent her lifetime not working, but instead hunting a Prince to marry because her mom is into royals and she had his poster on the wall of her girlhood bedroom, quite the person to be focusing on mental health? A woman who, btw, cannot function as an adult without mommy? Who still remains work shy and spoiled, shopping endlessly to fill some emotional hole? Working out to look like an anorexic stick? Flipping her hair and grinning like a goofy twelve year old at serious public events? I am sorry, but I think of this every single time I read about her new “focus”…. should all kids be raised as aimless pod people run by their indulgent helicopter mums? ls that her plan?
Let her focus on sports, until she gets her own business sorted out. My opinion only.
EDIT: I think the same when I look at sour petulant immature spoiled William, and think of his “interest” in bullying. If this was a Harry goal, I could believe it. As it is, I think it is more Office PR fakery, and well chosen because who are kids going to talk to about a distant useless pair of patrons? Clever choice, and so sad.
Sport it is, then. I shall write to #poorjason and instruct him immediately!
Anne: if only she could be like Michelle Obama. If only.
I totally agree, Sixer. Maybe even sport programs involving children with mental or physical issues. But something manageable that she can actually sound knowledgeable about. Mental health in kids is such a huge area; but then again maybe she’s been reading all those scientific papers we’re told she’s read.
@ Liberty
Very true. Kate has a lot of noticeable issues so it seems like such a bad idea to have her be a figurehead of dealing with mental illness when she’s someone who seems to have no self-awareness of her own problems stemming from how she was raised and her choices as an adult. It’s like the blind leading the blind.
Though the point is to focus on other people’s mental illnesses, all it does it highlight her own mental and emotional defects. Someone ‘normal,’ more knowledgeable, and with more expertise should be the figurehead, not her.
nah, then she would have to ditch the heels and wear pants in those sports appearances, everybody will see how short her legs are, and she couldn’t fake her waist any more by wearing belts 15cm above where it really is. It’s off the list for her then.
@ sott
In the past at sporting events, she’d wear high-heeled wedges and skin-tight pants or mid-thigh-high dress like she did when jumping over cans stacked three-high at the 2014 Commonwealth Day sporting event. I guess that if she can’t fake her waist, she’s fine with having her legs shown in full and maybe the high-heeled wedges are to make her legs seem longer.
Sixer: it’s not just that she touches on things with a social policy aspect to them, she also lacks nuance and depth and is using out-dated language that ascribes to out-dated thinking of elites – only peasants are afflicted.
…but in a way, William does the same when he talks about Conservation. They both don’t seem to ascribe to a more nuanced approach to any of their ’causes’ and are often tone deaf if not outright wrong.
And no one challenges them or pushes back.
Charles is often challenged and by that I mean that even if his inner circle and those invited to break bread and advise agree with his ideas, there is always the media to challenge or make fun, either way, to make him look twice at his ideas if only to make the media talking heads stop.
You have none of that with WK. It’s all received as manna from heaven.
The content of their speeches are terrible as an example, once you overlook delivery.
LAK – yes! I said yesterday – if you parse it all, there’s some pretty Dickensian thinking behind what she’s doing, but NOBODY NOTICES. If Charles and the Princes Trust were doing this stuff, we’d have headlines for weeks.
LAK, you are too right. They are both tone deaf and their “advisors” seem too busy pussyfooting and blowing smoke to correct it. Totally lacking nuance and depth. William’s approach to conservation is like something an adolescent would come up with. I am more worried about William to be honest because as even a ceremonial head of state he is going to be clueless.
Iirc, she’s the only British royal that gets to count [possibly non-existent] private/secret visits and meetings as part of her work tally. It gives her an out for when her tally is too low and there’s not enough time to fluff it up with more galas and watching sports games.
+ 1
Weekend before last, going to church and then wreath laying for the Gallipoli centenary apparently counted as two ‘engagements’ …..I think it’s called ‘creative accounting’
You’re right, Cee, no one expects her to be an expert in the causes she supports, only to bring attention to them, which is why all these statements about her ‘research’ & alleged intelligence are so silly & ultimately damaging to her reputation.
@ Hazel
I agree. The more they up her reputation for qualities she doesn’t have, the more it sets her up for failure. I don’t know whose ego is pushing for this type of PR strategy, but they must be stupid in the first place because obviously it’s going to backfire.
What do you mean her other patronages won’t see her? Isn’t this the problem, working so little that her patronages don’t get the exposure they deserve? Unless she’s setting up a schedule where all of her patronages are getting her time in my opinion, there’s nothing to see here. sigh.
Yeah they don’t want her to waste their valuable time and effort.
Isn’t it a great excuse not to work for the rest of her charities? Because if she’s focused on only one issue this year, then doing any work for those that aren’t part of her 2016 cause will take the focus off her ‘crusade.’ See? There’s method in this madness.
That’s what I was wondering, when do her other patronages ever see her anyway? I don’t think they’d even notice she’s spending “less” time with them than she already does.
She can take one or two hours each day to visit her charities while George is at nursery school and Charlotte is with the nanny. Even if it’s only three times a week, she’d spend more time working then she has so far, and still have plenty of time to spend with the children, shopping, whatever else she wants to do.
I think this is a way of ‘dropping’ them without coming out and directly saying/doing it. She only has 11 anyway so its not as if she has too many to manage all the work/expectations they have on the poor overworked snowflake.
You’re probably right — a masking move.
@ Betti
Oh, that’s a good point.
Bulllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllshiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
This will never ever happen. You don’t go from doing nothing for 32 years to all of a sudden becoming a workaholic.
She’s 34 years old, so that’s two more years of doing nothing.
If I could send you a glass of wine through my screen, anne_000, I would!!
Cheers to two more years!
@ Liberty 😀
@ Murphy 😀
A seventh month old has “settled into life at Anmer Hall”? The very fact that this sentence made it by the editors screams intentional mockery. The Cambridges need to screen their PR team better.
I don’t get it – that is about the time it takes for some babies to become “settled.”
Well, maybe I don’t know anything about babies, but that sounds very adult. Like, you move to a new town, start a new job, and seven months later you’re unpacked and settling in.
Bettyrose
It is very adult. When I am talking or being told about babies settling it’s in more simple terms. They settle into a sleep cycle. They start responding better to routines. That style.
In terms of a parent going back to work after an infant is settled in a home it’s about the parent. In terms of this I favor it’s just wording to fill.
Very much what you’ve said.
The DM article compares Kate’s private visits to being Diana-like, because the latter did them too. But the difference is that Diana did a lot of public visits to promote her charities, and her private visits were to visit certain people or certain situations that were sensitive to the media and because she had a personal, one-on-one interest in them.
Her PR is atrocious. The fact they actually attempt to compare her to Diana is insulting to Diana’s memory and work.
@ The Original Mia
Yes, it is.
Sometimes I wonder if the ‘royal correspondents’ are too young to have a living knowledge of Diana. If they aren’t, they’re obsequious fools to the royals.
It’s also just lazy. It’s like, ‘Oh, people loved Diana so I’ll not only ride her coattails to avoid doing real work myself, then hide behind her image to deflect any criticism. Done! Can I go shop now?’
There’s a Pinterest site that posts chronological pictures and clips of Diana year by year through her life. She worked so much! Yeah she went skiing and on beach vacays but she never disappeared from duties for an entire month or more like Keen Kate.
Tourmaline
I’m no true believer Diana fan. So, when i say this it’s without a bias. She worked for her role! She took it seriously and did it justice. Yes, she had down time and could shop Kateunder a table, but never did she stop working. More credit to her that she kept it up post divorce. There’s a purpose that many find in helping others. If you don’t have that sense of purpose and worth you don’t see the value in helping others. I don’t believe either WorK have found this. Although, oddly enoug WorK spells work… Hmm….
*eyeroll* – this is the usual fluff article about how she’s keen as mustard to get going with her ’causes’ but then oops she get pregnant and then that pesky severe morning sickness gets in the way. I’m convinced she’ll be pregnant again come the summer. Thou the snark is strong in the Fail article.
She only has 11 charities – why the determination to only focus on 2 (Place2Be and Action on Addiction) but these are the only 2 she has that relate to her cause. I hope that as part of the new ‘crusade’ she will take on more charities/organisations such as Barnardo’s, MIND, ReThink but to name a few she could be getting involved with.
She can also do more for the Rainbow Trust as isn’t that one of the charities that their ‘foundation’ supports?
“Keen.” She’s always “keen.” This has become a joke, I just wonder if KP is in on it?!? Kate doesn’t understand mental illness, has no experience with childhood mental illness except, as someone said above, her own rather obvious issues, re: Carole and her weight. She is going to do more harm than good with stupid speeches like the one blaming family for mental illness. Yikes!!!
Most of the comments on the DM were scathing – noting her lack of work ethic, discretion, etc. There is no love lost for K&W and many, many commenters noted her lack of empathy for people she is meeting. #poorjason must be ripping his hair out of his head.
Yes, it’s always “she’s keen to get started” then… nothing. Then a few weeks pass and it’s, “OK, NOW she’s really going to get started!” then… nothing. She’s spotted shopping, so she’s trotted out for an hour to shake hands and grin like a fool, then it’s back to Anmer because she’s so tired from her “gruelling schedule” Add three weeks of “preparation” for an international visit and it’s amazing she can squeeze in hair appointments at all!
I’m glad the DM readers are finally biting back. The excuses never end with her.
To deal with people, particularly those who suffer from mental health issues, you need empathy – something she clearly lacks. She cannot and will not look beyond her little bubble. In her mind she is working hard, sadly her view of how hard she works doesn’t cut it in the real world.
Its a joke that someone who comes from a dysfunctional family is spearheading a campaign for children’s mental health. Neither she or her siblings are able to cut the apron strings and she in particular runs to Mummy to run her household for her, hire staff for her and makes her husband cheese on toast. She is unable to make an adult decision on her own, she needs to be told what to do.
I agree with what others have said – once it becomes clear to her how difficult and deep a cause this is she will quietly drop it for one thats more fun and light – like the sailing one with Ben Ainsly.
Well, the only matter Kate ever worked for hard was keeping William. And that was no easy task but it required suppressing any personality traits and incentives to grow as a person.
Keen Kate Cambridge is probably going to work hard on getting pregnant early this year. If she could get pregnant this month or next, then she can put off doing this difficult subject for the rest of the year and start a new focus the middle of next year.
I’m waiting for the trite line used for several years now to once again be trotted out , without even a hint of irony, ‘Kate, getting back to work with a vengeance’…
@ Paddy
I start wondering if some journalists are subtly ironic and handing out back-handed compliments. I can’t believe that there is anybody who wouldn’t raise an eyebrow when reading the phrase “Kate, getting back to work with a vengeance”
“Kate getting back to work with a vengeance.” When did she ever start to work at anything? How do you get back to something that you never began in the first place?
If anything I feel like these stories hurt their PR. #PoorJason, what are you doing???
How will she fit it all in the schedule? What about the rumored meeting we heard about months ago to take place “in February” with Facebook to “combat online bullying”. In other words, for William to bully Facebook into shutting down sites critical of him.
As someone educated in media relations and PR (though clearly not as “skilled” or “highly paid” as Poor Jason), I can say without hesitation that writing about what your client is “going to do” repeatedly reflects very poorly on everyone involved and what would look much better would be to release a busy, bigger- than -before first quarter of booked events and let the work speak for itself. But hey, I’m just a flak what do I know?
@ Susan
Exactly!
Never write about something ages before it is supposed to happen. Always write close to the event. But with Kate they can hardly write about anything but about the things she intends to do and then likely will not.
Remember palliative care for children? Once Kate’s pet cause and now?
I said this in the last, but worth repeating.
Anyone else see this as a trap?
The DMO is praising Kate in a way she won’t possibly achieve so they are in a way dooming her.
Making such large and boosting promises. Saying she will be a busy bee of sorts and actually accomplish something to impact her latest cause. Not simply a handful of PSAs and 45 minute engagements filled by hand shakes, photo ops, and games, but by intellectual level for progress.
Kate has proven she doesn’t value her post or duty to her patronages. She’d visit more than once or twice a year if she did. So in 2016 it reads like she’s going to near abandon her other patronages and focus so greatly on this new cause her schedule is to be filled. Also, I question what she could think filled means. I guess this all just reads as quite incredibly passive aggressive.
Until there’s action this is just words saying things will happen. Kate’s been said to have done so much by her PR they’ve made her look worse as a result.
Or….is she pregnant again and thus HG will allow her to cancel?
Don’t get me started. Although I suspect a pregnancy will be announce post those official trips and holidays already scheduled in India, Virgin Islands, and some beach you know you’re heading off to soon.
Very suddenly Kate will cancel everything for the next 8 months. And then the next 6 months.
and they keep walking right into it – every time. Every time Normal Bill calls these ‘secret’ meetings with the press and demands they be nice to him and his normal family, the press praise them to the heavens even thou the Buckets ALWAYS fail to deliver. The press keep to their end of the bargain, Twit and Twat can’t. They set themselves up, the press are just willing accomplices who give them the rope.
These two don’t seem to be able to learn from past mistakes but i guess they first have to admit to making them.
i wonder, given that she’s now a ‘journalist’, if she will be writing their press releases? #poorjason should start looking for another job, Katie Bucket has her eye on his.
@Kaiser, “mental health” is easier to pronounce than “palliative” so there’s a chance this video will be slightly less stilted.
Poor Jason may want to go easy on the comparisons of Kate to Princess Diana or people might start looking harder at the facts:
1. Diana was 36 when she died/Kate is 34;
2. Diana was royal or royal-adjacent for roughly 16 years (courtship/marriage/divorce)/Kate has been royal or royal-adjacent for 14 years (courtship/marriage);
3. By her 2nd wedding anniversary, Diana had (among other things) given birth to William (while suffering from bulimia and depression), made her first solo overseas visit (3 months after William’s birth), traveled to Wales and Australia/New Zealand and was pregnant with her 2nd child/has Kate carried out a solo overseas visit? It seems the last time she was visibly “energized” was in 2012 when London hosted the Olympics.
Paddy
Kate is energized at Wimbledon and around Sailing hunks;), but who wouldn’t be.
With Diana I think there’s a difference not listed. Diana didn’t have her family to go live with away from Charles. She was held to a very high standard on all sides. Kate not only has her family, but is handled in a way Diana never got. With absolute freedom. Don’t work? OK. Want to live at your parents home? OK. Have expensive demands for 3 residences while still pulling lowest numbers or burning through most goodwill? OK.
Kate has places to go that prevent her from growing in a new enviroment. Like many of us do when leaving home and living at college. Diana had to adapt and found something that was hers. Her charity work.
IMO
Totally. Diana had a lot more grit and was on her own to sink or swim. She was from aristocracy but had nowhere to go– her parents and siblings had lives of their own and she was often at loggerheads with them. She had to forge her own path.
I don’t begrudge Kate her super-close family of origin. But I think for Kate and her siblings too, they have been coddled beyond belief and love it.
Very true. There are a lot of differences between Kate and Diana. The monarchy has been treating Kate as a fragile little flower while their attitude toward Diana was suck it up and do the job. Of course, K&D started from very different points: Diana was from an old noble family with ties to the monarchy in which there doesn’t seem to be a lot of affection and she was expected to get a suitable job that she could do until she married a suitable person. Kate came from a close, upwardly-mobile family in which the kids were apparently told they were special and didn’t have work like other people, just marry well (Kate & Pippa) or deign to do a little work (James).
It will be interesting to see what happens when the Queen is gone. It has been 18 years since Diana has been gone and the generation she seems to have resonated best with have adult or near-adult children. I wonder if they will want to continue supporting the Dolittles into middle-age.
I understand why people loved Diana so much…but for me she always seemed like such a hypocrite. First of all, she already knew about Camilla when she married Charles…so wtf. And all that charity work just to make her appear nice and selfless…WHILE she dated a guy who’s father was a gangster…she used his yachts and all his money to go on different holidays…and that money came from selling guns illegally…while she tried to raise awareness of war zones and making photos walking over a land of bombs and all…HYPOCRITE! But I get it…she had to look good and innocent and hardworking…all royals have to…so the monarchy can make sense!
But Kate doesn’t even bother anymore…she just wants to live a middle-class life…in a PALACE (not to mention the renovations 😀 I would never pay so much tax so these people can spill it around) , with TIARAS and GOWNS and PARTIES and yeah her prince….how charming…I never understood why British people believed they need the monarchy…they just take so much money away from the country…useless people. But as long as people can be fooled…THEY ARE A MUST!
Not a fan of Diana either and the way she is sanctified by some people makes me gag – I very much doubt that her public image would be so good if she were still alive but then, early and tragic death tends to distort public perception.
I think she was an incredibly damaged person. Some of her behaviour was pathological and I actually think she did some emotional damage on her eldest son. The fact that she publicly suggested that her son should inherit the throne after QEII when she KNEW that it was something that he was extremely reluctant about is the clincher for. She put her need for revenge over Charles and public sympathy for herself over the emotional well-being of her son. I very much dislike William but imagine having to grow up knowing a lot of people wanted him to take on a role he didn’t want even earlier than planned? Don’t even get me started on the stories of her using William as a shoulder to cry on because they make me see red (having had a parent using me in the same manner, I know how absolutely damaging this can be for a teen).
She did good charitable work but I don’t think it was for entirely selfless reasons. From my reading it appears as though she needed attention and adulation to an unhealthy degree. I don’t get the impression that she had much self-awareness when it came to her own issues – and dysfunctional behaviour tends to be inherited in families when there isn’t taken steps to deal with it and change these unhealthy patterns. so it doesn’t surprise me that William especially is exhibiting his own dysfunctional patterns.
AH
For certain Diana’s legacy could have gone both ways had she lived.
And i’m not certain her charity work was entirely selfless either. Parts of me is certain it was in part done to pull attention away from Charles directly.
Also, not one can say she didn’t negatively impact William from her own admission of events. Without much remourse from her either. Still, We are left with a glorified memory and that is what is being worked with here.
Iconic moments of Landmine work and Diana embracing an infant with HIV though… IMO that goes beyond secondary motives and boils down to her being passionate to her causes.
No saint or monster. A person who was flawed and should be remembered honestly.
Yes. Diana certainly had her flaws. Somehow people forget about what she was doing behind the scenes. UGH.
I think Diana, had fallen head over heels in love with her own image, even before the wedding, in that respect their is no difference than her and Waity!!! Besotted,Besotted,Besotted!!!
My goodness there’s a lot of mental health experts on here. I’m just happy she’s chosen such an important issue as children are our future. I also think it only fair to give her the opportunity to make an impact. You know she might actually be able to accomplish something which benefits those that need the help. Why trash her before she even starts?
Maggie
You like calling people experts when no one claims that. Only educated and personal opinions.
And if you read carefully it’s very well put with Sixer’s comments that it’s not Kate that is the topic here. It’s the wording used by her PR. And that is often the case, but you misread that as attacking Kate.
The phrasing here is from a rich vs poor angle and it might be poor consults on her PR’s part.
Still, this is only her PR claiming things for Kate with NO actual action from her yet so no trashing.
And the other issue is still from her PR blunder. That she is so involved and wants to focus so greatly on this issue she appears to be publicly putting all her other patronages on a back burner. They are very worthy causes. It’s bad PR here. It always has been.
You should go and read Sixer’s comments.
Florc I am fully capable of comprehending what I’m reading on here. I read sixers comment and most everyone else’s. With four professional designations behind my name, mental health not being one of them I would not profess to know more than someone who practices in that field, such as some of the comments above. Perhaps it’s you who should read them then you might just agree with my comment.
Maggie
Still, why claim “experts” as no one here has claimed such. So, I stand firm. I don’t think you’ve understood what is being read as you’re handing out such a high rank for our personal understanding and opinions.
And I do understand my comments can be poorly worded, but fully agree with Nota and Jess below. I’d like to see your responses to them and not just to me as I understand my reading comprehension can suffer on here when translating opinions with emotions involved. In other words. I can be “easy picking”, but Nota and others not so much.
Agreed, FLORC. There are several professional psychologists or therapists who do post on Celebitchy, but I haven’t seen them on this thread. Nor have I seen anyone claiming to be “experts” in this field on this thread – but maggie is accusing people of having done so.
Middleton and her team are professing to know more, or are ignoring the advice of professionals by making statements that are in direct opposition to what the majority of practitioners in the field state. There are also several people on here who have extensive personal experience, having dealt with family members who have experienced mental health issues. To pretend that their personal experiences are invalid? Incredibly offensive.
Maggie,
Unfortunately, I have plenty of lived experience with this issue, which does give me a LOT of insight into this subject, especially in terms of how mental illness is treated. Furthermore, I follow the political and professional debate on mental health pretty closely in my country. I may not be a professional in this field but I know plenty to have strong opinions about this issue – and I resent the implication that I ought not to voice these opinions because I’m not a mental health professional.
You may not feel comfortable speaking about this subject but please refrain from implying that others shouldn’t speak because of that is incredibly offensive.
Normally, I wouldn’t respond to you but on this subject I will – because using an argument often is used to discredit the very people that need help (and relatives to a severely ill person also need help), and to discount the experiences of the people who live with mental illness in their daily lives.
It is an offensive and dangerous attitude to exhibit – and I have personally experienced mental health professionals discount my family’s pleas for help with this argument. A psychiatrist who maybe saw my mother twice a month discounted our warnings and pleas for help because we couldn’t possibly know when things were seriously wrong because we didn’t have an MD in Psychiatry. We just lived with the patient and were minutely attuned to the way her condition affected her.
In my experience over the past 2 decade, professionals in this field has been mindbogglingly blind when it comes to children with problems as well as the effect an ill parent can have on the entire family, including the children. There have been serious blind spots in how many aspects of mental illness has been approached and treated. That is why the professionals themselves need to actually listen to the patients and their families – because treating mental illness is not the same as treating a physical illness.
The very fact that this article describes struggling with mental illness as “bouncing foreward from life’s challenges” tells me EXACTLY how CLUELESS Kate and her team is!!! One of the problems with the way many many people misunderstand just how painful and debilitating mental illness is, is because the language used is imprecise. The wording used in the article quoted is a perfect example – it is pat and glib, and it implies that mental illness is simply something yet another life challenge. It isn’t: it encompasses a number of disorders, some of which cannot simply be overcome/”cured”. The language used here glosses over the fact that we are talking about illnesses that impact how the very ability to function in society, not to mention the atttendant issues of drug addiction (a frightening number of people with these illnesses self-medicate with drugs and/or alcohol – even very young people).
Mental illness – be it depression, bi-polar disorder, personality disorders or schizophrenia are very very severe illnesses and those suffering often needs multi-targeted treatment, the earlier the better. If diagnosed and treated early enough, even a psychotic disorder doesn’t necessarily have to be a life sentence.
I’m going to speak in caps now because it want to convey exactly how problematic the language used by Kate’s people is:
THE ISSUE OF MENTAL ILLNESS, OF DIAGNOSING EARLY, OF CREATING AWARENESS AND REMOVING STIGMA IS SERIOUS BUSINESS – AND LONG OVERDUE. IN THIS CONTEXT, IT IS INCREDIBLY STUPID IF NOT DOWNRIGHT OFFENSIVE TO ADRESS THE ISSUE IN A WAY THAT CONCEALS THAT THE CONVERSATION IS ABOUT ILLNESS AND NOT COMMON LIFE-CHALLENGES LIKE GETTING FIRE, FAILING AT SOMETHING OR GETTING YOUR HEART BROKEN.
I cannot say it anymore clearly.
On giving Kate a chance:
Kate and her PR has made so many many promises throughout the last 4 years – promises that she rarely follows through on in a consistent manner, or with anything that resembles genuine interests. She’s not a new face in the Firm anymore. If she continually don’t deliver on promises made, then why should people have faith that she will this time. To put it another way: how many times did the boy cry wolf before people no longer believed him?
AH
Well said and my heart again goes out to you.
Bouncing forward reminded me of a term used that also belittled mental illness. Saying someone had “the blues” over depression or bipolar.
That it’s something you can just overcome if you want to and not to dwell in your sadness.
The reality is it knows no difference in finanacial standing or family dynamic. It’s not something that if you’re hugged enough you can avoid. Sometimes yes. Talking about things helps treat symptoms. It’s hardly treating the source though.
Arthistorian, Would you agree with the comment Kate made regarding children who come from very dysfunctional backgrounds having possible mental health issues? I think that’s a possibility. By the by I have experience dealing with mental health practitioners myself. You are missing my point and I’m not about to write a thesis of how or why or in defence. Read the comments. Do you honestly think some are written out of knowledge or malice? People are nitpicking. I really don’t think Catherine simply said if you love your kid enough they won’t have problems. She said more than that and you know it too.
Maggie,
This will be the final reply to you from me. I think you ought to re-read my comment. I took offense with the wording on this issue from Kate’s people on this subject, which I have explained in length.
I don’t give Kate the benefit of the doubt anymore because she never delivers on the promises her PR gives out – and therefore I think that she ought to stick to less something more light-weight. I seriously doubt that she’ll enter the discussion on mental illness in any whole-hearted or meaningful manner because that has not been her modus operandi in the almost 5 years in her position. At some point, she no longer deserves the benefit of the doubt – and I think it is a terrible PR strategy to raise expectations to a level that she repeatedly fails to live up to.
I’m not interested in questioning the motives of other posters – and I’d ask you to refrain from making assumptions on my behalf.
BTW, nit-picking is the endless comments on her eyeliner, the state of her hair, etc. I don’t consider critizing her (and her team) for the bumbling and rather clueless manner in which they engage with this particular issue. Just like I would excoriate a Minister of Science who considers pure research a waste of time (like the one we have in my country). Summa summarum, in my opinion Kate has made a rather bad impression in terms of her dedication and insight when it comes to her charities. She lacks consistency and follow-through – and I highly doubt that this will change.
By the way, your indirect snipe at the length of of my post was unnecessary and condescending, which is the reason I generally don’t bother to engage with you but you really pushed my buttons when it comes to this particular issue. I very much dislike these underhanded jabs of yours. It is rude and condescending as hell, so please desist.
Maggie, she implied in her first speech that if only parents loved children enough, the children wouldn’t experience mental health issues. She implied that only nurture, not nature, has anything to do with mental health. One speech and she’s already doing damage.
Her “raising awareness” resulted in spreading falsehoods the professionals have spent decades trying to shut down.
This issue is far too complex for a dilettante and her PR team.
The way Kate has spoken about her “work”, it seems to be her that’s claiming to be the expert. All that research….Ah, the irony.
GMAFB her “research”. Who is she kidding?!! Her “work”??!! What an insult to mental health professionals the way she seems to lump herself into that category — i.e. someone who can speak authoritatively and convincingly on the subject.
Lol Caitlin
To be fair I call it my own research when I scan over 1 to 5 star reviews on amazon before purchasing something. “research” is a relative term imo.
Hi FLORC!
Hyperbole is Kate’s middle name and she would consider attending the opening of an envelope to be “work”. She’s all hype with no substance. Princess Anne, on the other hand…..no fanfare, no fuss, but truly rolls up her sleeves and accomplishes more in a week than Kate has thus far in her royal career.
Caitlin
For what it’s worth Kate has shown herself in the dating years. And even still she maintains that image she began there. It’s her PR which she does accept and go along with that ruins everything. I’m not sure she even knows what her role requires and how bad she really is flubbing everything. Her life is William’s and his is a terrible example of how things should be done.
Sadly, the longer 1 lives without improving themselves in some form, the more likely they are to stay that way.
You know, bottom line may-be if they just quietly just went about helping people, and then shut-up about it, actions speak a hell of a lot more than words, she could clean up her own mess!!!
I think Kate is an awful patron for childhood mental health. You can tell when she speaks she knows next to nothing about these issues. I have read and listened to her speeches and videos and kind words; every time I just face palm. As she clearly stated, she has “no mental health issues because happy family.” Yes, poor households and external factors very much can cause mental illness, they are by far not the only things that contribute. Mental health is one of those subjects that is very hard to champion for if you have no experience-there are just so many intricacies that go into it. She should pick an issue she understands. Mental illness is already very misunderstood and the last thing that’s needed is an uninformed, uncaring ambassador.
Bingo!! I’m not drinking the proverbial kool aid either.
And taking some time off to start a family is bad … how? If she’d gone straight back into doing a bunch of appearances everywhere, the people who are determined not to like her would be saying she should be spending time with her children. Please. This girl can’t win. The backlash against her on this site blows my mind. Some, like, say, Lindsay Lohan, straight-up ask for it. But she’s minding her own business and possibly shy. And … yeah … not getting it at all. I mean, I know the site is celeb”bitchy” and a little snark is fun, but seriously. Sometimes it gets way off the chain with certain harmless celebrities. Blatant nastiness is not fun.
@ shannon
She has a live-in nanny, cook, housekeeper, driver and personal assistant. She has staff for everything and doesn’t really have to do anything. Surely she could make some charity visit every second day without neglecting her children and without being accused of that?
Shannon, it isn’t “her business” it is the business of the people of the UK and Commonwealth. They are not supposed to be celebrities. They are taxpayer-funded government representatives. If they want to pay for everything themselves (palace, mansion, dozen household staff), then they can do whatever they want. As it stands, their lives are paid for by the taxpayers (Duchy and security) in exchange for them working. Yes working doing royal engagements. They have senior royal level perks, and exchange, they are supposed to do senior royal work.
All of the other British royal couples managed to have children, raise them in the country quietly, AND do a few hundred royal engagements each year even when the children were young. Highlighted recently was the year Sophie Wessex nearly died giving birth to Louise — and she still worked more in the year before and after that experience than KM. And they are all further down the line of succession than W&K.
I haven’t known many shy people to march in their undies on a catwalk, moon boys at school so often she was named MiddleBUM, and party four nights a week for a decade. She has no problem interacting with Ben Ainslie, it is just when she has to interact with charity staff that suddenly she’s too shy to work.
The “she can’t win” argument is lazy and omits facts along with logic. There’s no point in arguing over an illogical opinion.
Don’t want to work? Stop accepting pay. Want to live privately? Don’t accept the position of public figure and patron to charities. Simple.
FLORC, you summed that up beautifully.
Florc, ” DITTIO”
it is really perfect