Duchess Kate cosplays a scientist to highlight Baby Loss Awareness Week

The Duchess of Cambridge visits Imperial College London

Imagine an alternate universe where the Duchess of Cambridge didn’t change all of her plans as a teenager. What if she decided that studying science at university would be a better use of her time rather than stalking a prince? Imagine Dr. Kate Middleton, the pretty scientist with the blowout, compiling reams of data on buttons and wiglets. What could have been. It’s just that we so rarely see Kate cosplay a scientist or doctor, that’s what makes the imagery a little bit funny.

The reason Kate made a surprise trip to Imperial College London on Wednesday was for a serious issue. She was highlighting the work done at the college to reduce the rates of deaths during pregnancy and premature births. She went on behalf of the charity Tommy’s (which is not one of her patronages) to highlight Baby Loss Awareness Week. Tommy’s funds research into miscarriages, stillbirths and premature births. It’s a surprisingly deep and solemn cause for Kate to brush up against. She is the patron of East Anglia’s Children’s Hospices, which is also quite a serious issue for Kate. Kate spoke to many families who have dealt with miscarriages and premature births, and she also highlighted the research being done at Imperial College London with some photo-ops in the lab.

The dress was a repeat – she has this same Emilia Wickstead dress in several colors, including the navy you see here, a lovely light violet and a forest green. She also has a similar-ish design in teal, only with buttons down one side. She paired the repeat Wickstead with another floral mask. I don’t mind Kate’s floral masks at all? They’re very feminine and pretty. I just wish she would wear masks more consistently.

The Duchess of Cambridge visits Imperial College London

The Duchess of Cambridge visits Imperial College London

The Duchess of Cambridge visits Imperial College London

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

145 Responses to “Duchess Kate cosplays a scientist to highlight Baby Loss Awareness Week”

  1. Digital Unicorn says:

    I like the outfit and that colour suits her. I don’t mind the floral mask but for the love of god, can someone a) get her one that fits her and b) tell her to stop wearing them upside down.

    • Nancy says:

      I bc it’s a kids’ mask it maybe just *looks* upside down??? Maybe? I don’t know but it is just beyond stupid that she keeps wearing childrens’ masks because they clearly don’t fit and she looks ridiculous! Feel like I’m losing my mind here.

      • mynameispearl says:

        I actually like that her masks dont have gaps in the sides of it. I use the disposable ones as I think they’re better than the reusable ones I have, but it’s hard to get rid of the gaps in the sides. I just have visions of little covid aerosols floating into my mask at the sides or along the top!

      • Becks1 says:

        It also bugs me that she keeps wearing kids masks, and that she apparently only has two masks from the same company. Imagine if every time she made an appearance like this she wore a different mask from a different small British business. I do think the masks themselves are pretty though, but she could change them up and drive business to some other places too.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The company sells adult masks in the same fabrics. She’s deliberately choosing to wear masks too small by choosing the the kids masks.

      • NotSoSocialButterfly says:

        Someone should tell her that wearing kids’ masks makes her look like she’s developing Cushing’s Disease. That might get her to wear and adult mask. Hell, there must be multiple seamstresses at KP who could whip some adult sized floral masks up toute suite.

      • Royalwatcher says:

        I feel the same way, @Nancy. But OTOH, it is somehow so “Kate” that she wears a child’s mask. It fits with all of her years of wearing girly, twee, too short, flyaway dresses. It’s like she’s stuck in preadolescence and just cosplaying
        being an adult.”

      • Enny says:

        If your masks have bands to go around the ears, twist the loops once first before you place them over the ears. It makes for a snugger fit (and also reduces glasses fog some, if that’s also an issue for you…)

      • kelleybelle says:

        Even with the mask on you can still tell her “interested” looks are contrived and not genuine. Only because the cameras are there. And I haven’t read all of the comments but imagine this woman being a patron of such an organization when the British press did everything in their power to cause Meghan to lose her pregnancy, including paying her shit-heap “family” to trash her. Abhorrent. It’s just as bad as W & K being advocates for mental health. Could this BE any more of a sham? Total hyprocrisy.

    • NotSoSocialButterfly says:

      I kinda love the simplicity of the dress, but it reads as more purple-ish than true navy to me.
      Still pretty.

      • Chrissy says:

        Never thought I’d say this, but I like it too. She needs to stay away from the twee florals. This looks much more professional. Having said that though, she’s be back to her prairie dress tomorrow.

    • Bambilee says:

      I second everyone’s comments on this: why does she insist on wearing child-sized masks that cut into her cheeks? It’s unflattering and looks uncomfortable. Maybe she wouldn’t mind wearing a mask and would wear them more often if they fit?

      • Becks1 says:

        Do you think she knows its a child mask? I wonder if the company sent her those two masks for Charlotte and Kate has just been wearing them lol. (again, though, what a PR win it would be for this company and for Kate if she and Charlotte made an appearance in matching masks??)

      • CC says:

        She may simply have a small head tbh. I wear kids masks too because the normal sized ones are honestly too too big for me. Now I’m worrying if mine looks as silly as hers lol!

      • Becks1 says:

        @CC maybe, but its definitely cutting into her cheeks, so it looks too tight.

    • Kalana says:

      I just can’t with her children’s masks and wiglets and thick makeup. Kate is Melania 2.0.

    • BeeCee says:

      Agreed! Her mask is so so tiny, and it’s always cutting into her face! It looks painful!

  2. CidyKitty(CidySmiley) says:

    Good cause for them to bring awareness to. Definitely needs more support, visibility and funding.

    The dress is fine, I’m not a fan of the belt in the middle? But beyond that fine. Her hair is like 4 shades right now. Medium dark ish. Is her hair naturally dark or light?

    • notasugarhere says:

      Naturally dark brown with grey. Do an image search for Kate Middleton grey hair and you can see her natural shade peeking out. She’s been going much lighter than her usual dye job for the last year at least.

      • Ash says:

        Lol woman in her late 30s has grey hair, stop the presses

      • Wiglet Watcher says:

        Easy now. Nora made an observation. Not an attack.

      • Ash says:

        Please, WW, we all know what the intention was. Shaming women for having grey hair, even if simply “as an observation”, is not ok, no matter what your opinion on said woman is.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Ash – you have a good point regarding normal women but we are not discussing grey hair on a normal woman. We are discussing grey hair on a woman who has a professional hair blow-out every other day and her total appearance, including hair, is BIG part of her job.

      • A says:

        @Ash, no one is shaming Kate for having grey hairs. If she has grey hairs, that’s actually pretty nice. What people ARE shaming her for are her attempts to hide the fact that she has grey hairs. She dyes them, and in doing so, she’s adding to the stigma that women who age openly face in society. She’s perpetuating this idea that people need to hide those signs.

        Empowerment is a two way street. I’d applaud her if she let her greys shine, but clearly, she thinks its something to hide on women. What exactly do you think that adds to this conversation? Do you think she’s helping tear down this culture of shame? From where I stand, it looks like she’s contributing to it, and if that’s the case, then she deserves to be called on it.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Was I supposed to lie and say this shade is her natural one? Facts are, she has dark brown hair with grey. No need to stop the presses, except when Kate stans don’t like reading facts.

  3. Sarah says:

    She somehow looks younger with the mask on – she looks great! I think this is a good cause for her to support. Its not talked about enough.

    • mynameispearl says:

      I think she also talked to SANDS, which is a baby bereavement charity thats been a lifeline to some friends of mine. They are such a great charity, they really do great work.

    • Becks1 says:

      I don’t think its the mask, I think its the work she had done a few weeks ago.

      • HeatherC says:

        I think its partly the mask. With the mask on we can’t see her pucker her mouth and tense her jaw in her “I’m playing at being serious and engaged) expression, which IMO was aging.

      • Becks1 says:

        Yeah, I do think the mask helps somewhat bc she has lines around her mouth, but with the mask we cant see them and her forehead and cheeks have settled.

      • Dilettante says:

        Yes. Mask makes the filled chipmunk cheeks obvious.

  4. Aurora says:

    I see she and her team practiced “Explanatory Hand Gestures” to create the appearance that Kate is asking something deeper than “can you smell the smell by tasting it ?”

    • Bethany Karger says:

      I wish she could stand and not look like she’s picking at her fingernails.

      • Shirley Gail says:

        Oh, I do agree!! That hand gesture has been bugging me for YEARS. Also, I wish she could stand….straight.
        She’s supposed to be an example of “all things good”, right? Then her posture should really be good, IMHO…everything about the “royal” family is so contrarian.
        Then again, maybe it’s me…….

  5. Anna says:

    very important topic. glad to see her doing this

  6. Florence says:

    This is a good cause and I think she looks really nice here.

    • tempest prognosticator says:

      It is a good cause and it’s a bit disappointing to read all the comments focusing on her mask or her hair or her posture.

  7. Izzy says:

    I hope they talked about how too much stress can contribute to the possibility of miscarriage…

  8. Lucylee says:

    What does “bring awareness” and “highlight” actually do for a charity.? Do we know if donations increase? These visits seem to be a means by which some “royal” gets PR to justify taxpayers funding of themselves. It is really a slap in the face to show up to a charity wearing a frock that could fund treatment of several clients at the charity.
    For so long I was a gullible reader of the tabloid lies. Now, I’m just over these people.

    • Liz says:

      I’m sure that the exposure does help the charities on some level. As you asked, I would love to see the actual (not Palace-provided) numbers on what happens with the donations after a high-profile Royal visit.

      However, the concrete, tangible fundraising efforts MM did while in the RF (cookbook, clothing line) completely set a new bar for me (and I hope most of the public) in terms of what I expect these Royal patrons to actually do. That right there is probably 90% of why she pissed them off – she makes people expect more of the rest of them.

      • Sofia says:

        I can’t find the link rn but I’m sure someone will link it below but someone did some research on this and found that the charities don’t receive *much* benefit from having a royal patron.

      • NotSoSimpleTaylor says:

        I’m certain one thing that study failed to mention is what effect there is when a royal is *actually* passionate about thier cause?

        I know there is a similar set up at Amalienborg but there is a difference that we know of and that’s they stick to one cause and get super passionate about it. Daisy is passionate about the arts and promotes their causes with great affect because she has genuine enthusiasm, Freddie has health and scientific research and while less personable than Daisy still causes the Danish to turn heads due to his conviction (fun fact he also wrote Daisy’s Covid speech, it seems), and Joachim takes on military causes and is..probably more what we’re used to seeing in royals taking on causes.

        There is a difference when a royal takes the time and care with the causes they support. I mean whether he’s right or not, if Charles speaks on the environment, are you more likely to pay attention because you know he’s put years of passion and service and you know there’s something genuine there? Or are you going to pay attention to William championing mental health when he can’t even get the scowl off of his face? While the Elizabeth never got to fully see it through due to the death of father, the plan was to make her a champion for animals. All it would have took was her volunteering at a dog rescue for her to win over hearts and promote dog rescue with the peasants (not that it would have happened in the 50s). Why? Because her love of animals was already well established with the people (even if animal husbandry is her passion). You have to have a monarch show genuine enthusiasm and the British royals just don’t get that.

      • Becks1 says:

        @NotSoSimple – that goes along with what we were talking about on here a few weeks ago. What is William’s passion? I honestly don’t know, besides watching soccer, playing rugby and…….that’s it. With Kate, I do think she loves her kids, and so I think the palace is obviously pushing hard to make it seem like kids in general are Kate’s passion, but I think its falling flat. The early years initiative seems like a joke at this point. Theres no passion from the two of them for any of their causes.

    • Becks1 says:

      Someone broke it all down on twitter a few months ago – I cant remember the name of the person now, but she was with a pretty reputable organization – and apparently there is little to no value to having a royal patron. (they looked at things like fundraising efforts, financial solvency, etc). I had always sort of assumed that charities would get a bump in donations after a royal visit (I mean, we see that happen with the Sussexes and their causes), but overall that’s not what happens.

      Even “bringing awareness” only goes so far as the royal audience. Quite honestly, Kate doesn’t get the widespread coverage she used to, so while people who follow KP or some of the RRs may know of this visit, I don’t know how much overall coverage it got in the UK.

      • Liz says:

        That’s super interesting that the Royal patronages don’t benefit the charities financially. The RF and BM have really done a great job of snowing the public on that. Great job RF! You achieved something!

        This falls right in line for me with the myth of how much income the RF brings into the UK vs how much they cost. I bet exposing the reality of that on a large scale is one of the things the BM holds over the RF. It’s one thing to have some weirdo on youtube do an exposé on it, but quite another to have article after article in the DM hammering it home.

      • ABritGuest says:

        Sands and Tommy’s are fantastic charities that have supported people I know & definitely cover areas that people don’t talk about enough. I really wish royal reporting was sophisticated enough that the causes actually got the spotlight more consistently

        The research on how royal visits don’t make much of an impact was compiled by this lady https://twitter.com/carolinefiennes/status/1283664444502007808?s=20

        I remember with the together cookbook a royal reporter said it wasn’t appropriate for a royal to fundraise that way so may have been an early area of conflict.

      • tolly says:

        The charity consultant Giving Evidence published a study on this topic in July.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “I remember with the together cookbook a royal reporter said it wasn’t appropriate for a royal to fundraise that way so may have been an early area of conflict.”

        Why was the cookbook not appropriate?

        No royal made any money personally off the cookbook.

      • Becks1 says:

        @ABritGuest and @Tolly – thanks! that’s exactly what I was thinking of. The report seems pretty damning of the royal family both in terms of financial benefit to the charity and how often the royals actually interact with their charities.

        Of course morale is something that cant be quantified, and maybe that’s enough for some charities/organizations.

      • JT says:

        @becks1 You’re definitely right about Kate getting less coverage than she used to. Someone on Twitter posted a poll ( not sure what to call it) that Meghan is the most searched for royal in the U.K., followed by Harry, then Kate, and finally William. Searches for H&M were significantly higher than W&K.

      • windyriver says:

        “I remember with the together cookbook a royal reporter said it wasn’t appropriate for a royal to fundraise that way so may have been an early area of conflict.”

        What about the Prince’s Trust concerts? Don’t see buying a cookbook being much different than selling tickets for a concert; money in both cases going to charity. Except, of course, the concerts were Charles’ thing, so I guess for that royal it was okay.

        From their website (note the language about ‘break the charity mould’):

        “During the same period [the 1980's], The Trust decided to break the charity mould and held its first fundraising concerts. The first Prince’s Trust Rock Gala was held at the Dominion Tottenham Court Road, with Madness, Joan Armatrading, Phil Collins, Kate Bush and Pete Townshend. Rock galas continued through the 80s and 90s.”

      • Amy Too says:

        “…people who follow KP or some of the RRs may know about this visit…” But the thing they now know is that Kate did an appearance. The photos, the press, and most of the comments are all about Kate. I just read the article, which I’m sure mentioned the name of this place, but by the time I got to your comment, I’ve already forgotten it. Because most of the comments are about the pictures and all of the pictures are just of Kate. There was no “action item” that we are all meant to do that came from this visit. Kate didn’t launch a fundraising campaign, or direct us to a website where we can share our stories about baby loss, she’s not selling a book or some kind of item that we can buy to learn more and to raise money for this charity. The only things I remember are: Kate wore a child’s mask, Kate wore a blue dress, and the term “baby loss.”

        I just keep going back to how the Sussexes did their projects and their social media. The captions included a lot of information about the specific charity, why they were important, and how to support. There were clothes to buy, or books, or even just a SussexSquad fundraiser to contribute to that would be posted in the comments. The photos weren’t all just close ups of Meghan’s face or dress, like they are with Kate. There were pictures of the other people there, pictures of them all DOING something, not just smiling towards the camera. They had an impact. I felt like they were doing charity for charity’s sake because they really wanted to help this specific charity/cause. I feel like Kate does charity for Kate’s own PR purposes and she doesn’t really care or even necessarily choose herself where she goes.

      • Becks1 says:

        @AmyToo – I don’t disagree with a word you said, lol. Its funny bc once on twitter, early on in her royal life, Richard Palmer was trying to criticize Meghan (as he does), and he said something like, Meghan needs to engage with reporters on these visits more, or else the only thing we’ll have to discuss about the visit is her clothes, like with Kate (meaning the only thing to talk about re: Kate is her clothes.) And its true. There is never any action item, it never feels like part of something bigger, it really feels like she makes these visits because someone says “ohhhh, you really should do X……”

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        I was going to post the same — there are financial articles to show there is no benefit to the charities. What WOULD benefit the charities is to take the billions of dollars spent on the royal family (in the hope that some of the pennies will trickle down to the charities) and give that money DIRECTLY to the charities.

    • VS says:

      I have to agree with you here…………this is not limited to K, same is true with some “highlight” work I see the RF do (including H&M). As far as I am concerned the Together Cookbook, the SmartSet collection, IG, Sentebale, the Prince’s trust, etc are some of the best projects the RF has ever done!
      I find all this highlighting not super useful maybe others think differently

      • BayTampaBay says:

        I do not think this was a “surprise” visit as it was probably planned weeks in advance. I do believe it was an “unannounced” visit in that in was not announced in advance to the public.

        I think Kate made this visit because the charity requested a visit from her (or any royal) to get free PR in the British Tabloids for Tommys and its very good cause.

        Until Kate made this visit, I had never heard of Tommys.

      • Lady D says:

        Are you British, Bay? All this time I thought you were American.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Lady D – I am a Yank who was raised in the Midwest and currently living in Florida. I have been British Royal watching since I was a little girl due to my maternal Grandmother who was also a British Royal watcher and spoke as if she and the Queen Mother were on a first name basis. I read British history as a hobby because I am really into historic country estate houses and one book on the British always leads to another then another and soon you get into a great rabbit hole. LOL!

        Have many friends with second homes in Florida that are UK Nationals.

      • Pat says:

        I totally agree with you.

  9. Bohemian Angel says:

    Yes good cause, but when it comes to Kate I just can’t, it’s like whatever. She didn’t give 2 shits about the wellbeing of her SIL when she was pregnant and actively took part in the smear campaign that caused Meghan a lot of stress which we all know isn’t good for mother or baby.
    She’s a horrid person, that’s all I’ve got…

    • Kalana says:

      Yes. The cause is good but sending Kate is like asking Philip to speak out against racism.

      Kate and William’s behavior could have led to serious consequences and for what? Their egos?

      Getting yourself photographed with people doing good work is not enough to clean up terrible behavior. Kate and William use these people to boost their public image, not the other way around.

      • Bohemian Angel says:

        Exactly! Sophie or Anne would have been a better choice for this cause. I can’t take anything Kate does seriously as I’m quite positive she doesn’t really care and it’s all just a pr stunt.

  10. Becks1 says:

    This is an important cause so while I always kind of roll my eyes at Kate, I’m still glad to see her highlighting a charity like this. If she wants to make mothers and the early years her “thing” (as she says, although we haven’t seen a whole lot about), then this is an important part of that, although obviously a much sadder part.

    • Sofia says:

      Agreed. This is the “less glamorous” side of pregnancy, babies and early years but it’s an important part that should be highlighted.

    • Harla says:

      @Becks1, I agree with you but it’s difficult to take her work in this arena seriously given the complete lack of support she showed to her sister-in-law during her pregnancy and birth of Archie. Any good work must begin at home.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Harla, I know. I feel you. It’s a weird place to be in lol bc I do think this visit was important, but its hard to take Kate seriously considering what Meghan went through. I’m also tired of saying “well at least she is doing X so good for her I guess.”

      • Merricat says:

        I’m with you, Harla. Hard to take Kate seriously when she was truly awful to a pregnant woman/new mother. Lip service is pretty much the essence of Kate’s “work.”

      • Green Desert says:

        @ Harla – exactly. This woman does the bare minimum and immediately gets praise. And her f*cking mask…I can’t even focus on what she’s doing when she’s still wearing a children’s mask. She looks ridiculous.

    • Nic919 says:

      This gives off similar vibes to the ivanka as Barbie scientist photo that is out there and has the same value. If you are wearing a lab coat to keep the area clean then having your long hair all over the coat where it will end up in the testing areas just shows she never actually been in a lab.

      And why not add this as another patronage? She has very few of them as it is and could stand to do more.

      • Amy Too says:

        The fact that it’s not a patronage, and the visit was a “surprise” or unannounced one, coupled with the fact that Kate doesn’t really talk about baby loss or miscarriages, makes me think she saw the outpouring of support that Chrissy Teagan got, and the huge and wide reaching conversation that resulted, with women everywhere sharing their stories and supporting each other, and she decided she needed to jump on that bandwagon. I would bet money on it that she saw how much emotional support Chrissy Teagan was getting when she posted about losing her baby and that’s what inspired this visit.

      • TrixC says:

        To be fair the main reason for wearing a lab coat is to protect you and your clothes from any spillages etc. The hair isn’t really a problem. The shoes on the other hand…

      • mynameispearl says:

        @Amy Too
        Its baby loss awareness week in the UK (not sure if it’s a global thing?), Tommy’s and Sands would have requested this visit a long time ago, with Covid19 I’m sure these things take a lot of prep.

        Chrissy Tiegens story is heartbreaking, but that wouldn’t have been why this visit occurred. It also ties in with the visit last year where Kate spent a few days or a week or something on a maternity ward.

      • Amy Too says:

        Is Baby Loss Awareness week a new thing? If it isn’t then why is this the first year that she’s highlighted it or done a visit to coincide? They might have requested she visit for baby loss awareness month, but I still think she only said yes after all the support and interaction that Chrissy Teagan got.

        I imagine she gets a lot of requests to come and see things or bring awareness to something, and yet, she does so few engagements and has so few patronages so she obviously doesn’t say yes to everything. She’s also pulled out of things at the last minute and/or rescheduled things, so it’s not like the schedule is made and then set in stone. If she feels like she can just cancel or reschedule, then I’m thinking it doesn’t actually take months and months to prepare for her events. This one was even a “surprise.” And there have been plenty of times where she or her team have hastily put something together to distract from something, or change the subject, or have her participate in something that’s suddenly topical and people are talking about. I don’t think it takes nearly as long as people think to arrange a royal visit. I’m sure if you’re a charity you have to ask months in advance for a royal if you want one, but I bet if a Royal approached a charity on Monday and said “I want to come Thursday,” they are accommodated.

      • mynameispearl says:

        @amy too, it’s not a new thing, there was actually a minor controversy here last year when Meghans pregnancy was announced at the start of it as some thought it was insensitive- I have to say I thought this was daft, its highly unlikely she was aware of it.

        That said I dont know how long its been a thing, I’ve only been aware of it as some friends in the past few years have given birth to babies who were born sleeping, so they post a lot this week in recognition of it.

        Sands and Tommy’s are great charities and provide such a needed service, any highlighting of their work is good in my book. They are life savers to the families who use them.

  11. Sofia says:

    This is definitely a good cause and a nice dress. Fits with her early years work. I just *wish* she would get a slightly bigger mask or something because it looks like the strings holding the mask are cutting into her face rather painfully – at least to me. It might not hurt Kate.

    I would/could also like to see Sophie get into this because Louise was premature so she knows what it’s like – not saying Kate doesn’t or she can’t show emotions about it. I don’t know if she already does or doesn’t want to because it could end up cutting too deep for her.

    • Roserose says:

      I recall Sophie lost an ectopic pregnancy about 19 years ago. In that case she might not want to be involved in this sort of charity? I’m not sure.

      • Sofia says:

        I also said she might not want to because it (and I quote) “could end up cutting too deep for her.”

      • Becks1 says:

        I just looked through all Sophie’s patronages, and let me just say, there are a lot. 9 pages worth. I think Kate has something like 12 patronages total, lol. Anyway, there was nothing related to infant loss or this type of charity, but she is patron of several children hospitals, and several organizations relating to blindness (remember Louise had to have eye surgery a few times to correct a congenital defect.)

        But really the thing that stood out to me, like I said, was the sheer number of her patronages compared to Kate AND compared to William.

  12. Edna says:

    This is a really great cause to get behind and support. Glad it’s being highlighted. So many parents suffer in silence from pregnancy loss. Too bad she couldn’t show empathy and support to her SIL while she was pregnant and being stressed and smeared.

  13. L84Tea says:

    Hey Duch, you know what also contributes to miscarriages? Stress. You know what can contribute to stress? When you’re being smeared in the news on a daily basis, being blamed for murder and famine, and your family doesn’t lift a finger to stick up for you. Did you get that down on your pretty notepad?

    • Ticktock says:

      I know that’s a popular talking point here but it’s a misperception and there’s not much scientific evidence to back it up. I think it’s important to make that clear.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        I know my comment will be unpopular with most of my fellow CBers but you do make a very good point.

      • equality says:

        There was research done by Tufts University that linked stress to miscarriage, premature delivery and low birth weight.

      • Becks1 says:

        It’s not about “forcing a miscarriage,” its about the complete lack of support from Kate when Meghan was at her most vulnerable, and how Kate actively participated in hurting Meghan. Anything she says about pregnancy, women, mental health, the early years – she has lost all credibility in my opinion in those areas (to the extent she really had any before) because of her actions.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Thank you equality for bringing science to the equation. The trolls are out in force today, no?

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “Anything she says about pregnancy, women, mental health, the early years – she has lost all credibility in my opinion in those areas (to the extent she really had any before) because of her actions.”

        I think you said it all with “to the extent she really had any before”. Kate’s biggest problem is that she really has no credibility with anything.

      • tolly says:

        @ticktock: I think posters are referring to research into how systemic/environmental stress affects pregnant WOC, specifically. This is different from everyday stress that can affect all women, and it’s well-documented in the US.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The association between psychological stress and miscarriage: A systematic review and meta-analysis

        Sci Rep. 2017; 7: 1731.

        The risk of miscarriage was significantly higher in women with a history of exposure to psychological stress (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.19–1.70). These findings remained after controlling for study type (cohort and nested case-control study OR 1.33 95% CI 1.14–1.54), exposure types (work stress OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.10–1.47), types of controls included (live birth OR 2.82 95% CI: 1.64–4.86). We found no evidence that publication bias or study heterogeneity significantly influenced the results. Our finding provides the most robust evidence to date, that prior psychological stress is harmful to women in early pregnancy.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Another quote from the same lit review

        The association between psychological stress and miscarriage: A systematic review and meta-analysis

        Sci Rep. 2017; 7: 1731.

        Stress (e.g. financial or marital problems, death, divorce, physical and nonphysical abuse inflicted on a woman by her partner and loss of social support) was also associated with the likelihood of miscarriage among women reporting to an emergency department or admission to hospital10, 11.Psychological challenges can include the experience of emotional trauma, social problems, concerns about money, marital/partnership disharmony, work pressure, significant change in personal circumstances as well as prior pregnancy loss12. In addition, retrospective studies link increase in workplace demands with adverse pregnancy outcomes including miscarriage7, 13.

      • windyriver says:

        This appears to be the original Tufts study, reprinted on the Oxford website.

        Endocrinology, Vol 144, Issue 6, June 2003

        High Levels of Intrauterine Corticotropin-Releasing Hormone, Urocortin, Tryptase, and Interleukin-8 in Spontaneous Abortions

        A NUMBER OF studies have reported increased risk of pregnancy loss associated with psychological stress (1). Moreover, the decidua of women with high levels of stress had significantly higher number of tryptase, CD8, as well as TNF-α positive cells (1). Also, women who miscarried were more likely to have experienced severe stress in the 3 months preceding, as well as in the fortnight immediately before miscarriage (2). Maternal stress due to environmental and/or socioeconomic factors (e.g. poverty, unmarried status, as well as loss of employment, housing, partner) were also linked to preterm delivery (3). It is well known that stress activates the secretion of CRH primarily from the hypothalamus, leading to stimulation of the hypothalamic pituitary-adrenal axis. Recent evidence suggests that the human endometrium is a neuroendocrine organ, able to produce several brain peptides, including CRH (4).

        The placenta and intrauterine tissues produce increasing amounts of CRH during pregnancy, with corresponding rises in plasma levels at term. Women with preterm labor, or those destined to have premature delivery, have higher midpregnancy plasma CRH than those who deliver at term (5).


      • Nic919 says:

        One of my best friends experienced a miscarriage directly because of the stress she was experiencing which the doctors confirmed after the fact, so pretending there is no link is bs.

      • RoyalBlue says:

        ticktock so whilst stress may not cause a miscarriage it can affect the pregnancy and there is lots of scientific research showing how maternal stress negatively affects childrens’ outcomes and a quick google search will confirm this for you. This in itself is the most insiduous part of the joint campaign by the palaces and BM. To KNOWINGLY cause stress to a pregnant woman that can affect the child’s cognitive and behavioral development is evil.

      • yinyang says:

        This is minor comparison but during exams in school I had missed my periods due to stress, so I can imagine how the body reacts to extreme stress on a grander worldwide scale put on a pregnant women, I’m sure the baby can feel it as well.

    • Merricat says:

      There’s plenty of evidence that stress in pregnant women can cause all kinds of problems for mother and baby, including increasing the chances for a premature baby. Plus, as a person who had been pregnant a couple of times, Kate knows what it’s like to be vulnerable and hormonal. She does not get a pass from me on this, and trying to pass herself off as someone who cares is astounding.

      • ticktock says:

        My comment was specific to risk of miscarriage which people seem to repeat a lot here including your above comment. People should be careful about making those types of statements without actually having the facts.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Actually, equality brought facts from a Tufts University study.

      • Merricat says:

        Chronic stress can to contribute to miscarriage. That’s what the evidence shows. Consult any reputable medical reference.

      • ticktock says:

        Regarding your below comment, I’m sorry, that’s just not true. The fact is that view point is not supported by most experts – check mayo clinic, Cleveland clinic, march of dimes, and even the organization discussed in this article despite the limited studies cited above. I’ll add that it doesn’t help pregnant women to maintain this stance either because it assigns responsibility to them when in most cases there is nothing they could have done to avoid the pregnancy loss. I’m not going to weigh in again because I now realize an online forum is not a great place to discuss nuanced medical research – lesson learned.

      • notasugarhere says:

        ticktock you chose to ignore the nuanced medical research study I posted. The lit review that examined over 7000 studies and came to the conclusion – stress can cause miscarriage. You choose to ignore it because it doesn’t match your version of ‘fact’.

      • ticktock says:

        @notasugarhere I did look at that publication and if you look their Figure 1, it was actually only 8 studies that were part of their metanalysis, not 7,000. With metanalyses, you don’t get much insight into the quality of the studies that are part of the review so it’s hard to read too much into them.

      • Khia says:

        Right on @TickTock. I appreciate your discussion.
        Only true hate takes away from a truly important topic.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Nope, ticktock. In less than five minutes it was easy to find fact that refutes what you’re claiming. There is plenty of medical evidence and research that shows stress can cause miscarriage. Why you are fighting so hard against the evidence is questionable.

        Khia, what are you on about? We’re discussing ticktock’s false claims with scientific evidence. No hate here.

  14. Amy Bee says:

    Kate didn’t seem to be concerned about this issue during her sister in law’s pregnancy but it’s good to see she’s taking an interest in it now. I was trying to think of how she could amplify the awareness because I don’t think just visiting this facility really helps to highlight it. At least not anymore, she only made one front page yesterday. I think she has to say a few words to media during or after the event. I’m not saying she has to make a speech but maybe a written statement or short chat.

  15. Beach Dreams says:

    A serious issue that would’ve been better highlighted by someone worthwhile.

    • Green Desert says:

      This exactly. It’s hard for me to give Kate credit for something like this because I truly don’t think she cares about anything outside of herself and her own family. We’d see way more from her if she did.

    • yinyang says:

      That’s so true, she puts so much focus on appearance I really don’t pay attention to what she says, as opposed to someone like…say…Kamala Harris, Justin Trudeau.

  16. megs283 says:

    This topic hits close to home, so no shade from me. I’m thankful there’s an organization that is researching miscarriages, stillbirths and premature births.

    Did you know that stillbirths happen in the US at the rate of 1 in 160? That is UNFORGIVABLE. Also, did you know that being black increases chances of stillbirth in the US? Yeah, that’s not because the moms are black. It’s because they’re receiving a lower standard of care due to their race. Google stillbirths and CDC and you’ll find the other risk factors.

    Did you know that ultrasound machines can measure blood flow to the umbilical cord? And that measuring that during the third trimester can provide an indication of the baby’s health? And that exam isn’t standard? (From a study called “Value of third‐trimester cerebroplacental ratio and uterine artery Doppler indices as predictors of stillbirth and perinatal loss”: These findings highlight the importance of Doppler indices of fetal hypoxia compared with fetal size in assessing the risk of stillbirth. The combination of fetal biometry, CPR and UtA Doppler, recorded in the third trimester, can predict the risk of stillbirth and perinatal loss.)

    Yes, Kate was the worst to her sister-in-law. But this issue is way bigger than Kate and Meghan and I’m thankful that Tommy’s will probably see an increase in donations after this visit.

    • Becks1 says:

      @megs – agree this issue is way bigger than Kate and Meghan and that’s why most of us are saying that we’re glad she made this visit. But see the above discussion re: increase in donations. This visit likely wont make any kind of financial impact.

  17. Ticktock says:

    @ equality – if you can provide a link to the study you’re talking about, that would be helpful

  18. Jenn says:

    I can’t take her listening face seriously.

  19. What’s eating you says:

    She needs to give Charlotte back her mask and get one that fits an adult. Also I scoff every time I see Kant or won’t speaking about mental health especially when it comes to mothers and children. Infant loss awareness??? Where was this concern when Meghan was being dragged day in and day out ? Oh yeah I remember, you were happy to see Meghan go through that stress.

  20. yinyang says:

    Eww. why doesn’t she get a normal mask, what’s she trying to pull. Wierdo.

  21. L4frimaire says:

    It’s a good cause that needs highlighting more. It’s a serious issue without enough attention. Surprised this isn’t covered by Sophie since she had difficult pregnancy/ birth with one of her kids. If it was over here, it would get caught up with abortion politics, or the disparities with race and access to care. She always seems so silent and not able to give the voice or focus these issues deserve. Lighter note, the mask looks too small, it’s digging into her skin.

  22. CrystalBall says:

    She should have worn gloves to touch laboratory equipment. Everything she touched, including the microscope, has to be cleaned yet again. More extra cleaning = more time lost that could have been better used for important work. It’s very contrary to wear the mask but no gloves in the lab. How about she checks with a grown-up about how to conduct herself before her next excursion?

  23. LittlePenguin says:

    I just imagine her jumping up and down and clapping her hands “It’s scientist day! Scientist day!”

  24. Emily says:

    I don’t think there’s anything to criticize here apart from the child size mask. Her outfit is a repeat which is fine. This is an important cause to highlight and even if the charity may not get an increase in donations after Kate’s visit, it shows her support of women who suffer miscarriages and lose their babies due to premature birth. Prince William’s own cousin Zara had two miscarriages between the births of her daughters, going to show you can be from the royal family and have access to the best prenatal care and still lose a baby. It’s also a topic that has only slightly become less taboo to discuss in the last few years. So I say good on her. It would be nice to see her do more events like this one.

  25. Donna says:

    LMBO!!!!!!! Cosplaying a doctor……….LMBO!!!!!

  26. khaveman says:

    At least she finally has one on.

  27. Harla says:

    It looks like Kate had her lab coat tailored to fit her, bizarre.

  28. Harla says:

    It looks like Kate had her lab coat tailored to fit her, bizarre.

  29. NotSoSimpleTaylor says:

    The criticism here is valid – especially about the mask but I’ve wondered if Kate possibly had a early term miscarriage or two before George came along. Not that it is any of our business if she had and she is not obligated to discuss if she has. It’s just – she actually seems to take this cause somewhat more seriously than her other causes – aside from the fact she needs to given the sensitive subject matter – but she seems to actually care and more willing to put in the work. Is this her passion? The cosplay was unnecessary and pretty insulting. Let the real scientists do the work.

    • notasugarhere says:

      I wouldn’t put that much depth into Kate’s staff’s choice of this organization. Kate chooses to remain silent every year on HG Awareness Day, a condition that often leads to voluntary termination because the life of the mother and fetus are both at risk. Yet she claims to have had it three times, while exhibiting none of the symptoms.

      • NotSoSimpleTaylor says:

        I had forgotten about that and you’re probably right. At least Kate doesn’t bungle these appearances too badly.

  30. MangoAngelesque says:

    She tries so hard to pull off that “aristo slouch,” but always just looks like her posture is causing her severe neck and should strain.

  31. Lau says:

    Plum & Ashby has said that after Kate was given one of their candles yesterday to take part in the Wave of Light event they’re blown away by all new orders and have raised £32,000 for Tommy’s. So keep criticizing the fact that she was given a lab coat and wore it instead of recognizing that this visit was meaningful and impactful. Also, check Tommy’s CEO words about how impressed he was by her genuine interest and how well informed she was. I guess that since these facts do not fit your narrative I will be called trolled and my comment will be deleted, as usually.

    • Edna says:

      It would be even better if Kate made a matching donation to Tommy’s. You know, since she’s so supportive and all.

    • Nic919 says:

      Kate could auction off three of her outfits and raise that much money herself if she truly cared about this causes, but this is another low energy photo op. They don’t even say what she’s looking at in the microscope.

    • Becks1 says:

      Of course the CEO said that, LOL. What do you think he’s going to say? “She’s a waste of space?” They are given clear speaking points after one of these visits and its laughable at this point. The only person we’ve seen semi-call her out was the one who pointed out she hadn’t visited in 8 years.

      But again, though, the Cambstans are missing the point of the criticism. Its not that this visit was pointless. Its that this is literally the LEAST she can do. The LEAST. Did she even light the candle? a picture on IG of the lit candle with a heartfelt message from Kate would have been even more impactful, IMO. Kate makes a visit like this one every two years and she is praised to the heavens for it. Imagine if she made pregnancy and infant loss awareness a cause and was actively involved in events through October for it.

      But we all know that wont happen, because shes not actively involved in anything.

  32. Mariane says:

    I can’t with this one. So the women who never publicly supported her SIL(like harry did for kate) and quite possibly was involved in leaking nasty stories to torment a pregnant first time mother is now going to “learn about” affects of stress on pregnant mothers & miscarriages?!! It’s like asking a farmer to speak about vegetarianism!

    The whole set up was strange. So she can wear masks for a photoop away from people but not around them!also why didn’t she tie her hair or wear gloves???

  33. Likeyoucare says:

    Good for kate for doing her job.
    Good for her staff for providing a tailored lab coat for her to make her look good.

    And for the small mask, it is always bizzare me to look at man and woman who prefer to wear smaller clothes and claimed they still fit in their old clothes.

    Maybe in her small brain she felt some kind of archievement to wear smaller things. (Yes this is a dig.. sue me hahaha)

  34. Nic919 says:

    Did you honestly expect the CEO to say anything other than she was interested? This is the same comment we hear from anyone they visit. They are never going to say otherwise. You can find the exact same quotes from any person they “interviewed” over the last ten years so if you can’t see that it’s meaningless then enjoy the koolaid.

    Considering she has so few patronages it would have been nice for her to add this to her list but why make more of a commitment than a one time visit. Her impact is pretty minimal considering they prop her up to be the future. Only a few diehards in the UK even know what she does. A lot of the social media traffic are bots who don’t support any of the causes as has been seen by the low traffic for a lot of the fundraisers.

Commenting Guidelines

Celebitchy aims to be a friendly, welcoming site where people can discuss entertainment stories and current events in a lighthearted, safe environment without fear of harassment, excessive negativity, or bullying. Different opinions, backgrounds, ages, and nationalities are welcome here - hatred and bigotry are not. If you make racist or bigoted remarks, comment under multiple names, or wish death on anyone you will be banned. There are no second chances if you violate one of these basic rules.

By commenting you agree to our comment policy and our privacy policy

Please e-mail the moderators at cbcomments at gmail.com to delete a comment if it's offensive or spam. If your comment disappears, it may have been eaten by the spam filter. Please email us to get it retrieved.

You can sign up to get an image next to your name at Gravatar.com Thank you!

Leave a comment