Duchess Kate’s Early Years work will ‘likely… have a long-term impact on the field’

Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge is pictured at LEYF, London

The Duchess of Cambridge launched her “five big questions” in January of this year. It landed with a dull thud, for all of Kate’s alleged keenness. Many people saw the Five Big Questions for what they were: asinine busy work for a duchess who is mostly keen to be SEEN as ambitious. That didn’t keep a “palace source” from sniffing at all of the criticism and barking these quotes to People Magazine: “She is exposing herself. This is not a vanity exercise. This is her talking about her work and what she has learned as a mother because of her work. She has become credible in the early years space.” This is the crux of so many issues centered in Kensington Palace: their Trumpian need to tell instead of show, even when the telling is so plainly false. Kate has had a decade of duchessing to show us who she is, and we’ve seen with our own eyes how lazy and parochial she is. But the palace will continue to tell us that no, despite that evidence, Kate is truly keen, nay, she’s “credible” and none of this is about vanity.

I mentioned before that the palace PR around the big unveiling of the latest chapter of Early Years is along the same lines. Instead of being told that Kate has “credibility” (she does not), we’re now being told that she has “unrivaled insight” into early childhood development. Again, she does not. Just like William didn’t suddenly create “the most prestigious” awards ever. You can’t just PR fluff your way into legitimacy about this sh-t. But the PR fluff continues. This time, we’re being told that Kate’s Early Years project will pay dividends for decades to come. *chuckle* They said that sh-t with a straight face too.

Kate Middleton’s work on behalf of kids and families is having a “growing influence” that should bring about long-term benefits. That’s the opinion of an expert who has worked alongside her as she built her coalition focused on the early years of development for children. In a speech, the Duchess of Cambridge, 38, spoke passionately about how she has learned over about a decade’s public work that many societal issues, like homelessness and mental health challenges, can be rooted in childhood difficulties. “But I have also seen how positive protective factors in the early years can play a critical role in shaping our futures, too,” she said on Friday. “And I care hugely about this.”

Eamon McCrory, a professor of developmental neuroscience and psychopathology at University College London who joined Kate’s steering group on this topic in 2018, has seen her experience and expertise blossom over that time.

“She is working with homelessness and mental health and with parents and perinatal care — she sees all aspects of the system,” he tells PEOPLE. “She’s talking to neuroscientists and is interested in understanding what it means for parents or what does it mean if we are interested in tackling mental health. She is really interested in putting the pieces together and having a cohesive response. She has genuine curiosity and a real respect and understanding of the science. It’s really impressive. There is a growing influence of her work, and it’s likely to expand and have a long-term impact on the field.”

As director of the Developmental Risk and Resilience Unit at UCL, McCrory hosted Kate on a visit to his labs two years ago. Then, it emerged that she studied some psychology at the University of St. Andrews, he recalls. “She has retained a longstanding interest in emotional and psychological development from that time. She sees first-hand in her work the toll homelessness, addiction and mental health can have on adulthood. And she sees very clearly the root of many of those problems lie in childhood,” McCrory says. “To build a better society and tackle those problems, those first few years of life are really pivotal.”

McCrory says that the [Five Big Questions] report — and the survey before it — has sparked “national conversation not just among parents but everyone, including scientists about the role the early years plays in building a happy and healthy society.”

The report comes from “the largest survey of its kind,” McCrory says. “[Kate] can engage the public, professionals in the sector, scientists and practitioners and in that way can bring together this kind of collective force to drive change. If we’re going to tackle issues like addiction, homelessness [and] mental health, that needs to begin in those first few years of life. It needs to be a collective endeavor. That’s the incredible power of this report and the forum today.”

[From People]

Granted, I don’t have much experience with the inner-workings of academia and departmental funding, but I read this piece assuming that McCrory was simply saying what needed to be said to get more resources into his department. I feel like this kind of ass-kissing vagueness is practiced at every level of academia: “There is a growing influence of her work, and it’s likely to expand and have a long-term impact on the field.” “Likely” is doing a lot of work in his statement. I feel like he’s basically saying, hey, yeah, Kate’s “work” is bullsh-t but she’s actually drawing more attention to the work being done by experts in the field, so maybe that will mean more money and resources for us. Again, “maybe” is doing a lot of work there.

And honestly, it would have been less expensive, less time consuming and less narcissistic if Kate had just deferred to the experts completely and stopped trying to put her own keen stink on everything and “take credit” for it. Just summarize what experts have found and defer to them, highlight their work and fundraise for them. But then she wouldn’t have a big keen project to compete with She Who Shall Not Be Named.

The Duchess of Cambridge takes her landmark survey to London during a breakfast visit to LEYF (London Early Years Foundation) at Stockwell Gardens Nursery & Pre-school.

The Duchess of Cambridge takes her landmark survey to London during a breakfast visit to LEYF (London Early Years Foundation) at Stockwell Gardens Nursery & Pre-school.

Photos courtesy of WENN, Avalon Red, Backgrid.

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

78 Responses to “Duchess Kate’s Early Years work will ‘likely… have a long-term impact on the field’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Chica1971 says:

    Is Keen the new Piaget? Nothing in that dang survey was imaginative or new. Please.
    As far as royal patronage’s for kids go, Kate needs to talk with Sheila Mozzah or Queen Silvia who have done more for longer, and left intellectual components to actual scientists and educators.

  2. OriginalLala says:

    Kate should be embarrassed by this, these article talk about her and her work as if she is an actual expert in the field, with credentials and real research underway. It’s honestly such a disservice to those who are actually working in the field.

    • MF1 says:

      It’s a big insult to people who’ve gotten PhDs and dedicated their whole careers to studying this stuff. And Kate thinks putting out a five-question survey makes her an *expert.*

      • Tessa says:

        I know people who wrote dissertations and articles and really make important contributions. But the art history major thinks SHE can make a difference in the field.

      • VIV says:

        She did have dozens of engagements over the past 9 years, clearly she’s as much an expert as someone working in the field every day!

      • Nic919 says:

        “Dozens”. They can’t even say hundreds over 9 years. That’s pathetic.

    • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

      I like that comment: “…she had “some” psychology classes while at St. Andrews…” lolololol Mhmm… Like a Psych 1 class to fulfill a requirement, a “one and done”.

      Now, pull the other one.

      • M says:

        Right? I spend day in and day out studying and researching psychology and I am therefore very aware her claims are not only bogus but insulting to the scientific community. Her insights are beyond conclusive from previous journals and studies, however she provides no information to support her claims, which parallel ‘water is wet.’

        Just try your hand at something within your depth, Kate.

    • Lorelei says:

      @OriginalLaLa that’s another thing I don’t get. How is KATE HERSELF not mortified by all of this nonsense? Is she truly so un-self-aware that she doesn’t realize how over the top it is? Or do you think she actually believes all of it? To her, one day is “working hard” so maybe she really does believe a lot of it, but if I were her I would absolutely not let my team issue such outlandish claims. I would be mortified.

      @Jan: seriously…didn’t pretty much *everyone* take at least one Intro to Psych class in college? It means nothing. I was a psych major and wouldn’t pretend to be the least bit influential in the field as she is. It’s preposterous.

      • Kalana says:

        How was Pippa not mortified by Celebrate or James by Boomf? The Middleton kids were all raised this way.

      • Becks1 says:

        Kate is arrogant, and she is surrounded by “yes-men.” (or women.) I don’t think anyone would dare to tell her “this looks ridiculous” and why would Kate think it is? She’s getting praised for doing the bare minimum.

        I do think this whole thing is designed to compete with Meghan, but I also wonder if Charles said to them “get off your butts and DO SOMETHING.” Its not really a coincidence that Earthshot and this survey were announced around the same time.

      • Nic919 says:

        If Kate had people who could tell her the truth she wouldn’t have the clown makeup and old lady outfits. So something requiring more substance like this is well beyond what people are allowed to comment on.

    • Ginger says:

      The fact that they put out that this isn’t a vanity project says that it IS a vanity project. But she will always be praised to the heavens for the littlest thing. Always. And she knows that.

    • Korra says:

      She is not embarrassed because there is no one questioning or scrutinizing her work. Truthfully, I wish FFQ and FFK got more blowback for their grandiose proclaims of how important their work is with such little output from them, but like Kaiser said, not enough people are noticing to care. Most of the articles I saw related to FFQ’s Early Years announcement were about her hair and clothes. In many ways, the lack of examination into her work is her saving grace, because anyone more noteworthy or high-profile would be getting a lot of flack over this.

      • L84Tea says:

        I wish some American (or someone from any country not affiliated with the RF/CW) expert would call her out on all of this. Someone who doesn’t give a F*** about what old Liz or the rest of her ilk think. Seriously, why isn’t anyone with any real credibility taking any swipes at this?

      • Amy Too says:

        L84T, probably because it’s not on their radar. That seems to be how the RF are able to maintain this ridiculous charade. The “projects” that they’re trying to do on Early Years, or conservation, or mental health are so small, inane, and worthless that they don’t make it onto the radar or any actual experts in those fields. And the people who support the monarchy and breathlessly, sycophanticly, consume all the tabloid press praising these projects are either too stupid, too dazzled, too brainwashed, or all of the above to realize that members of the royal family are not actually the very top experts on these issues. There’s not enough crossover between professionals doing real work and research in these subjects (and the serious journalists who write about them) and people who stan the RF and follow them on Twitter (and the hagiographic tabloid royal reporters who write about them) for the lies to be called out.

        The only time there seemed/seems to be real cross over is when Meghan does something, like write an op-Ed in The NY Times for example. That’s been covered everywhere. And I think that worries the RF. They don’t actually want real journalist at real newspapers looking too closely at any of them or their so-called projects because the RF is hiding a lot of skeletons in their palatial closets and they’ve been getting away with a very long grift at the expense of the tax payers for many decades now with the whole “Our projects and charity work are worth the cost of keeping us” scheme.

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      The Windsors are like Scientologists, giving themselves awards and dressing up at playtime in special uniforms. Did Kate receive the “Freedom Medal of Valor” award yet? If not, the Queen or David Miscavige should give it to her, she certainly deserves it.

  3. Aurora says:

    “ She’s talking to neuroscientists and is interested in understanding what it means for parents or what does it mean if we are interested in tackling mental health. She is really interested in putting the pieces together and having a cohesive response. She has genuine curiosity and a real respect and understanding of the science. ”

    This is a long-winded academic way of saying “She’s keen.”

    • Mignionette says:

      I actually believe there is a personal interest here relating to James. I just always got the vibe that Karen Middleton knows on some level that her mother is a Narc but she is not quite sure what to do with that information yet.

      • Nic919 says:

        Until that family starts admitting that Carole and Mike essentially pimped out their daughters to snag rich men and didn’t know what to do with James since men aren’t sold on the marriage market in the same way, they will never understand their issues. And it’s not remotely normal for any parent to do that.

      • Lorelei says:

        I believe she’s worried about James for sure, but it makes her *constant* claims that mental illness often stems from poor childhoods even worse. It makes absolutely no sense, as she praises her own upbringing in the same speech every single time.

        She should see a therapist if the has deep-rooted issues about her mom or her brother’s situation, not…whatever this PR is.

      • Mignionette says:

        @Lorelei I do not for one minute believe Kate’s childhood was that idylic. Known too many expat / third culture children to believe that (which is what Kate essentially was during the ‘early years’).
        Also why the need to marry up so high and prove yourself to that extent. It’s great to advance yourself but marrying a man like Bill 100% speaks to some element of childhood trauma.

    • Keen Kate says:

      “She is really interested in putting the pieces together and having a cohesive response.” They will still be saying this when she’s Queen Consort and we won’t have seen anything constructive!

  4. Mignionette says:

    But is it ‘her’ work ?

    Isn’t it just regurgitated research which she is using as a basis for her initiative. I don;t see that as a bad thing per se, but seeing as the Royals are so insistent on warnings re content of late, maybe they should lead by example.

    Also I doubt that the original funders of said research appreciate their efforts being usurped in this way ?

    • Mac says:

      I think her goal is to bring the research and different disciplines together for a more cohesive approach to early childhood development. If that is indeed her goal, I don’t understand why the foundation didn’t hire experts. It could have been a meaningful endeavor.

      • Noodle says:

        @mac, from a research perspective, that integration has been happening for a number of years. EC is an integrated field; you can’t look at language acquisition and development (one of my passions and fields of study) without looking at physical and neurological development. It’s not isolated like that from a research perspective. It can’t be. Once in a while you can isolate a factor, but if the research is being done with real brains (real children), all those factors interweave. In the very rare instance you get a “pure” specimen (like in the 1970’s when they found ‘Genie’ who had grown up and NEVER been exposed to language before and they basically tested the eff out of her), a lot of those studies end up being shut down.

        What the researcher is talking about in this article in terms of Kate’s impact is how widespread attention is now being brought to the field that wasn’t there before. And that’s how a lot of research gets funded. Attention. Or, if you have a rock-star researcher that comes to your university/lab and attracts attention, you are a lot more likely to get funded. So much of the funding available prior is not available now; most of it is from the government or grants. Many universities cannot afford to run huge, expensive studies out of their labs without some outside source. At my university, we get no extra funding for research unless we apply for it from outside sources, and even then, we have to get IR approval for it to be connected to the university (Lord help us if we bring negative attention!). We get no course release to research, meaning we still have to maintain our same teaching loads (which includes course development, maintenance – what happens when a book goes out of print?, and supervision of the adjuncts in our courses). We are expected to publish and present our own research, but aren’t given time, supports, or funding for any of it. I’m writing a chapter of a new textbook right now, and it’s on top of my teaching and administrative duties, virtual schooling of three children, caring for my mom with mid-stage Alzheimer’s, my own chronic migraines, and an unemployed husband. It’s a lot. To be honest, even though it’s a sham, I’d love Kate to come and talk up my academic research right now so I can get some funding and support! Her publicity is an utter sham, don’t get me wrong, but if it would pay for me to sit down and write for six weeks and not worry about anything else — I’ll take it!

      • Noodle says:

        @lorelei, 100%. This work is being done by people FAR more informed and qualified than she; to pretend like she’s breaking ground is an exercise in ego, and ego alone. What got me chuckling was the references to her speaking with neuroscientists about the research. I’m a smart gal and have a PhD in an educational field. My specialization is elementary-aged kids, but we dip A LOT into early childhood, because EC forms the basis for elementary pedagogy. I honestly doubt I could have a real, informed conversation with the neuroscientists myself, and this is my field. While I can read the journal articles and medical research, it’s not my jam and I’m lost when they start talking about specific neural pathways. I read to stay current, but I rely on the discussions of the findings more so than the actual research itself, because it’s incredibly specific and meant for medical contemporaries, and not the general public.

    • Elizabeth Regina says:

      Kate works \hard’ but the word likely works harder. They can spin it all they want, I don’t see members of the British public discussing this ‘ground breaking’ work down the pub. Most importantly it won’t have any positive impact on children’s lives right now. Marcus Rashford has done more with his tweets with far less resources than madam.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Elizabeth Regina: I was just about to ask our British celebitches if there is a robust “national conversation” going on about this. My guess is that everyone has far more important things to be thinking about right now, especially this year. They make it sound like everyone in the country is poring over these results, wide-eyed at how impressive Kate is.

        ETA: @Noodle, I would find it far more believable if they claimed she spent a lot of time studying which organizations (already in existence, not something she and William created so they could have a splashy unveiling 🙄) have the greatest impact, and then contributing money from her foundation to those places, where funding is sorely needed. To claim she’s studying the actual science is absurd and helps exactly no one.

    • Aidevee says:

      Hello! I’m in the UK and I mentor Trainee Teachers as part of a school/university postgraduate course specifically tailored to Early Years. I can confirm that none of our students have mentioned it yet and no-one has mentioned it in the huge academy hub school where I work as a teacher specialising in Early Years and Key Stage 1 (3-7 years). None of our parents have mentioned it in their conversations yet either.
      If conversations are ever subsequently embarked upon, I will be sure to update you all!

  5. Kalana says:

    Oh man, those pictures.

    What happened to Kate exploring her keen interest in textiles?

    But anyway, two years on Kate hasn’t even picked a focus nevermind a project. Okay.

  6. El says:

    I realize a project can’t cover everything. But the focus on just the first five years and the talking about the pay-off far in the future, leaves out children who didn’t have the strong early years positive support. It would be nice to acknowledge or include resources for children who didn’t get the good start and maybe need more resources now.

    • Lorelei says:

      Yes! The first five years are certainly crucial, but she speaks as if the need for help ends there. Truly nothing she says makes sense in reality.

  7. Tessa says:

    She majored in art history and has no background in early child development/psychology/education. It is insulting to people who get advanced degrees and do significant work. Kate is a lightweight.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      From what I recall she had been accepted on a Sociology course at Edinburgh Uni before switch to Art History and St Andrews to stalk William. William was the ONLY reason she changed uni and course subject.

      • Ann says:

        Wait, really?! I had never heard that. She changed her choice of schools just so she could be at the same one as William….whom she had never met?

      • Nic919 says:

        She had met William prior to changing university but it was at a party or something. She wasn’t able to infiltrate his social circle until she was at St Andrew’s.

        But yes it was not a secret that she was accept to another university a year earlier then heard about Williams choice and then took a gap year to start the same time as him. She also ended up going to Chile for a similar trip that he took, although that was not at the same time. There was a lot stalking that was smoothed over once she got the ring.

    • Chrissy (The Original) says:

      More like a featherweight. It’s laughable that they’re holding her up as some expert. She’s more of an expert in Eyeliner or Botox than a complex and multi-faceted topic as Early Childhood Development.

      • Tessa says:

        The articles are more about her hair and what she wears than anything she says. She is indeed a featherweight.

  8. equality says:

    Wait a minute, experts in a field need Kate to get them to engage in their own research and be interested in their own field? If he said she was stimulating public interest and left it at that it would have come off as far less sycophantic. I took a couple of psych courses at university also; I don’t parlay that into trying to become some sort of expert since my degrees are in other areas.

    • Becks1 says:

      That part made me laugh too – “it emerged that Kate studied some psychology” – I took a psych class in undergrad too, does that mean I can say I “studied psychology?” (which I would never say because one psych class doesn’t really amount to much, especially 20 years later….)

      • Sofia says:

        Exactly! I studied Psychology for my A-Levels (final 2 years of High School), but the only time I mention it is when someone else says the same thing. I certainly don’t consider myself an expert and never will.

      • Nic919 says:

        I took a first year psych course as well (and actually covered Piaget, Maslow etc) many years ago too and I would never pretend to be an expert in the topic. I did major in criminology and took enough stats and research methods course to know that her survey was meritless garbage. As stated by Noodles above, the only reason positive comments are being made by real researchers is because they need to funds to do the real work. Not this princess playtime.

  9. Becks1 says:

    Again, I’m just so embarrassed. I don’t blame McCrory – if this is actually HIS life’s work, then he is seeing this as an opportunity to maybe get more funding, or just more publicity, and he is probably excited to have the focus on it due to having a royal involved. but I think he’s ultimately going to be very disappointed considering that royal is Kate.

    I just keep feeling like I’m missing something about this survey. Were there people out there before who said “nah, childhood isn’t important” and now they’re like, BUT WAIT, KATE SAYS ITS IMPORTANT!!!! Is this sparking a large conversation in the UK about the “early years”? What is the end game here? Just for Kate to keep rambling about the importance of a happy family when you’re young?

    • Elizabeth Regina says:

      Right now as a UK resident, this is all I talk about. Until Kate’s 5 big questions, how did we manage the first 5 years of our children’s lives? Miss Rona, health inequalities, poverty, lack of access to decent social housing and childcare, financial hardships etc pale in comparison with the big 4 and a bit answers to the big 5 questions. I just can’t with this woman.

  10. Sofia says:

    I think it would be far more useful if Kate highlighted what others were doing, highlighted that research into Early Years needs more funding and kept it that. She’s not going to advocate for policy changes nor is she an expert so putting a spotlight on the experts would be more ideal instead of trying to say she’s done her own research

    • Elizabeth Regina says:

      If she did that she would have deprived us of a fashion show and new face. And those video os course.

    • Nic919 says:

      Her ego is what’s wrong here. She should have asked parents what kind of help they need and get results on that and then work on going about to provide some of that help. There is no need for half ass research to tell people that early years are important for childhood development. That’s as basic as saying the sky is blue. The fact that she’s talking about any of this as ground breaking shows how stupid she really is.

  11. janey says:

    I’m coming to the end of a degree in childhood and youth studies. Trust me, we will not be looking at this “work” as a credible source nor discussing it’s content. She should be ashamed of herself. She has not become credible in the early years space .

  12. JT says:

    Enough already. This “project” hardly got any coverage outside of the usual RR and this People article, barely. It was all swallowed up with Meg’s article although Kate’s insights still wouldn’t have gotten much coverage because it is bullsh*t. KP should be grateful that nobody is looking at this expensive PR campaign with little scrutiny, because this is most likely what the Royal Foundation funds are being spent on. You can’t effect lasting change in this area without the government implementing policy, like everyone here mentioned already, so they just need to let that go. Take the L and move on from this. We know Kate’s already bored of this.

  13. aquarius64 says:

    So early years in general is getting more attention because of Kate but I don’t think it’s well received. I believe Kate is taking a hit for this.

  14. Lorelei says:

    I so do not understand this push to make her sound like she’s a serious academic who toils away over scientific journals at night. It has gotten so over-the-top that it’s laughable. I did one semester at UCL and I’m mortified that anyone affiliated with the institution is attaching their name to this nonsense.

    She isn’t a brilliant academic, and that’s FINE! Not many people are! Diana wasn’t, and look at the impact she made, which is still remembered decades later. Why are they trying to tell us the sky is red when we can all see otherwise? Why don’t they just present her as she is — she enjoys engagements with children and outdoorsy stuff the most, so have her do more of that, especially with the scouts.

    For all of this bluster about how she’s “studying” every aspect of the field, she would make soooooo much more of an actual, tangible, positive difference to so many children by dressing up in something “princessy” and visiting children’s hospitals, have tea parties or whatnot with them, and go to the bedsides of children too sick to get up. SHE would probably enjoy these types of visits, too, and know that she’s truly making a difference to these children she claims to be so “passionate” about.

    Another thing she could do is auction off some of her clothes with her patronages receiving the proceeds. She’s no Diana so it wouldn’t raise tens of millions, but she does have a lot of fans and I bet it could make a decent amount of money. I recently read that it was actually William’s idea for Diana to auction her gowns off, so he shouldn’t have any objection. But it seems like this is something she would *never* do — it seems like she’d consider it too personal or something.

    But they’re acting like things like that are so below her, and it’s both baffling and infuriating. All they’re doing is spending tons of (taxpayer 😬) money trying to make it look like Kate is the hardest working genius ever, and it’s just insane. Focus on her strengths, because building her up like this is not going to do anything but make her a laughingstock.

    ETA: “This is not a vanity project” is not something they would feel the need to say if they were talking about actual, substantive work. The fact that they said it shows they know that it is exactly that. SMH

    • Becks1 says:

      Your last paragraph – exactly (I just said something similar to you on twitter.) you don’t need to insist that something isn’t a vanity project unless it actually is and you’re worried people figured that out.

      • Beach Dreams says:

        That block of quotes in general was extremely telling. “She’s exposing herself” is such a strange way of describing Kate (pretending she’s) doing actual work beyond her usual photo ops. It’s a damning statement on how she really feels about involving herself in anything that requires more than showing up in an expensive outfit.

  15. Cecilia says:

    They would have had more succes with this if they simply stopped trying to make kate in to something she is not. She says she always had an interest in early childhood development but she doesn’t have the work to show for it. What was she doing those 7/8 years she was waiting for william? She could have actually volunteered in a childcare centre or something but she didn’t. KP needs to stop trying to make her in to the new meghan.

    Why don’t they try something she’s actually interested in, like with Hold Stil? That was a project right up her street. Why don’t they try a project which is a combination of art and education? Seems like kate might actually like it and maybe then she will accomplish something

    • CC2 says:

      I feel like she could have taken an early childhood diploma or something and she would have been praised to heaven and back.

  16. Charlotte says:

    All this is so embarassing.

  17. The Duchess says:

    She’d be a national embarrassment if people cared enough to take notice. As a Taxpayer, all this infatuation infuriates me deeply. All those resources and she still can’t produce a credible and authentic piece of work that will have a significant benefit on actual human lives. The saying ‘often imitated, never duplicated’ springs to my mind when seeing this. She tries to imitate Meghan, but she can never duplicate the results. She thinks she can fool the public with this, but it’s so ironic how the public don’t even care to begin with.

  18. Lizzie Bathory says:

    Did a palace source really say with a straight face that Kate “is exposing herself”? Just when the old girl learned to ditch the flouncy dresses….

  19. What’s eating you says:

    Kate should stick to bread and butter engagements and William also. Not everyone is meant to create an Princes Trust, Invictus Games, smart works clothing collection, etc. Kate lacks the passion and the grit. It was all used up chasing William for a decade.

  20. tee says:

    if they repeat it enough, people will eventually believe it. and im convinced that’s the real point of this endeavor — to give her a purpose and respond to those who ask: what does she do and stand for? i think it’s a smart move that will work out for her, even if she remains void of substance.

  21. Jeanette says:

    She needs to stop competing with Meghan. Nothing “wrong” with cutting ribbons. It’s what she wants to do. Meghan’s cookbook, the Vogue, the SmartWork’s line, that’s a hard act to follow and she doesn’t have to. Just cut ribbons and host garden parties Kate.

    • CC2 says:

      To be fair, i think the Cambridges and the Sussexes are right in doing projects. Eventually when the public starts talking about seriously dismantling the monarchy, they’re going to see through the ribbon cuttings. I mean we already snark about it here. When we think of Diana’s work, we associate it to HIV or Land mines. For Charles, the environment and Prince’s Trust. Harry, too soon to say but most likely the military. I’m still not sure about Meghan because there is Archewell and also women’s empowerment. You want to give the impression that the royals did make some sort of impact in the society, and unfortunately for Kate, she doesn’t seem to shine in anything else besides being a cute Mom or sharing the mental health spotlight with William. So early childhood it is.

      Unfortunately this is not an easy one because it requires some sort of activism and policy changes. My idea for her was to found a charity but she barely shows interest in her patronages, and this is coming from someone who had a soft spot for her.

  22. GuestwithCat says:

    The message they’re trying to put out about Kate in regards to her work is absurd. They’re not supposed to sell HER as some sort of expert on early childhood causes. She is supposed to sell the work of the actual experts to the public, to elicit their attention and support.

    That’s really mostly what Harry and Meghan and other more effective royals do. Charles being something of an exception because he really did develop expertise in his organic and environmental niche. But that’s taken him a lifetime of hard work to achieve.

    Getting back to the other royals, they lead the public attention to the work done by existing organizations and individuals and learn enough to make intelligent commentary. But they’re not trying to pass themselves off as the actual experts. Even Meghan called upon professionals for her capsule collection. She may have curated it, I don’t remember, but we know she was working with an established charity that knew what it needed. She wasn’t sitting there with a sketchbook and then running off to select textiles and sew it all.

    Everything I’ve seen Meghan and Harry commenting on these days, they take great effort to tell us and the people they’re talking to or about, that the work is flowing organically from the ground up and that they’re just there to spotlight it. They tell us over and over that we can do it. We can effect the change. We can be the change. We can make it happen. They never take credit for the work themselves. The message is always “join this effort. You can be a part of something great.”

    And it’s effective. Through Harry and Meghan I’ve seen a light shone on so many amazing people and organizations doing great things. It’s renewed my faith in people.

    But with William and Kate it is all about them. I barely know or remember whom they’re working with because the spotlight is always on them. Harry and Meghan help give people a platform. As did Diana. Even Camilla, Sophie and of course Anne do this.

    It’s just the Keenbridges who have these absurd embiggening stories constantly highlighting their mediocrity. That could change in an instant if they learn how to embiggen the people/organizations who actually do the work and have the credentials and expertise they lack.

    • Julia K says:

      Princess Anne stated in an interview that the younger generation are trying to reinvent the wheel instead of building on work already done by others. She may have a good example here.

  23. Ainsley says:

    No, it won’t make an impact at all.

    As someone with a PhD in the social sciences, I get having to scrap a lot of work post-COVID shut downs (I myself had to start from scratch on SO many projects months-in-the-making, and so did many of my colleagues). But this is literally embarassing for me to read.

    “We explore the perceptions of parents and non-parents on the early years.” Why are non-parents included? If it was propective parents, that’d be one thing, or the more grown up children of older parents. But just randos? No.

    “Nature versus nurture”: valid only if you’re specific on what aspects of nurture we’re talking about. Also, linking the perceptions of parents on nature v. nurture to actual development makes zero sense. There’s no outline of viable parenting tactics examined here. It’s too broad. And the sections following are just rewritten versions of this same section.

    At least they did note socio-economic factors in the “parents feeling judged” question but jfc. That’s not enough to just mention “well yeah, poor parents are more judged”. We need more than that.

    There was also a lot of potential in the sections for mental health & emotional/social supoort for parents. But, again, they tackle this without giving us any specifics. They can actually do far more than gather information about perceptions. They can look into national and local resources, look into self-reported behaviors pre-and-post certain events or changes more specific than just “COVID”. These would have provided infinitely more useful information than what’s given.

    They also had an opportunity to cohesively implement past research by others here. There are a myriad of pre-existing theories and research on the impacts of society, income, psychology, socialization, etc. on parents, parenting, & pre-adolescent development. They could have fucking expanded upon these. But nowhere were these implemented. No one actually asked the experts, as evident by how vague even Ipsos was with the study. While they are leagues better with their research processes & analysis than KP, they were still so very lacking in specifics and only slightly less broad & vague than KP’s FBQs. “We need to educate people more!” What is this, the 60s? We’ve known that in the sciences for literally decades. The same is true for Ipsos’s other findings. But there’s no solutions other than “we need to change as a society”.

    The worst part is that KP is in a place to make some kind of actual, serious changes to what their gov’t can do and offer for families & children, and even the greater public. They could advocate and press British representatives for more social services for the general public, and increase welfare for those that are hit the hardest. But they don’t. They just think “awareness” is enough. But there’s no advice. They basically just want people to say, “the early years is important, and we need to tell more people that (even though our own findings suggest that a majority of people know this already)!”.

    This is the kind of shit that gives social sciences a bad name. Research groups of non-academic “researchers” led by venture capitalists make broad statements that are about as applicable as a wet bandaid. The social sciences are about understanding how things work–be it society, group/individual behaviors, development, politics, and all that–and how they are tied. From there, social scientists almost always give specific suggestions for pro-social improvement. But that implies having followed the right protocols, having met the right scientific standards, and having applied pre-existing research and theories into the studies’ framework. None of this was done.

    Seriously: shame on KP and Ipsos for a lazy, sub-fucking-standard job.

    • Watson says:

      Thank you for this!! Couldn’t have said it better myself.

    • Noodle says:

      @ainsley, I will add that so many factors they mention are impossible to quantify without serious, in-depth study and accounting for outside influence. Even approaching nature vs nurture as a field is asinine in this shallow dive. I don’t see anywhere where they addressed anything with any real depth, apart from parent’s perceptions, with no controls on the parents surveyed. This wasn’t a controlled study. This was a widespread survey they are generalizing, and it doesn’t hold academic water within those generalizations. I can’t see the findings being published in any reputable journal.

      • Nic919 says:

        Can you imagine a peer review of this alleged study? Even ignoring the plagiarism it would be destroyed by any serious person who has studied this area.

  24. Natters5 says:

    There is a great documentary on Netflix called “Babies” . It follows a few newborns into their early years. It focuses on different aspects of childhood development and the studies led by scientists, medical doctors and clinical psychologists. What is shows is how hard and long it is to do a study. So when a Princess comes along and puts out 5 questions and the scientific community is supposed to bow down and claim no one has brought so much to the table as Kate Middleton I laugh. I also feel sorry for the all the people who spent years studying and researching real topics all to get eclipsed by Kate. Its like Kim Kardashian claiming she is going to be a lawyer. If she can bring awareness to a cause that is great and that is what celebrities and royalty usually do. Trying to pretend to be any part of the actually solution is an insult to the real professionals out there.

  25. J ferber says:

    Oh, Jesus Christ, what shit is this? The delusion is strong with this one and her handlers. She’s done nothing! Absolutely nothing. She’s like Melania without the soft porn background.

  26. Poppy says:

    Oh I’ve been waiting for a completely unqualified person to revolutionise the area I work in! It’s such a shame that all Early Years teachers and psychologists spent all that time getting our Master’s degrees – all we had to do was wait for a lazy, upwardly mobile girl to become the new Piaget.

    • Jen says:

      I prefer Vygotsky myself 😉. I mean, if she really wants tackle these issues how about getting the govt to fund children’s centres instead of shutting them down. Seriously, there is SO much research. Nothing will change though if there isn’t funding on a national level to actually implement the research! As an Early Years teacher is drives me mad!!!!!

  27. Lizzie says:

    Not even a 15 minute impact. But I do chuckle so thanks for the laugh to whatever moron came up with and continues with this hot mess.