Here are more photos from the Duchess of Cambridge’s appearance yesterday in London at the 75th Anniversary of the RAF Air Cadets event. This was her first solo “work” event since December. Kate made this appearance ahead of a “busy” couple of weeks as she plans to do a lot of work on behalf of children’s mental health, mostly in conjunction with her patronage Place2Be. Ahead of Children’s Mental Health Week, Kate and Place2Be released a new video in which the duchess not only chats about mental health, but actually chats TO four children who benefit from Place2Be’s programs. Here’s the video:
First: she’s wearing purple eyeshadow, right? Wow. Second: Is it just me or is the editing on this video amazingly bad? Like, it’s so bad that it transcends the normal PR fluff. She asks questions to the children and we never hear their answers. We hear the children speak and then instead of seeing Kate’s reaction, they cut to her staring blankly at the camera and reading the autocue. No, I jest! She actually memorized her lines, or perhaps that’s why there were so many awkward edits – she’s being fed her lines one by one off-camera, and then they had to edit around it, thus the “filler” of Kate talking to kids.
Now, all that being said… this video is better than her previous videos. She actually seems somewhat natural at times, especially when she’s interacting with the kids. As much as her PR team wants to convince us that she’s the second coming of Diana, I get the impression (consistently, over the years) that Kate really isn’t a people person, nor is she very comfortable around random children (no judgment, I’m not comfortable with kids either). Diana had such a high emotional IQ and she was so touchy-feely with everyone, of course Kate (or anyone else) is going to come up short. The answer, then, is to stop trying to convince people that Kate is Diana 2.0.
Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet.
Some people are naturals with kids (my husband is one of them, I am not). But if you know that’s the case, choose different patronages. She is hopeless at this point. She is awkward and unpolished, and while I could excuse her wiglets and bad fashion and terrible makeup, she rarely comes across as natural and enthusiastic, unless attending a sports event. Seriously, she should have just married rich. She is really bad at this job which is probably why she avoids it like the plague.
She did marry rich and will be queen, that’s the top of what she could expect.
She should have married idle rich.
I mean, William and Kate are trying for that but they’re not supposed to!
I think vauvert means she should have married an aristocrat, not royalty. Then she would have all the perks of a luxurious lifestyle and higher social status without having the obligation of charitable work and pressure of living in the public eye that comes with the royal title.
The latter is probably a big part of why William’s aristocratic ex-girlfriends like Jecca didn’t want to marry him – they had the pros of royal life already, without the cons.
@rachel. Kate courted the press attention and has always loved it. The only thing she doesn’t like is the public duty obligations that come with being a Duchess, everything else is what she spent 10 years chasing after.
I have followed this relationship on and off for years, she has always loved being a celebrity and the perks that came with it.
@Rachel, many aristocrats work incredibly hard to try to have enough money to repair crumbling roofs. See Great Houses of Scotland from PBS for a glimpse into how hard some members of the aristocracy work. Neither of these two would be able to do that level of work or have that commitment.
@notasugarehere
Of course a lot of aristocrats do a huge amount of philanthropy – my point (apologies if it was unclear) is that they are not obligated to do so under the same kind of public pressure as titled royals. If you’re an aristocrat, of course charitable work is always an option, and you’ll get a lot of nice PR if you do, but no one will come after you if you don’t – unlike the royals.
Thanks for clarifying, although I’m not talking philanthropy. I’m talking all the hard work many aristocrats have to do to earn money to fix acres of roof. This is why so many married wealthy Americans 100 years ago – because the landed aristocracy is land rich and money poor. W&K would never survive the life of the average aristocrat today – because many of those people have to work incredibly hard to stay afloat financially. As others have said, she should have married a wealthy footballer where the only expectation is to be a WAG.
Rachel, I think Not… meant work as in for pay. I saw a TV special a few years ago regarding these stately manors that are falling into disrepair. It costs a lot of money to fix the roof, the plumbing and so on for a huge old home. In this TV special, some of the families that were profiled work so much to promote their family homes as B&Bs, museums, wedding venues and so on so they can earn the money to pay for the general upkeep of the homes. IIRC, there was one owner who doesn’t even live in his family home anymore and had moved into a cottage so the entire manor could be rented out for big events.
She will NOT be queen. She will be queen consort. BIG difference.
@Holmes – To the public at large, she will be Queen. Few know the difference
Downton Abbey was actually one of those ventures that helped “keep the roof on” at Highclere Castle. Julian Fellowes is a good friend of the Countess of Carnarvon and, upon hearing that they were looking for an income stream, included Highclere in his location casting dossier. The rest is history.
Vauvert-I completely agree with you. I really think the press needs to stop reporting on kate, she is done and none of us care anymore.
I guess I was rushing through my morning coffee – yes, what I meant was that she should have just married a footballer or a Wall Street investment banker type, then she could spend her days shopping, tanning, playing tennis and renovating, like any decent (second) trophy wife after she provides two kids. Instead she chased Will and a position that she is completely unsuitable for.
Diana (whom I was never even a fan of) had the decency and compassion and understanding of what her role entailed, regardless of her personal drama. She knew that for a lot of people, spending a minute in her presence meant a lot, so she made those experiences meaningful. She was truly involved and cared, and she did not reduce her role to poorly tailored couture, holding her bits covered for dear life constantly. She had presence, but I think people loved her for her caring and real, sincere devotion to her causes. Kate lacks any sort of spark, any ounce of interest in the world at large, she doesn’t care a whit for anything except her little bubble. When she and Will came to Canada people went to see them and for the life of me I couldn’t understand why anyone would waste even a minute in the presence of this vapid woman. Whatever… she will never change, and poor Jason will go grey truing to tell us about the whirlwind work schedule she will soon embark upon.
I felt bad for the children as they were clearly nervous and awkward. Her body language at the beginning of the video when she rocked up to meet the children made me cringe so bad, she was stood there with both hands flat against her crotch – maybe someone who knows more about these things can explain why she does this and why it’s always that particular area.
PS. Someone should resend the memo that says that if your going to be with children and sat at a small, child friendly table u should wear trousers. #justsaying
She wasn’t comfortable with the kids and they seemed uncomfortable with her. And her voice is just terrible, and she also looks exhausted.
She really is just not cut out for this kind of stuff.
This question is off topic but it has been making me crazy so….does anyone know the name of an old British tv show wherein the aristocratic owner of a grand estate sales it to a commoner and then lives on the property in a guest house? It was a sitcom probably late 70’s or early 80’s. Only saw it a couple of times, years ago but for some reason not being able to remember what it was called drives me bonkers…er…okay, more bonkers!
“To the Manor Born”?
Is it “To The Manor Born”?
To the Manor Born? With Penelope Keith?
To the Manor Born (TV Series 1979–1981) starring Penelope Keith and Peter Bowles.
My first thought when I read the comment about aristocrats scrambling to keep up their crumbling houses was: “To the Manor Born was for real?!?” The manor was sold to a guy who made his fortune in supermarkets, I think… His mother lived with him in the manor, she was an immigrant from somewhere- Poland maybe? The two of them basically fed into every classist prejudice the displaced aristocrat had…. Her butler stayed with her, otherwise she would have starved.
I think the program you have in mind was called “To the Manor Born.”
To The Manor Born — just saw an episode last night, actually. Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-0lz0PIsDo
I always thought Kate should have pursued the Pippa route and pursue some wealthy finaciers. No charity pressure there. Kate could do as little as she does now, even less, and get away with it.
Kate is the embodiment of the old proverb, “Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.”
People loved Diana for her glamour – but also for her heart and her warmth. Yes, she had a icy stare that could stop people in their tracks, but she also had a glow about her when she was doing something she was passionate about. She was born a royal and being a princess was thrust upon her; Diana aspired to have the ‘normal’ life of a commoner – that is what she wanted for her boys. On the other hand, Kate’s life’s goal was to shed her commoner status become the princess. She has now fulfilled that ambition, she feels the job is done. Kate tries at the fashion, but being handsome and thin isn’t enough to hold our attention. Where Diana had compassion and charisma, Kate had ambition and a competitive nature. Diana and Kate are polar opposites.
ITA. Really insightful post.
Diana never intended to make them “normal” and have them turn away from the institution she herself valued so highly. She wanted them to get to have everyday experiences, like going to a theme park, but she never taught them to hide away and refuse to do their jobs.
Notasugarhere is right. Diana had respect for the job and gave her sons experiences like waiting in line with everyone else to help them be better at their future work. This “normal” life stuff is only coming from Wiliam’s press corp.
I was referring to Diana wanting her boys to have a normal childhood. She valued many aspects of non-royal life and found value in them and wanted that for her boys as they were growing up. She was very disillusioned by many of the trappings of royalty – but I never insinuated that she thought her sons should shirk their responsibilities.
Diana came from an aristocratic family of privilege. Her “normal” childhood life isn’t what many would call normal.
I suppose that many people would have different ideas of what a ‘normal’ childhood would mean depending on their own circumstances – but certainly a youth spent largely away from the glare of the media spotlight and occasional escapes from the rigidity of royal protocol would be a bit closer to what most people would agree upon as ‘normal’. I think this is what Diana sought for herself and her sons.
Maybe not, but let’s not ignore LadyJane’s point. Diana did try to instill some sort of respect for regular working people, as they were the people whose respect the RF needs (in my opinion). And if her children saw how regular people live, then perhaps it could give them empathy as they got older. I think it worked in one case; not so sure about the other.
I’m no royalist and certainly no apologist for Diana, but I am in agreement with bluhare and LadyJane. Diana did make actual efforts to connect her children with at least some faint degree of reality. I wouldn’t call her any kind of egalitarian, but the efforts she made were worthy.
I’m not saying she didn’t make efforts to connect them to some kind of reality. She never intended that reality to take over from their commitment to their royal role. I only emphasize this as so many W&K fans trot out the “Diana wanted them to be normal” statement when trying to justify W&K’s behavior.
*aren’t
I will have to watch it again when at home but am not very impressed by the quality of the video, the speech is meh. ITA the editing is not even amateurish and every thing looks just very staged, even the way she just appears next to the children – it’s like children’s story time with the new nervous teaching assistant. I would imagine it was done by an in house team and not the pros. For it to be this jumpy and to over use close ups of her means that there prob wasn’t enough in the original footage they could have used. They could have at least had the kids doing something other than sit there and look awkward.
I say this as someone who used to self shoot and edit videos in a previous job.
oh god I lol’d at some parts of this. She has lockjaw for one thing, and I can see her pupils reading the cue cards. she’s so flat affect and monotone. posture is guarded and uncomfortable around the kids and she has the natural charisma of a spoonful sawdust in my mouth.
if you want to sound really old school posh, you keep your jaw locked as you speak. it forces you to pronounce certain words in a very posh manner eg try saying ‘house’……if you keep your jaw locked, it should come out ‘hyce’
you can see her doing it as she speaks.
Elocution lessons from the same teacher as IKEA Knightley
As a teacher I can tell Kate doesn’t have any rapport with the kids. They’re uncomfortable and so is Kate.
Diana was a great spokesperson for many issues, but she had terrible mental health problems and I’m sure her time in the limelight was destructive to her in many ways. Maybe it’s better to have this person as a figurehead?
Or better yet let’s abolish the monarchy and finally have a republic.
Its not just the press that’s trying to force this Diana 2.0 BS down our throats, its William himself. That’s the only card he has to play because he’s such a lazy cold fish on his own.
So he’s gonna have her bumped off in a couple of years?
I agree Murphey. William plays the Diana, my dead mother card as often as he needs to get away with avoiding his duty.
She has improved, let’s give her credit for that. If she does this regularly, she’ll become better at it.
I agree. Her previous attempts at public speaking were very awkward not only because she was nervously looking down at her notes but also pushing back her hair. If she keeps it up she’ll be much better.
This isn’t public speaking. It is a scripted and edited video. Big difference.
To my non-native ears she sounded posher than posh, swallowing her vowels, being very nasal and such. For me it was easier to understand the kids.
If she practiced regularly, then she might get better.
In the video, it looks like hadn’t practiced it out with her staff first, even with them playing the part of the children, so no walk-on practice and no correction by omitting the crotch-shielding tendencies.
Also, her reading the script to the cameras seemed very stilted. It’s not like she didn’t have time to practice, so why is her performance so awkward? She did better as a kid in school plays. These videos are on YouTube. So she does have some knowledge on how to rehearse for a live performance and the importance of it, so why doesn’t she do it for her ‘job?’ Does she not care?
I agree Mrs. Hughes. No matter what I think of Kate’s delivery she did it and that’s what matters. Her accent drives me bonkers; it doesn’t sound natural to me, but that is a really picky point that I shouldn’t even mention as it means nothing in the grand scheme of things. I hope she’s gradually starting to do more in this vein as that will only help her stiltedness in front of the camera. I think she should do more prerecorded videos. It might help with the deer in the headlights feeling when you’ve got a camera pointed at you. At least if she messes up there you can reshoot it.
If I didn’t have such reservations about the actual content (see below), I’d also be inclined to agree, bluhare. I don’t know what’s happened to me today – some kindness pollen blew across Sixer Towers or somesuch!
I think the video is pretty dire. Either of the Sixlets could do better than this. But it is actually an improvement on previous efforts. So y’know. Let’s say that.
Agreed on the work. I’m glad she’s doing it. And I like that length of hair she had. It suited her, so I hope she doesn’t continue to grow it out. Also, I don’t think critiquing her accent is being picky. Honestly, it’s QUITE distracting. Certain words really bring out the sense of affected speech. In an edited, pre-recorded video, I find that to be a tell-tale sign that she needs to let it go. I always thought it was perhaps the nerves that caused her to over enunciate when she was speaking live.
True, see my comment above. I’m not a native and it was sometimes difficult to understand because she spoke through her nose so much.
Kate “working”. Color me stunned.
You know who’s a natural with people? Prince Harry.
Right? I just love that he looks equally comfortable talking with your average Joe and with politicians.
This is so much better than previous efforts, although it’s still a very blank delivery of presumably fed lines. I can’t help but think it would have been less awkward for Kate and the children to have been drawing whilst chatting; it would have come off more naturally and less like an interrogation.
It’s crazy how much she reminds me of Samantha Cameron (the British PM’s wife) in this video. Quiet, very posh, softly spoken; what happened to all the personality in pre-engagement Kate who organized 80’s roller-discos to fundraise for charity?
That said, this is a decent effort from Kate. I love this suit as well.
Kate didn’t organise that 80s themed roller disco, Holly Branson did and the press gave Kate all the credit. From what I recall Kate jumped on to ‘help’ when it was commented on that she doesn’t do anything in terms of charitable work. Not sure who the comment came from it maybe have been TQ.
Thanks for the info! That’s a shame Kate was given the credit if she actually just turned up at the eleventh hour.
Rachel: the story of Kate’s life. She’s often credited with other people’s work.
Yes, she was one of 10 or so who worked on it. That’s the night she swore out Beatrice and the press found Bea crying in the loo. Lovely behavior from William’s bully of a girlfriend.
@notasugarhere: WHAT WHAT WHAT? Had not heard this story before. Please share!!
She showed up to the disco rink and acted like a mess. There are photos and videos on the internet. The only time she’s interested in charity seems to be when it centers around getting attention for herself.
I’ve seen gifs from the Air Cadet’s memorial service in which she broke out into a laugh and a big smile as if surprised when it was pointed out to her that her photo and her OWN WORDS were in the program booklet. This was during the service itself. No decorum. Also, why was she surprised? You’d think that when she and her staff were asked to write up something for the program booklet, she’d have approved of it and the photo the printers used. Unless she’s not into any details at all.
It was a theme event. Somehow KM neglected to inform Beatrice of that (hence photos of B that night show her in regular club gear not 80s theme). Bartender witnessed KM swearing out B over her questions about not being told, B found in loo crying.
@ notasugarhere
Wasn’t this done about the time (or one of the times) that William broke up with KM? If so, I wonder if she took it out on B?
How many times did those two break up, anyway? I know there was that big breakup in 2007, but I am under the impression they were off and on quite a bit.
Re Bea crying because of Kate. This story has been repeated ad naseum and I’ve yet to see a verified account of it. Can someone post me a link?
Oh man, I think Samantha Cameron has so much more charisma than Kate. Even confirmed Tory-haters were charmed by her Sports Relief Bake-Off experience.
Kate was fine, but I really hate it when she says, “in my work.” She’s not an expert in anything, she has no gravitas and it jars excruciatingly.
@Tina
I wouldn’t go as far as to say I’m a confirmed Tory-hater, but I’m definitely left-wing and couldn’t get on board with Sam Cam’s ‘oh, what’s choux pastry? oh, I’m so bad at baking, honestly’ act when she was clearly an excellent cook. Be proud of your skills Sam Cam, don’t hide them behind false modesty!
To be fair though, I felt similarly about Ed Balls the next week – my dad went as far to say he thought politicians got baking lessons in advance of the contest so they wouldn’t look too awful!
@Rachel, I didn’t think she was too bad – she was even somewhat confident with the surfing cake, saying something like, ‘Well, I went to art school, there’d be no hope for me if I couldn’t do something like this.” And I thought it was really charming at the end when she said she was always being given flowers for being David’s wife and it was nice to be given them for something she had accomplished herself.
But you’re right, I’m sure that both she and Ed Balls had some lessons in advance. It’s pretty common for people on GBBO to be self-deprecating though, no one is going to say how fabulous they are, at least not in the Sport Relief version!
Yeah, that part about her taking credit for doing work in the field of addiction and whatnot is kind of ridiculous. She keeps saying she’s done years of work on this and tries to appear as if it qualifies her speaking as a concerned and well-learned expert on this topic .
I want that baking show to come to the US!
Has the BBC not sold you the Bake Off format yet, bluhare? What’s going on?
PBS had British Bake Off — the one where the woman I wanted to win was ROBBED (Kimberly) and Susan won.
But I’d love to see Samantha Cameron make choux pastry!
I know Paul Hollywood went to the US to do something similar. He had a flaming affair with his co-star, the series flopped and she promptly dumped him. He then spent a year or so grovelling until his wife took him back.
I can’t watch it with audio because I’m at work but why is she holding her crotch in the beginning? Like other posters I don’t understand why she chooses all things children for her patronages when she’s not that comfortable with them. She’s fine but there is nothing warm or engaging about her here, is there? I don’t understand this at all. Do these two have that much power within the royal family? Is the Queen too tired to put her foot down? These dynamics confound me.
I find it painful to watch. There’s no empathy in her eyes. If she had spent even a half hour going over her lines from the teleprompter, she could’ve come across more comfortable and natural, but she just seems cold and stiff.
I work in communications, and I would be very disappointed in the result and request a retake. Get a board game or something on that table so the kids don’t look so nervous and bored.
I didn’t find it painful to watch at all. Kate is improving and remember she still has plenty of time to improve. Both the Queen and Prince Charles appear to be in excellent health.
Its the production/editing of the video that i find painful, its jumpy and if you watch it without audio its all about her, she’s practically in every shot making it look like a propaganda piece.
This speech and delivery is an improvement over the previous one but again as we all keep saying, the more she does it the better she will become.
These comments about “improvement” and “will get better next time” sound like we are talking about a child and not a 34 year old adult woman.
If this was a live speech then fine, but it is sad that a recorded video could not have been more professionally done.
I agree Deedee! What’s sad to me is that surely they showed her the video before posting it and she actually approved this take? I am not a royal and I would never have wanted something of me so dead-eyed and flat to be released.
I have a feeling that she went in there with a stopwatch set to 45 minutes, with no effective rehearsal time and just wanted to get it done and leave. She probably didn’t want to stick around and review the tapes after each segment. She was probably offered a chance to give the final approval on the finished product, but since that wasn’t part of the 45 minutes, she probably didn’t take advantage of the opportunity.
Also, I think she’s OK with not doing these things well, so that people will stop asking her to do them. And since she doesn’t do learned and serious very well, she should do only happy, cheery, sporty charities, so she can smile, giggle, and toss her hair around in the PSAs and at the events.
It’s like she’s working against her own nature.
Watched a little of the video but had to turn it off – it made me squirm. She seemed so forced and uncomfortable and using the kids like that was very off-putting, imo. As for her “work” in mental health, please don’t make me laugh. When she’s actually done legitimate work and brought herself up to speed on the issues, then she’s “entitled” to lump herself in with the professionals who truly do “work”
I agree, Candice. Considering Kate hasn’t really worked at a real job, she thinks showing up in a new dress and pretending she’s interested in something for under an hour counts as work. Someone needs to sit her down and explain the concept of “noblesse oblige” to her or start limiting the perks she receives. It’s ridiculous already.
Exactly, Janis. What I’m wondering is why, after so many years hasn’t anyone done that by now? The Royals, staff, advisors, friends….if this is obvious to us, why can’t they see it and set her straight?
I don’t think she’s the kind of person who will change based on ‘underlings” advice. The only ones she seems to listen to is William and Carole. She won’t change her bad makeup, her messy hair, her expensive clothing style, her lack of work ethics, etc.. She’s the kind of person who only does things in a very narrow and strict route and that’s it.
She’s so nervous and she is using a teleprompter, probably as an extra guide, because you can see her eyes moving across the lines from time to time. When she’s shaking the kids’ hands, she looks like a kid herself.
Kate has to get in there and practice. Spend time with the kids as often as possible and then make the videos when they all have some familiarity with each other and an easier, more casual interaction. Kate’s not Diana, who could make those connections instantly, so she has to work at it to be able to show that same level of ease.
It would be better for her if Elizabeth were breathing down her neck and forcing her to keep a regular schedule of work because at this point Kate has a track record of shirking what she needs to do to build up her fundamentals.
It’s better than previous speeches or videos, but my god, that accent sounds so lame. Kate has zero warmth. As another posted stated up thread, she should focus on sporting events.
While she’s not my cup of tea (any royal aren’t), I think this woman gets a lot of undeserved vitriol.
I think a lot people just projecting a lot of their own emotional baggage on her – she is not nearly as bad (or good for that matter) as most try to make her out to be. She’s just an ordinary girl who had a chance to meet and marry a not so ordinary (socially wise) guy. She not a natural-born celebrity, like Diana was who had an enormous charisma. I think Kate is just an ordinary woman who wanted to marry very well.
She and her husband live a ridiculous life off the taxpayers and are the laziest royals around. If they want to live private lives and not do their share of charity heavy lifting, they can go live off his inheritance. Otherwise, her lackluster performance in her job will continue to be criticized. Five years in and she’s still this bad?
+1,000
How many of us still would have our jobs if we couldn’t figure out how to dress and do our jobs well after five years of study and practice? I am betting zero percent.
I wonder when Kate’s apologists are going to stop cutting her slack? When she is forty? Fifty? Seventy!
“Oh, but she’s so old now, with grown children. She expended all her energy just trying to keep their lives normal, so how can she be expected to work now? Maybe when George ascends the throne, she’ll have time.”
It’s sad that I’m thinking “could have been worse” about such a poor video.
That aside, I’m still a bit unhappy at this being portrayed as Katie Bucket’s crusade on childhood mental ill health overall, when what it actually is, is Katie Bucket’s involvement with a charity addressing the mental health needs of children from disadvantaged backgrounds.
We need charities for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. We need charities focusing on childhood mental ill health. And there is some overlap between them. But this is all presented in such a misleading way. Mental ill health (depression, eating disorders, self harm, and much more) affects children from ALL socio-economic backgrounds. It’s not just socio-economic deprivation that causes childhood mental ill health and early intervention isn’t a cure-all. We had all this out on an earlier thread, but I’m still concerned about the impression being given here.
Oh, and Place2Be was also set up by Camilla Batmanghelidjh of Kids Company infamy. One hopes that due diligence is more of a factor here than it was with Kids Company.
ITA – and i keep referring back to her first speech on the issue where she basically said that mental health issues in children is a direct result of being poor.
Re: Camilla B, i hope so given but given that she is very vocal about there being no financial mismanagement by her or the other board members I have doubts thou it depends on how involved she is in Place2Be. How can she (Camilla B) justify spending hundreds of thousands of pounds paying for the private education for young people who’s families can afford to pay for it themselves just because they worked there. You can’t argue with the facts that they have actually admitted to. *rant over*
Yes. This work is basically pastoral intervention for emotional well-being in children. Great cause. But not if you imply that poor parents can’t parent properly. And not if you use it to obscure the chronic underfunding of childhood mental health provision for MEDICAL conditions that have nothing whatsoever to do with socio-economic background.
If I started to type about Camilla, I would never stop. So I’d better not!
Several things:
1. my Alma mater regularly funded Kids’ company. Every year, I receive a fundraising begging letter for various events whose ultimate recipient was Kids Company.
2. Have you seen the doc on BBC iplayer about Kids Company. I wanted to reach in and strangle her by the end.
3. Our dear darling duchess is clearly not concerned with natural mental illness that presents whatever one’s circumstances.
4. And should you have the misfortune of being mentally unwell as a kid or adult, clearly you were a dickensian urchin in the poor house. It’s been more than a decade since I saw a public figure with such a disconnect about social issues. She is such a cheshire cat.
LAK – yes, seen it. And frankly, even though my reaction was the same as yours, I still think it was kinder than she deserved. I am sure there were hundreds of fantastic employees at Kids Company, but Camilla? I haven’t forgiven her for her racist remarks about black mothers made years ago, let alone for the mismanagement of public monies.
Dickensian is the exact right word.
I think this is a disaster in the making.
Re 2: No and for the sake of my blood pressure I won’t be. It was just a sad affair all round and with the recent scandals surrounding charities and how they collect donations (especially the big ones), its painted them all in a very negative light.
And re: our favourite crusading Duchess, this will end in tears for the cause when she inevitably becomes bored with it and quietly drops it when her 3rd pregnancy is announced.
I don’t know anything about Camilla Whatzername, but I couldn’t agree more with your statement, Sixer. Mental health is mental health. The socio economic factor comes in when people with mental health can’t hold a job so they can support themselves but poverty doesn’t create it. It does distort it though.
Another thing that doesn’t get brought up much is personality disorders (as opposed to organic mental illness) which can be directly related to abuse suffered as a child, usually significant abuse. It is so multi faceted; it can’t possibly be addressed by one factor that by itself isn’t even a factor if you know what I’m trying to say.
Camilla Whatshername ran a BIG children’s charity that blew nigh on £50 million of public money through mismanagement. That was her downfall but I personally disapproved of her model for reasons related to what I was saying above.
I know it sounds like I’ve always got something to criticise, but the NHS has waiting lists of up to a year for things like eating disorders and schizophrenia in adolescents. When kids need inpatient care, they’re often placed in units literally hundreds of miles from their home so parents can’t visit. If Kate makes it sound as though poverty is the only cause of childhood mental ill health, we forget all these other young people, you know?
Waiting lists are what turned the US against universal health care (aka socialized medicine, the great Satan of healthcare). I would argue that waiting for treatment is better than having no availability of treatment at all, but many do not agree with me.
And if you keep me going on this topic, you’ll get a rant worthy of Great Gob Almighty herself. 😀
Rant away – it would make a change for me not to be the only one!
It was waiting lists and “death panels” they used to scare you guys off, wasn’t it? We do have waiting lists but not for urgent care. Mr Sixer waited 6 weeks last year to get a slot for carpal tunnel surgery, for example. It’s about 3 months for a hip replacement. But y’know. If they do a scan and you’ve got a tumour, they don’t put you on a waiting list to get surgery to remove it! And even for the kids with mental health issues, they get primary care for it: it’s the specialised inpatient facilities that have waiting lists.
But the big move at the moment is to get mental health care parity with physical health care. It hasn’t had it and that’s why the waiting lists are so long for mental health services compared to physical health services.
So this, really, is the point of my getting cross. Katie Bucket is conflating childhood mental health services with social services interventions for children of failing families. While there’s overlap, they are two different things. Actual MEDICAL mental health services for young people won’t get any better while Katie Bucket is busy diverting attention from the underfunding by confusing the two.
I’m going to try and control my rantitude today, Sixer, but you’re right. Waiting lists (with examples of the huge influx of Canadians coming to the US for treatment because socialized medicine is so horribly horrible that no one can possibly ever get proper treatment and live a normal lifespan) and the death panels trying to kill grandma (rather than telling people it’s coverage for a physicians’ visit that tells you what your end of life treatment options are other than dying in a hospital hooked up to machines to keep you alive) were the two biggest things, along with “you won’t be able to see your doctor!” really helped turned the tide against it. Then SOCIALISM!!! finished it off. But ask those very people screaming socialism whether they’d give up their social security and medicare (the two biggest social programs over here) and you’d be called some very unpleasant names.
Ohhhhhh! I always wondered what the death panels thing could possibly mean! I thought it was just some insane figment of someone’s imagination involving boards of Evil Ones saying “You can have treatment but you can’t.”. But it means patient choice in palliative care is somehow a bad thing? Oh dear. Sad really, cos palliative care – unlike childhood mental ill health – is something UK universal healthcare can claim as a huge victory. We’re the best in the world at it, apparently: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34415362.
I THINK she is referring to what we in the US, at least in my field, call toxic stress. Stresses and traumas that are not resolved have a huge impact on mental, social, and behavioral development. And toxic stress is overwhelmingly, and I mean overwhelmingly, likely to occur in households affected by poverty, incarceration, substance abuse, and often a terrible mixture of those types of things. I hope that’s what she’s going for but it’s hard to tell.
Yes, it is what she is getting at. Here in the UK, there’s a strong concentration on what we call “early intervention”, usually via social work, so that such problems don’t become entrenched into adolescence and adulthood. It is valuable work, but it shouldn’t be equated with the totality of childhood mental ill health, you know?
Yes, they do. I think I was trying to get across something like that with the disorders that arise due to childhood trauma.
Of course totality of child’s mental health is the goal, but I don’t think it’s inappropriate to focus resources on a disproportionately affected population.
Right now my organization is working with the state foster care system to implement huge reforms with a massively expanded budget, especially focusing on the 0-3 population since that’s when so very much neural development takes place. Resources are being diverted that way because those children are more vulnerable than your average kid.
Chicken
It’s important work, as I’ve said repeatedly. It really is.
I think what you are missing is that we have universal healthcare here in the UK. It’s entirely separate from the social services budget.
What you are talking about is an approach to improve mental well-being in children from this demographic through the social services budget. This may include some medical input but the budget isn’t the healthcare budget; it’s the social services budget.
It is also actually what Katie Bucket is talking about. But, as you yourself note, in a very oblique way.
The problem is that all this stuff from her is being timed to coincide with mental health week. This is a focus on the lack of parity between mental and physical health provision in the UK. It is meant to highlight the need for better MEDICAL mental healthcare. The resources for MEDICAL child and adolescent mental healthcare in the UK are in the health budget.
So while the work Kate is talking about is important (and the work you are doing is important), the way she is talking about it makes it sound as though social services interventions are a replacement for improved medical services. But they are not: they are two separate things.
That is a really good point that you’re right, I was missing. Our countries are operating for two different starting points (and sadly it’s not my country leading the way). I kind of forget that there are so many more equitable health systems because ours is so biased.
It might have sounded as though I was downplaying the value of this kind of social intervention though and I honestly wasn’t. I really think it’s important work. It’s just that the health budget here is under serious pressure from an austerity-minded government, so I feel strongly that any hint of social interventions being a replacement for medical care is dangerous, you know? But please don’t think I’m devaluing the work you’re doing.
Totally get it now. I missed the point earlier. I couldn’t agree more that social interventions are absolutely not replacements for state-based support.
Thank goodness, a lot of the work we do is with our state and local policy (which is abysmal, but improving) after using a lot of data showing that their budget was insufficient and it was the state’s job to not totally suck at serving its children.
Overall, though, the US is far, far too comfortable with much needed aid and dollars being picked up by social, philanthropic, faith-based, and similar organizations, because boot straps or some shit, and I could not disagree more with that position (I’m a democrat and basically a socialist; this election cycle is pushing the limits of sanity for me).
Sixer so many levels of yes.
I get what you are saying here … it’s not just poor kids that have mental health issues that stem from awful circumstances. Diana wasn’t poor. From all accounts, she had a messed up childhood and lots of issues stemmed from it. Most think she had mental health problems as an adult. So, the Wales family in particular should know that socioeconomic status doesn’t matter much when it comes to mental health!
Something that bugged me were her art questions! I get asking it once but why ask it again? Not everyone uses ART as their release from emotional stress, Kate. Art seems to be another one of her major charity focuses though so maybe that’s where this is coming from. The Place2Be website is covered with children’s art pictures.
I’d also like to point out that some mental illnesses only start manifesting in adolescence at the earliest.
I know I’m not up to date on what this charity does in detail but I’ve have wondered why Kate’s new focus on children’s mental health only seem to focus on quite young children since adolescence in particular can be a dangerous period when it comes to mental health.
I do wonder why kate doesn’t collaborate with Mind. There’s a similar organization here in Denmark (SIND, which means “mind”).
Working with just one or two programs in this field seems a bit of a scattered approach to how she can raise the public profile of this issue. I think she would benefit from working with a bigger organization to her help targeting her strategy in the best and most effective manner. As it is, I find the way she and her team address this issue somewhat stumbling and undefined. At present her effort mostly seems to be focused on issues such as bullying and the fallout children suffer if they have difficult home lives. While worthy causes that isn’t exactly the same as treating mental illness, lifting the social stigma of the subject, etc.
I guess I’m confused exactly what her objective is here? Because it is all somewhat vague and the use of buzzwords isn’t really that illuminating.
Sixer – I agree. This skit from Camp Kate is 85% advertisement for Place2Be and 25% word salad about cathartic art for kids.
The Cambridges have the world’s attention on kids’ mental health. They could do more harm than good if they continue this sloppy improvisation. They are in over their heads in doing anything other than showing up. They should show up a lot and be the celebrity front person but say very little. If they must say stuff, get qualified mental health professionals plus REALLY excellent PR people to collaborate on their message. They are off to a rocky start and if they offend and/or confuse enough people, others will have to undo their mess.
I’m not a fan of Kate and do consider hers and Wills work ethics lazy – but I think she did a nice job. Would the editing and quality of the video be her fault?
I think the quality of the video is mostly her fault because she didn’t give the editors much to work with….
Someone from her camp had to okay it. This must be the best she can do.
She’s not supposed to be an actress…She seems to be just fine in dealing with the kids. Maybe she just feels uncomfortable with talking and interacting in front of the camera. She’s not a “natural”, that’s true, but I don’t see the big deal. I thought it looked nice and professional. Of course that’s not the “American way” of doing things. Everything political in the USA looks like a Hollywood film and there’s a tendency to what in my opinion is over dramatic/over acting…that’s not the way everywhere and some people don’t like or trust when a serious matter it’s turned into an acting gig (it can feel a bit fake). She was reading a text supporting this project. She did her job. From all the things that can be criticized about her I don’t think this is one of them.
I don’t understand this comment. Why must the USA be dragged into literally everything? This is a British ad, done for a British charity. Political ads in the US could not possibly have less to do with this.
Yes, it seems like a straw man argument, or perhaps grasping at straws?
I always assumed this site was based the USA. So the USA comment made sense to me.
I thought it was just fine. But I watch predominantly British television so maybe I am just used to the slightly slower pace. Or maybe people just love to moan and complain and in actual fact she did just fine, by anyone’s standards.
She has the best possible help at her fingertips in order to improve her public speaking. What this video shows is how little she cares about improving and putting time and effort into the work.
Ridiculous fake accent.
does anyone else notice something weird going on with her left eye?? it’s looking very droopy.
Her left eye has always looked liked that. As for the video, I thought she was ok, although I snorted at the line, ‘through my work….’ And her speech is very nasal; is that what people mean when they talk about her fake posh accent?
Find youtube videos of Carole, Mike and Pippa speaking. Compare their accents to Kate’s fake accent and all will become apparent.
When I watch the video both of her eyes seem very dead to me. I see more life in those photos from when she was a slightly plumper college student than now. I suppose I know nothing of what it’s like to be a royal but she seems to have become a royal barbie – perfectly pleasing and acceptable yet utterly without personality.
The awkwardness of performance paired with the way it was filmed/edited reminded me of SNL parodies.
The video was well done IMO and Kate’s public speaking is improving. Practice makes perfect.
She’s clearly taken Princess Diana- like elocution lessons.
No aristo her age speaks like that anymore it sounds so contrived.
Maybe Wills like the fact that his wife sounds just like his mother?
I’ve always thought she was using Diana as her elocution model.
It’s creepy as hell.
William has serious mummy issues and Kate is a fool for going along with it.
She has a very different accent from that of her sister’s! Is that possible to naturally pick up a different accent while never really moving away from your family, who don’t necessarily speak so posh?
In a word? No.
Not to mention no-one in her school/entourage would actually speak like that. Even William doesn’t sound as posh as her.
Her accent is very 80s Sloane, as I said v Princess Diana. Google Diana’s old speeches and she sounds just like her.
I have visions of Kate and her mother spending hours pouring over old footage trying to get things right. 🙂
Yikes, this video is so icy and stiff, it reads like a 1980s PSA. At the end of the day, Kate’s energy and involvement would transcend any attempt at PR, i.e., if she really cared about these programs, we would feel it. She is not sincere. I think that’s what’s so hard for me to stomach about will and kate. Everything we see from them is so forced, it’s like they are two bratty teenagers still being forced out of bed.
Kate is shockingly bad at this “job”. Seriously, how hard can it be? rehearse and read a few lines, put some slap on and sit in front of a camera.
Diana had star quality.
She waved to me and my mum from the back of the car window once. It was years and years ago. We stood by the side of the road and she raced through traffic lights and looked out of the back window and waved. I still remember it, she was wearing polka dots. It was like being waved at by a goddess and a thunderbolt. honestly. It sounds cheesy but she just had it.
Kate needs to get rid of the brown. Brown hair. Brown eyeshadow, brown brown brown. If its brown, put it down.
Does that include her beige decor in her house? LOL.
She’s posher than William and Harry. Carol sent her to too many elocution lessons.
Idk, i don’t want to judge her too much. I hate public speaking and being recorded too. She might be totally different when the camera isn’t about.
And don’t forget Diana was a pre-school assistant.
Why the preschool reference? Are you just comparing the two in that Diana was a natural with kids and Kate isn’t; Diana had a job before being a royal and Kate has done jack squat?
I presume she meant Diana worked with young children and had more experience dealing with them.
What’s odd is that Kate has kids of her own and yet in the video she was talking robotically to these children like she was conducting a bad job interview.
I imagine if Kate worked with kids, she would learn how to develop a rapport with them. That is the biggest thing missing from the table exchange with the kids. They don’t really want to answer such personal questions with a complete stranger with whom they feel zero connection. I’m reminded of Kate’s early days when she went to the campout and sat with the children by the fire cooking bread on sticks. The kids looked disconnected from her there too.
I’m glad that she and Willy want to help. Kate’s knowledge of clothing as communicator is limited to is this sexy and/or expensive? I wish Kate would wear her budget dresses or simple slacks and top (not that striped one) when she visits prisons, childrens’ charities and disaster areas. Imho it is extremely insensitive and downright tacky to wear high end clothing for these types of appearances.
Hm, I’m surprised someone sees her style as “sexy.” I always kind of found it boring and bland.
I think when she first entered the scene with the fly-up skirts and a few necklines showing a cleavage some people thought she was sexy. I know some guys who think she has great legs.
Tessd, That’s not what I meant. I don’t think she has ever pulled off sexy. But I have assumed that her motivation for wearing jeggings with a top that does not cover her bum was because she believed she looks hot in them and she wants everyone to admire her bum. Same goes for her blue mullet dress and the white Roland Mouret dress with the biscuit-high slit and yes vava the handful of times her skirt flew up in the wind to reveal her bare bottom. The skirt flying up to reveal a thong is a wardrobe malfunction the first time and after that it’s a pre-meditated goal of titillation.
I don’t know how else to interpret her motivation for these things. Insights?
I dunno, isn’t it better to be promoting Britidh industry and craftsmanship, which translates to local jobs, than wearing another piece of Zara or H and M or whatever, made in some Bangladeshi hellhole? I can afford well made clothing and prefer supporting local industry, so that’s what I buy. Or do you think the peasants might be too dazzled by non-chain store gear?
The reason I suggested a budget label outfit for the Place2Be video is because those are her more casual clothes. Kate wearing that $US1000 tweed suit is overdressed for that setting and relative to what the kids are wearing. She would be more approachable when she visits people who have been knocked around by life if she did that. To be clear, I’m not saying she should wear an orange jumpsuit the next time she visits a prison.
I agree that she should wear British labels as much as she can and ideally ones that are manufactured in the UK. But the clothes she buys in that category seem to be frilly suits and gowns.
I guess I’m in the minority because I though Kate did a wonderful job. I especially liked her interactions with the children who seemed comfortable during a light Q&A. The editing seemed fine. Kate is not an actress and perhaps she does not feel completely comfortable in the front of the camera or teleprompter but overall this brief tape is going to bring more awareness towards this organization which is the ultimate goal .
When it comes to Kate, I think people hate her so much that they dismiss anything she does. The constant criticism about her voice, hair, makeup and clothing is unfortunate. She gets criticized for wearing her hair up, hair down, new outfit, repeat outfit, no jewelry, too much jewelry, no make up, too much makeup etc.
It is funny that Kate is always criticized in this blog for holding her hands in front of her lower abdomen when several female cadets from her last appearance also held their hands in the same posture while walking.
I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again- Kate is an absolutely awful ambassador for mental health. Her understanding of mental illness has not reached the 21st century and she’s just spewing out the most basic uninformed stuff. What she says doesn’t even offend me, it just makes me say “what on earth” and then bang my head on a wall. One would think that she would put more effort into such a serious delicate issue, but no. Lord have mercy.
I made it to “William and I”…I can’t.
Improved? Yes. Although I also think that has something to do with the not entirely smooth editing. You can totally see her reading a teleprompter or card or whatever. I’m also guessing this was probably done by an intern at the charity and not an actual film person. Just my guess.
Lol I read the comments before watching the video, so I was anticipating something far more horrendous.
Diana had lessons from British media figures in how to talk and make speeches. Diana could definitely relate to the ordinary people and was great at charity work but it all depended on her mood. She could turn up for engagements and not talk. Remember too she used to tell people she visited hospitals late at night on mercy missions when she was actually there only to see her doctor boyfriend.
I loathe Kate’s attitude to work but never thought Diana genuine. Never forget Diana dumped 100 charities in one fall swoop a year after her separation from Charles when things since then had not gone the way she expected.
As for an announcement about a third pregnancy for Kate. Probably, but definitely not before the end of next year.