Princess Kate, who has four homes & a castle, spoke about ‘the cost of living crisis’

The British markets do not like Liz Truss, her government or her financial proposals. On Tuesday and Wednesday, the British currency was in freefall and everything in the British economy seems to be tanking. On Wednesday, the Bank of England began emergency procedures to stabilize the British economy by buying 65 billion pounds worth of bonds. This is on top of the looming energy crisis in the UK and Europe and what seems like a somewhat localized – but still catastrophic – post-Brexit recession in Salt Island. When the new Princess of Wales heard about all of that, she reportedly said “gosh” and “can you test the recession by testing it?” No, what she actually said was deemed “a rare foray into politics.” Because she acknowledged the obvious, that British people are struggling.

The Princess of Wales made a rare foray into politics as she spoke of the need for food banks as millions of families struggle with the cost-of-living crisis. Kate made the comments about the importance of community services during a discussion with volunteers and members of the congregation at St Thomas Church in Swansea – her first visit to Wales since inheriting her new title.

Over the last two years the church has been transformed into a community hub, which includes a food bank, facilities for homeless people, and a not-for-profit café and community training kitchen. The site is also home to the Swansea Baby Basics baby bank, a volunteer-led project that distributes essentials to vulnerable mothers and their newborn babies across the city.

During the visit with husband William, Kate said: ‘With the cost of living crisis, there are a lot of desperate people out there.’

The royal said that the food bank was a ‘lifeline to so many people’ particularly after the pandemic and amid the soaring cost of living.

A Kensington Palace spokesperson told MailOnline: ‘Given the number of visits and conversations that take place during these, we are unable to verify specific comments that are reported upon.’

Chatting with a group of elderly worshippers, she added: ‘What’s so wonderful about this place is that there is such a good mixture of young and old. It’s extraordinary. You have 90-year-olds as well as youngsters. It’s a real family organisation. We need places like this to bring people together, places where people can come and engage. It’s what we need post Covid and with the cost of living crisis. Lots of people are too scared to come an engage so it’s wonderful that you go out to see them too.’

[From The Daily Mail]

The Mail’s headline was “Princess Kate wades into politics.” Imagine if the Duchess of Sussex had mentioned something about the “cost of living crisis” though – the Mail’s banner headline would have been “Woke American Lectures Welsh About Recession Then Returns to Her 74-Bathroomed, $92 million Montecito Mansion!” Because it’s Kate, none of the coverage even dares to mention the fact that this woman already has FOUR homes and she will soon move into Windsor Castle, which has over 1,000 rooms. She was literally wearing a new coat too! And she’s been dripping in QEII’s pearls and diamonds from the very second QEII died. At some point, hopefully very soon, people will start to question this very gross arrangement.

Now, all that being said, I don’t even believe Kate said that sh-t. She never speaks like that at events or during walkabouts. Usually she’s just talking about her kids or how she wants another baby. These quotes feel planted by KP to make her seem “in touch” with the peasantry briefly before she literally took a private helicopter back to her castle.

Another thing… they visited a baby bank and yet again, Kate brought nothing. No baby clothes, no diapers, no baby slippers, nothing. “With the cost of living crisis, royals can’t just give things away to peasants!”

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

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

174 Responses to “Princess Kate, who has four homes & a castle, spoke about ‘the cost of living crisis’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Grace says:

    “Cost of living crisis”. How could a person who has never supported herself even know such a thing exists?

    • Chloe says:

      The grossest part about all of this is that she won’t be criticized. Her fans will hail her as the second coming of jesus and others who might have some braincells will shrug their shoulders. It really does get tiring that in the eyes of the Brits waity can do no wrong.

      • AnnaKist says:

        She and her adoring solo was think these types of speeches make her very relatable: “Aww, she hasn’t forgotten where she’s come from! Ooooh, she’s like one of us!” She has, and she’s not.

        Hopefully this is still a honeymoon period for the Wails’, and once the mist lifts people will remember what a boring, lazy madam she is.

        Does anyone know what is to become of Adelaide Cottage now? Are they still living there? If not, what was the purpose of it?

      • BlueDot says:

        Except she has her critics in the real world and on Twitter. They’re not going to be popular in Wales. They’re not popular anywhere else in the UK. The press just gives glowing coverage because they need a hero and a villain.

        The only place I see extreme fans who think she walks on water is Twitter and then Meghan has the same thing. Twitter is just a cesspool of pitting groups against each other and far removed from reality.

      • Flower says:

        @Chloe – I am not sure that is what is happening. Rather I think the way that media ownership is set up in the UK, is what gives everyone the impression that Kate is faultless because as we have seen her faults are never reported in UK media and especially not in the BRF paper of choice the Fail.

        Take for example the walkabout – the papers spoke endlessly about Meghan’s interaction with the courtiers but not a peep about how angry and threatening Kate’s behaviour was on the day or even her coldness towards William.

        But the whole of social media noticed it and there were memes and tiktoks galore. By now the whole of the UK know about Bill’s extra curricular activities and the frostiness in their marriage but the media will not talk about it and by default it does not exist.

        But I can guarantee that if there should be a decision for these two to formally separate, Kate will be toast. Commentators from across the globe will have a vault of incidents to pull from and like I have said before Kate does not have the mettle to deal with what Meghan has sadly had to endure.

    • EllenOlenska says:

      Ding ding ding! That is absolutely the part that hits me the most. It’s possible to possesss a great deal and still be aware and informed about issues you don’t have. But Kate has never, ever paid for her own existence. She has never once had to match her lifestyle to her paycheck. She’s been subsidized by her parents ( and maybe her uncle) and the crown.

    • SussexWatcher says:

      She doesn’t know anything about it, Grace. And there is no way she made those actual comments as they’re far too articulate. She has never once spoken in such long sentences or with such clarity, especially in off the cuff remarks! Her more typical is along the lines of “can you test the smell by smelling it” or getting the name her own charity wrong so there’s no way she said those quotes, and not because they’re “too political” either.

      • swirlmamad says:

        The funny thing is, the comments aren’t even all that articulate. Honestly, I think my almost-12-year-old would be able to make the same observations. It’s no secret that it’s tough going out there, which leads to desperate people making a lot of sacrifices. But ol’ Katie Keen wouldn’t really know much about that aside from what her aides told her say, now would she?

      • BeanieBean says:

        So Katie Keen noticed that a church was a place for old & young alike? Imagine that. What a concept!
        On another note, would a 40-something use the term ‘youngster’?

  2. Noki says:

    Wow! Is this politics or humanity and common decency to speak to real people about real issues?

    • MF says:

      Yeah, it’s wild to me that the RF can’t even sympathize with people who are struggling financially without being accused of being “political!” If they can’t even do that, what is the point of the RF? (We all know the answer to that. That’s why it needs to be abolished.)

      • DK says:

        Exactly.

        What is the point of their visits to places like this, or William selecting “homelessness” as one of his new pet issues, if not to raise awareness?

        As pointed out, they literally don’t do anything else for these groups/charities/etc (they don’t bring supplies, donate money, perform meaningful volunteer labor, etc.) – their only function is to get media attention on these groups.

        So if the life of royals is all about service, and that “service” is merely highlighting different groups doing the real work of helping the people of the UK, then how are the RF not even allowed to acknowledge the NEEDS of the people of the UK, which is what necessitates these organizations the RF is there to highlight in the first place?

        I mean, if Kate can’t say “There is a real need for this community hub I’m here to draw your attention to,” then honestly wtf is even the purpose of the RF?

  3. Ginger says:

    Again, Kate is such a garbage human being. Ms Early Years went to a baby bank during a cost of living crisis and brought nothing. Wow.

    • fishface says:

      Nailed it.

    • C-Shell says:

      My god, she’s WORTHLESS. Every time, **every** time Meghan and/or Harry show up at a charity, they bring things, food, donate money AND pitch in to work. This one grimaces terrifyingly at small children and mumbles unintelligibly. There’s no effing way she articulated those thoughts in a manner that could be understood, let alone quoted.

    • Noki says:

      Are they not allowed to physically take stuff? I remember that William also said something along the lines of ‘ we cant offer anything..’ when they went somewhere else too. Maybe they dont want any possible liabilities with bringing any goods and donate funds instead.

      • Beverley says:

        It’s doubtful they ever donate funds. Their presence alone is supposed to be seen as a precious gift.

      • Concern+Fae says:

        I think it’s one of those things that was seen as inappropriate in the Victorian era, so the royals still don’t do it. Sigh.

        I can see how it would turn into endless sniping in the press about how they brought X to Y charity, what about Z? Also, they are cheap AF.

      • SURE says:

        “He also gave us a very generous donation of things we were short of, like oatcakes, shortbread, sugar and suchlike.” This was said of Charles who visited a food bank in Scotland on 29 July 2022

      • equality says:

        @Sure So it is allowed and now that they have the duchy funds they should be able to do it. And Kate has brought home-baked things before, which would be more of a liability issue.

      • SussexWatcher says:

        Noki, that’s not correct. They could bring things if they wanted/cared. Kate once donated a baby hamper filled with baby items…that someone had given her (she regifted it). And they/she once copied Meghan by bringing banana bread (or something similar, after Meghan did that) to some volunteers.

        So they definitely are permitted to bring things. They just don’t because they’re lazy and don’t actually care about the people or charities that they’re visiting. They don’t prepare in advance so don’t consider things that would actually help the places they’re going. And we know their staff is so incompetent and lazy that the staff is also not thinking up ways to offer more than a smile and empty platitudes.

        In short, Peggington and Kkkeen are useless and do not care about anyone but themselves.

      • Green girl says:

        This raises a question for me: What happens to the gifts that well wishers give royals during walkabouts and the like? I’ve read that sometimes the royals get tons of stuff from fans and I doubt they can use all of the gifts. Where do the gifts go? I would hope they are quietly donated anonymously but who knows.

    • SussexWatcher says:

      Now now, she clearly brought her manic smile back out for the starving masses and also those special broody baby vibes. We can see that clearly from the photos. Peggington said that smiles and waves are all they can give, so let’s not get greedy now.

      • Carrie says:

        Maybe they gifted a photograph of themselves like they do on overseas trips. Or is that patronising shit reserved mainly for brown/black Commonwealth countries?

    • HeatherC says:

      Brought nothing and did nothing. She could have helped pack a box or something at least

    • North of Boston says:

      Also, are those babies old enough to have gotten COVID vaccines?

    • Aeren says:

      But they took a basket of Welsh food!

      • QuiteContrary says:

        I noticed this, too, Aeren. They accepted a basket of Welsh goodies. But they didn’t bring anything to contribute.
        With the money they have, they could have brought new appliances … a van for transporting goods to people in need … a whole fleet of vans. They could have brought formula, which is more expensive than ever, and pallets of diapers.
        The Wailses are the worst.

    • Aeren says:

      She brought her grinchlike smile. It’s like she doesn’t know how to act in public. Don’t miss William’s face at the 17 second mark in the video while she’s talking to the children.

    • KFG says:

      Literally twitter has been roasting her and the egg for not bringing anything or speaking any Welsh and for literally “listening and learning ” about the poors.

      • KP says:

        A few people on Twitter is not being actually criticized by newspapers and morning shows. It doesn’t register minus making those who don’t like her feel good for a sec.

      • Becks1 says:

        @KP I partially agree with you – being criticized on Twitter is not the same thing as the newspapers and morning shows etc.

        But i disagree that it does not register – someone at KP definitely notices, especially when some of the criticism gains traction with blue checks. Someone on twitter noticed two weeks ago when the clips of Harry from TMYCS were going around again with millions of views and the prevailing comments were “no wonder he left.” they definitely noticed the pegging rumors, etc.

    • JDMyrick says:

      She brought her Princess of Wales title and showed off her new red coat.

  4. Kokiri says:

    No way she said that. There’s no way she has an inkling of what’s happening in the world.
    There’s no curiosity there, no desire to learn or help.

  5. Mamasan says:

    She has kicked the condescension into high gear.
    She probably kicks her dogs to stave off hunger pangs.

    Sorry. I just can’t with this one.

    • S & Spice says:

      Re: She probably kicks her dogs to stave off hunger pangs.

      🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

  6. lola09 says:

    This bitch… I just can’t even. It’s not even like she would have had to nip into Boots to buy some nappies herself but she couldn’t even be bothered to ask one of her staff??

    Wouldn’t it be great if all 4 homes could be turned into affordable housing? Given than, y’know 1,000 rooms is probably enough for one family (even if parents are separated!)

    Obviously would be a drop in the ocean for the housing and cost of living crises but it would be a nice gesture.

    • LizaLou says:

      And the cost of her clothes! Her average unremarkable day dress costs 7000 pounds. What they could do with some of that money alone!!

  7. The Hench says:

    KP: “A Kensington Palace spokesperson told MailOnline: ‘Given the number of visits and conversations that take place during these, we are unable to verify specific comments that are reported upon.”

    Translation: For the love of God, woman. If there’s one thing we can usually trust you to do, other than turn up with buttons and hair that comes with its own luggage, it’s NOT to say anything political or vaguely about the real world. Stick to hugging babies and talking about how George likes food banks…oh no, wait…

    • IForget says:

      Yep, this is it. It’s hilarious though, shouldn’t Kate be able to remember what she said, and then pass it along to her bosses to confirm or not?

      They can certainly confirm whether she has a wiglet, or whether she has botox.

      Things that make you go hmmmmmm……..

      • The Hench says:

        I think she did say it, if it was reported by whoever the Royal Rota person was there that day. They follow them around, noting everything and they do not, repeat not, put words that they did not say into their mouths on pain of losing their access. What happens is the opposite in fact – as when the RR reported Will’s unbelievably stupid comments about war in Europe. Quite rightly, there was backlash and KP then forced the journalist to retract and make up some nonsense about what he thought he heard/misheard/misinterpreted.

        So my money says that, if they’re reporting she said it, she said it. If there’s a huge furore over it then retraction/denials will be coming shortly….

      • IForget says:

        I would honestly respect her so much more if she stuck by it, and said ‘yes there is a cost of living crisis. I’m so sorry there even needs to be baby banks in the first place. I can’t imagine how difficult this is. How can I help? What would you like me to do? How can we support you? How can I encourage others to support this? How can we engender community spirit without it having to come from a place of desperation to meet basic needs?’

        If she doubled down on it and was like ‘yeah we have humanity, it’s hard to watch’ I’d think there was hope after all.

    • Ginger says:

      Which is translation for: Kate has no idea there is a cost of living crisis in the UK, she is too busy raiding the Queens jewelry to care of what’s going on.

    • Becks1 says:

      Its funny to me bc what she said was actually pretty benign (maybe scandalous that she’s acknowledging there is a crisis to begin with?) but KP walks even that back.

    • Nic919 says:

      If KP hadn’t intervened with this comment I might had thought she never said anything, but KP’s intervention suggests she did say something.

      It still wasn’t much of anything because they want the focus on kate wearing a new red coat called Spencer. As if that helps anyone who is using the food banks.

  8. ThatsNotOkay says:

    1789 France would like a word….

    Royals never learn until it’s too late.

    • Yep- did you see the comments on that article? Even the bots couldn’t keep up. Either their PR was drunk or Willy threw a tantrum and demanded they be allowed to do this visit.

  9. Tessa says:

    She is so patronizing and fake

  10. Beverley says:

    She most definitely never uttered those words. She hasn’t the ability to string those sentences together. Besides Kkkhate cares for no one and would probably need to be briefed about economic hardships and suffering. She’s never wanted for anything. She has no curiosity nor empathy, and arriving empty-handed: she brings only her manic smiles and hideous wiglets.

  11. The Duchess says:

    Give us your palaces and hand over your personal wealth then, Kate. If you’re so bothered. She’s as fake as press-on nails!

  12. Snuffles says:

    Quick! Pretend you care so the peasants don’t storm the castle this winter!

  13. sparrow says:

    Kate Mrs Politics Middleton is far behind. I was so angry when I saw this article in the papers that I couldn’t read through, but I think she made the facile remark that we need more foodbanks. If she had her head screwed on right, she would be thinking food banks are a disgrace and we don’t need more; what we need is better policy to ensure people have the wages to buy food. In real terms, food banks make things worse; the government gets by with awful welfare, relying on charitable members of society to set up and give to food banks. Food banks aren’t the answer, they are part of the problem, Kate. She is so thick. Given all this, I make donations to food banks because they are a necessary sticking plaster. Here in the UK people are choosing eating over heating, sending their kids to school desperate for their school lunch, closing business because they can’t afford the overheads. One of my charities is Church on the Street. She visited it earlier this year. She has no idea about the magnitude of their work and will have forgotten all about it.

    • Sophie says:

      Thanks @sparrow, I also mentioned this down below! It is astounding how these people are so disconnected from reality…

    • equality says:

      Did she donate anything to your charity?

      • sparrow says:

        I don’t think the BRF can make donations; I think their position is to highlight issues by picking out charities. I don’t even think she is a patron (although their patronages have been shown to make no difference in terms of bringing in money from the public, anyway). I think it was a one off visit. At the time I thought, great, this will bring in a flurry of donations, but I suspect not. I was a donor before she went to COTS. I wonder whether it was here that she saw the work of food donations and came up with the idea that they are great. Food banks shouldn’t exist. They are shameful. They are also highly controversial in terms of taking up some of the slack in providing for those who can’t make ends meet, a duty of the government not members of the public. If that didn’t occur to her at the time, it should have occurred to read up on it or remember that it isn’t within her remit to make remarks such as this. It’s a bit of a slap in the face to COTS.

      • Becks1 says:

        They can make donations. Both Charles and Camilla made personal donations to charities related to Ukraine, I believe. Now they obviously don’t want that to be the norm or expected when the gift of their presence should be enough, or when they can funnel money through their foundations, but they can make donations.

      • sparrow says:

        This is to Becks1. That’s interesting. I didn’t know that. I can imagine Camilla’s position in donating financially at that point was easier than Charles’. The committal of royal money is hugely controversial – it can bring in claims of lobbying and allocation of money that is sometimes hidden beyond public record in order to keep government from questioning personal v public funding.

    • abritdebbie says:

      @ sparrow the worst thing is this government has yet to confirm that they are going to be increasing benefits in line with inflation. Just hope the foodbanks can keep up. It is going to be a very rough few years and I’m personally scared of what is going to happen.

      • sparrow says:

        I’m with you. It started with Austerity and has never picked up from there. What more can we take? I see someone like Rees-Mogg smiling his head off and I want to scream.

      • A says:

        Saw on Twitter just now that the PM is “defiant” and is going to curb benefits to fund the budget. It’s the headline on The Times today for Sept 30.

        Wishing you all strength in these trying times. Baldy and Weasel can, once again, f-ck all the way off. The fact that Weasel strolled up in her tax payer funded coat to talk up food banks in favour of a govt that’s continuing to destroy the lives of the poor in the UK is honestly criminal at this point, and I said what I said.

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        A, OMG, she’s also going to destroy people who are above the “poor” economic status, because everyone is going to be affected by the high costs there. This is exactly what the extremists in the US want to do, too. I can’t even imagine what the UK will be going through this winter and the years to come. What is their end game? Do they want more homeless? Do they want more children and adults going hungry or freezing . . . or both? Why do they think this is something to embrace as a goal?

    • A says:

      @sparrow, she isn’t thick, she’s actually doing exactly what she’s being set up to do. Half of her and William’s staff are former Tory party stooges. They hired someone from the treasury dept who had an article written abt him abt how overzealous he was in implementing austerity cuts to civil servants. These are the people who they work with to determine their calendar, who write their briefs for these events, and do the leg work in researching organizations that these two then visit.

      So it it is no accident that she’s saying this stuff. She and William have decided that they want to be the king and queen of white supremacy, xenophobia, and misogyny, even beyond the extent to which the British Royal family represents those things on a good day.

  14. Emmi says:

    The absolute hate and vitriol against her are something else. Is she good at her job? Not really, she’s just not made for it. She’s lazy and doesn’t have what it takes to engage people, which is really all she’s supposed to do. But is she single-handedly destroying people’s lives? No. And before anyone starts on Meghan, that was sure as hell a group effort. The problem is not her, the problem is the institution. The UK isn’t going down the toilet (I say this as a German whose country is also facing some harsh times) because of her or the RF, it’s because of politicians like Boris and his ilk. The hate belongs there. It belongs in Parliament and in board rooms. And our collective feminism seems to fly out the window whenever it’s about Kate, not even body shaming/concern trolling is off limits.

    There’s a LOT to be criticized and I sure as hell don’t think any European country needs a royal family. It’s 2022. But sometimes reading comments on royal posts is really hard.

    I hope this doesn’t get deleted, we’ll see.

    • Beverley says:

      Kkkate deserves all the barbs because of what she’s done to Meghan. She will never, ever get a pass for being a mean, hateful racist.

    • IForget says:

      Nope, try again. I work in an industry in the UK which is, well, not a friend of the public. Well sort of, but I don’t want to give it away.

      Anyway, despite the constraints on me, I do my absolute very best, and push the envelope any time I can. I pick my battles, but I aim to be effective and impactful.

      Has it gotten me a lot of heck? Yes. Is it the right thing to do? Also yes.

      Just following orders isn’t good enough. Integrity doesn’t count if you only have it when it suits you.

      • Emmi says:

        I love comments that begin with a nice condescending “Try again”, that always makes for a good discussion.

        I don’t know what you mean by not a friend of the public but I assume an industry that is working against the common interest? Not sure.

      • IForget says:

        That’s good you love them. Shame is one of the few motivators that incentivises people to do the right thing. For example- the best way to get medical professionals to wash their hands is shame. Gentle encouragement isn’t enough, and for something as serious as infection prevention, or in the RF’s case, stealing wealth, property, goods, and being unelected lobbyists is just as serious as infection prevention.

        Well, my industry is supposed to work for the common interest, but they are generally headed by people who are numbers focussed, as opposed to people focussed. Unfortunately it’s hard to stick your head above the parapet to do the right thing, because it is deeply unpopular, and can have serious negative impacts to those of us who do, but we’re fighting the good fight.

    • Becks1 says:

      Feminism doesn’t mean we support all women, all the time, no matter what. Kate is a garbage person and deserves to be called out as such.

      No one is blaming her for the crisis. People are pointing out that she sounds tone deaf and clueless in her expensive new designer coat before she boards a helicopter back to one of her four homes.

      I do agree that the problem is the institution. But for the time being, Kate is firmly part of that institution and she has fully bought into the toxicity and problems of that institution because she gets jewels and castles in return. She’s a part of the problem and for Meghan, she was probably a BIG part of the problem.

      • Emmi says:

        That’s not my definition of feminism either. But constantly pointing out her physical “flaws” or what people perceive as such is very much against what I personally believe is part of feminism. And reading other posts here, it seems to be what most regular posters believe as well. But with her it seems fine? There is PLENTY to criticize, I’m not against that at all. Her body doesn’t have to be part of it.

        And yes, of course she’s completely tone deaf, the woman has never had to worry about material things a day in her life. We often complain that the RF staying out of political issues makes them unnecessary and I do agree that they are. But this is one reason why they probably should stay out of it. They have no credibility and every time they open their mouths about current issues (see climate crisis and helicopter rides), they seem insane.

      • C says:

        Nobody pointed out her body here, though?

      • Becks1 says:

        Yeah I don’t think anyone here pointed out her body, but I’ll say that I don’t really like criticism of it either, but I do think its painfully obvious that she is not well and needs help and I don’t think its criticism to point that out.

    • dee(2) says:

      I would disagree that the problem isn’t her. She is a 40 year old woman with a ton of privilege to do soft diplomacy, and she is awful at it. I have never once heard them (Wales’) say match our donation up to this pound amount, or announce in advance a visit and do a drive, anything that people “dedicated to a life of service” and philanthropist’s would do. This isn’t about comparison to the Sussexes, this is about comparison to any other royalty and any other person that styles themselves that way, they flat out don’t cut it and deserve scorn and derision for their laziness and at this point malice. I’m going to be honest I constantly ask why do some people on this site look for every possible reason to find some way that this woman doesn’t have agency? It’s always its the FIRMs fault, its the governments fault, its her mothers fault, her husbands, its never she’s not a great person, and its reflected in her actions. That’s not misogyny its honesty. I personally am not responsible for the homeless situation in my city, or drug use, or violence, that doesn’t stop me from volunteering and I’m not doing it in $800 coats.

      • Carrie says:

        Absolutely well said. Thank you. Kates comment made the Foodbank sound as though it was just a wonderful place to socialize. It is indeed great if it engenders community spirit, but there should not be a need for food banks in the first instance.

      • C says:

        ” I’m going to be honest I constantly ask why do some people on this site look for every possible reason to find some way that this woman doesn’t have agency? It’s always its the FIRMs fault, its the governments fault, its her mothers fault, her husbands”
        Exactly, which is why the feminism argument makes no sense.

    • equality says:

      She’s not the cause but she could contribute to the situation to help instead of just visiting. Wasn’t William going to work on homelessness once he was running the duchy of Cornwall?

      • Becks1 says:

        He has to solve racism in football first.

      • sparrow says:

        Becks1 – that is hilarious. He’s also got to explain London homelessness to his wee children who wondered what people were doing sleeping outside in the cold as they drove home to one of their palaces. Good grief.

    • Canadian says:

      Well said!

    • sparrow says:

      Emmi. Yes, these issues are the responsibility of government. But constitutional monarchy, with potential veto but essentially silence in regards to policy, depends on neutrality; its survival within the fabric of Law and Church, and ability to maintain government funding, is to keep off the grass. The collective gloves are off when one of them strays into politics, particularly when their statements are so wide of the mark as to be offensive. Right and left are astonished by her naivety.

      • equality says:

        They drop that neutrality though to be exempted from employment and environmental laws.

      • IForget says:

        Exactly, equality. Upholding a class-based system is inherently not-neutral. By simply existing, they are not neutral. Which is fine (I mean it’s not, but for argument’s sake), but don’t pretend it’s not neutral. If they were neutral, they would not have premogeniture-based ruling, they would give back everything they have stolen, they would not be allowed to lobby the government, as you say as well, they would not be exempt from things such as the Equality Act 2010.

        As Becks1 has said above as well, it’s not feminism to support every woman ever, because that strips women of their agency and personhood. She is judged on her merits, or lackthereof. She asked for this. She was not born into it, like William and Harry and Charles etc. She was not a literal teenager sacrificed to the wolves, having only been on 6 dates with her future husband who was in his thirties.

        I gave just as much vitriol to William for not knowing or caring to know the Welsh language. He didn’t ask to be born into it, however, he accepted the Prince of Wales title, knowing full well for decades that it would be coming.

      • Nic919 says:

        The difference between Kate and Melania Trump is that Kate has an entire country’s media system defending her shallow existence whereas not all US media was in lockstep defending Melania.

        So let’s stop pretending either of these two are anything but shallow insincere materialistic women who care nothing but for status.

        And neither of them is close to being a feminist.

    • C says:

      It interests me how many times people try to use “feminism” as an argument to excuse toxic people.
      That isn’t really how it works.
      One of the ways the RF obscures their political and financial involvement in the UK are their domestic scandals and publicity thereof – something Kate leaned quite a bit into, in quite a racist way.
      If you think that the framework of the government and the operations of the monarchy are not hand in hand and are zeroing in on the former as the “real problem”, and yet feel the need to proclaim some sort of bigger picture image in order to excuse Kate, your perception is a little off.
      Do not forget the Parliamentary process of Queen’s consent by which Charles and the Queen used to vet over 1,000 laws. Do not forget that Parliament made so it that the royals are exempt from disclosing financial information in the Freedom of Information Act.
      “Vitriol” is an interesting word for you to use. I can tell you I have never seen comments here that stated Kate used a surrogate, was the REAL accomplice of Epstein, etc, the way I see in Meghan-hating accounts all over the internet. There is not a lucrative financial industry devoted to slandering Kate, the way there is with Meghan. And it’s particularly illuminating for you to use the word vitriol on this post, where Kate is making a condescending and one-off statement about an economic problem she very much is a part of.

      • sparrow says:

        This is a reply to equality and Iforget. I don’t know how to post directly underneath you both. I agree with you. My reply was to Emmi, who seems to believe nothing is the BRF’s fault in regards to government policy and K’s possible remark shouldn’t be shot down. Yes, there is no true neutrality, it is a supposed neutrality, and my summation was a description of how they have painted themselves into C20 and now C21 Britain and how Kate has therefore fallen foul of their position. They are hugely funded, and disgustingly so, through government grant and a twisted narrative regarding the crown estate and duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. They can’t keep out of politics because it is politicians who keep them going financially. But it is meant to be behind the scenes, and all the more corrosive in that regard. They pride themselves on their neutrality, in exchange for lack of public record, for example their wills being made available. Spouting off makes them vulnerable. She deserves all she gets. And this idea that it is anti feminist to be anti Kate on this and other issues pertaining to her is a get out clause like no other. Are we supposed to defer to everything a woman does because we are also women? Is it wrong to be critical of a woman who is not innocent of blundering about making mistakes.

      • Nic919 says:

        Kate has done everything in her life to uphold the patriarchy including diving head first to be a part of an archaic sexist institution. She then proceeded to say nothing about issues and positions herself as the feminine ideal for regressive conservatives to be used as a model in which to attack her own sister in law.

        Not all women are feminists and kate certainly is not one.

      • IForget says:

        Don’t worry @sparrow, I struggle with allocating my replies correctly too 😀

        The whole thing is just shambolic and needs to go at this point. They are ALL terrible at their jobs. Even the ‘good’ ones (i.e. harder working ones) like Anne are still more problematic and ineffectual than they’re worth.

        Abolish the monarchy, give them all a stipend to live a few years while they get jobs in the private sector. They did it to Harry right? Ergo, they should have no problems doing it to themselves or each other.

        If they want to be philanthropists, they can do so… on their own dime, as it were.

        They want to be horrible at their jobs? They can suffer the consequences in the real world, and get better. They need to be better.

        Even in these stressful times of COL crisis, Brexit, war on our doorstep, record inflation, etc. etc., they could be a stable mainstay to build and promote initiatives to cope with it. Do that cringey British thing of ‘keep calm carry on’ and demonstrate how they’re committing to being one of us and how they understand our plight, and that they’re not some Marie Antoinettes who are only able to ‘bring smiles and handshakes.’ But that would require actual effort, so…

      • JaneBee says:

        @C 👏👏👏

    • crank says:

      A commenter on another thread yesterday nailed it- Kate is the poison that began the hate campaign against Meghan, and hire dire behaviour as a human being in general is why there is so much vitriol against her. And tbh yes the government, brexit, invasion of Ukraine has caused the situation in the UK, but this woman has 4 houses, helicopters, limos, range rovers etc etc etc so when she talks about the cost of living crisis in an attempt to empathise it is seen as fake and is criticised. if William, Charles or any of the others made these comments, if a Tory MP made these comments they would also be ripped to shreds.
      And deservedly so.

      • sparrow says:

        Yes, Crank. Someone upthread suggested it was anti feminist to be anti Kate. But actually, it is anti feminist to think that she is so meek, mild and unworthy of censure that she can get away with this stuff, unlike one of her male peers. Oh, sweet English Rose and her silly little head…blah blah blah

      • Nic919 says:

        It’s pure gaslighting to pretend the woman we saw in many videos in the past few weeks is in any way meek or docile.

    • Beach Dreams says:

      …Another day, another commenter trying to defend and make excuses for a terrible, racist white woman (this time with the good old “it’s not feminist!” argument). If Kate getting rightfully called out on her behavior disturbs you, Canadian, and anyone else who agrees with you so much, scrolling and skipping the comments are always good options.

    • WiththeAmerican says:

      @Emmi You’re so consistently defensive of Kate and the UK monarchy. Why?

      The problem with the Tories is directly related to the monarchy. The Tories hide behind and enable the monarchy, and they own the garbage tabloids that attack anyone who doesn’t walk the Tory line.

      I don’t see anyone doing what you’re citing against Kate here, but FYI, not all women are feminist and Kate certainly isn’t. She represents the epitome of patriarchy and privilege. She actively keeps other women down.

    • Lizzie says:

      In my book feminism is women and girls being treated equally, in law, sports ,workplace, life in general, with men and boys. I can and do speak out against anyone, man or woman, who has fully participated in a multi-year smear campaign so extreme it drove her SIL to thoughts of suicide. You seem to want to give Kkkate a pass on that but blaming everyone except the woman involved is the opposite of feminism.

    • Carrot says:

      A grown-ass member of the human population at age 40 with tremendous resources — Kate has no excuse for hoarding. By now, what’s obvious is that she actively chooses not to share. She’s had many years to look beyond the end of her own nose and see people in need.

      On a basic level of human kindness, Kate gives nothing of herself to make her surrounding community better

    • SMS says:

      I agree Emmi. The institution is cruel to all of them. Queen Elizabeth undoubtedly loved her sister and look what the institution did to her. Families can be very messy and that’s magnified tremendously when there’s so much money and the press is all over them. There’s seldom a complete Saint or total sinner.

      • vertes says:

        QE loved her sister but did nothing to help her. Some “love.”

      • Nic919 says:

        Kate chose to belong to the institution and she can still leave if she wants to. But she doesn’t because she likes the access to power and riches and do little work.

        Kate’s new outfit today is money that won’t be going to the food banks and underprivileged in the UK. But yes let’s praise another red coat as if it isn’t more bread and circuses to fool the peasants from realizing how this family has taken so much from them. Trump supporters and royalists really are the same when it comes to being suckers and fools to the rich who take from them without regret.

    • A says:

      “The UK isn’t going down the toilet (I say this as a German whose country is also facing some harsh times) because of her or the RF, it’s because of politicians like Boris and his ilk. ”

      Then why the f-ck is Miss We Need More Food Banks parroting Tory party policy when it comes to poverty then? Because that’s exactly what she’s doing here. She’s saying something that, more or less, is an expression of support for the Tories destroying social security in Britain. You might want to read some of the other comments on this article. Many of them explain exactly what the issue here is.

      Her and William might not be the ones setting and pursuing these harmful policies, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t to blame when they openly go out and promote those policies. They are willingly going out as a friendly face among the people, to basically launder what is actually an egregious policy as a whole. And that IS damaging.

      ETA: Also wanted to point out–it’s not a coincidence that they’re going out to do this now. There’s just no way that the day after the PM tanks the economy, these two go out and conveniently talk abt how there needs to be more food banks (so that the govt can keep implementing austerity measures and continue to not care abt poor people), and the two are unrelated. Again. These f-cking Tory stooges. I really can’t.

      What she said here is her expressing a political position on something, and the position she’s taking is harmful. It’s cruel. It’s negligent. She doesn’t need to be Priti Patel, smirking into the camera, telling the people that the government is not responsible for people being poor, to do harm. Her lending her support to such policies, and her going out to do an engagement at a food bank in this way, is not innocent, and it’s very very telling to me that people want to come out here and defend how “harmless” they think this white woman is.

  15. Scorpion says:

    🤣🤣🤣 Oh dear, oh dear!

  16. Sophie says:

    Um, how about no? Instead of petitioning the pitiful government we have, instead of using their so-called soft power, the only thing to say is that food banks are needed during this cost of living crisis? How about paying people enough that they don’t have use for food banks? The same with energy and people on benefits, etc.. But no! She doesn’t know anything about trying to make ends meet or to not have food in order to feed your children or to not to have heating on. Go on Kate, live in your ivory tower, totally disconnected from reality!

    • SURE says:

      Given the economic climate and low rates of pay by the Windsors, I wonder if any palace staff have had to seek assistance from a food bank?

      • Sophie says:

        Well @sure I’d bet that the lowest in the food chain would definitely go to a food bank! If you are paid around £20,000 pa, I don’t think you could live in London without needing a foodbank or benefits or something!

  17. Tessa says:

    She shows up in expensive outfits and then there is spin about how she wore it twice ridiculous

  18. Ginny says:

    Do they really think people have already forgotten that food banks were closed for the funeral? That’s still fresh in my memory, so it makes her comments — which would otherwise be fine, true, whatever — ring pretty hollow.

  19. Becks1 says:

    I’m going to disagree with others here and say that I think she did say this. It’s such a canned, predictable comment. She could have heard it on the morning shows as she was drinking her morning bloody mary or whatever or saw a headline in passing. There’s nothing deep there, nothing helpful, just “cost of living crisis” and “desperate people.” I bet if someone had followed up with “what does cost of living crisis mean?” She would have turned full mumbles. This seems like a canned response that someone on her team felt was probably safe for the setting.

    When it got leaked to the press and spun as “politics” that’s when KP had to walk it back.

    • Kyle O says:

      My thoughts exactly Becks1

    • Harper says:

      Exactly. While looking at her own coverage in the tabloids, Kate probably saw a cost of living headline flash by out of the corner of her eye. I also think it is possible that they have been regularly briefed on how well the peasants are accepting the fourth home. I have seen phrasing multiple times that the Cambridges are aware of the cost of living crises in articles talking about the move to Adelaide, so they know that lip service is necessary to quell the mob.

      Or, it could be Kate’s stilted, short-sighted way of trying to imitate Princess Di’s enormous empathy.

    • SussexWatcher says:

      I just can’t see how she could come up with this when she can’t even read clearly from a cue card that has, like, 4 words per card. ‘Good morning and…(flips card) thank you for coming…(flips card) today.’

      How could she possibly have memorized something so articulate and with so many sentences at once? I just can’t see it. I think someone, somewhere wants to pretend she has more gravitas than she actually does.

      • Becks1 says:

        Oh I don’t know if she said the nonsense about the mixture of young and old etc. That seems way too articulate and thought out for her, LOL.

        But I can totally see her team saying to her “mention the cost of living crisis and that you know how desperate people are” bc that is something canned she could memorize and then spit back out. As long as no one asked her follow up questions, lol.

  20. Fredegunda says:

    Maybe politics is different in the UK, but…I don’t see anything political in her statement? It sounds like she is just reciting facts: a cost of living crisis exists and foodbanks are a lifeline in such times. Are these two statements being interpreted as a jab at the Tories’ policies? That’s really stretching it IMO.

    • C says:

      Lol. Cost of living and food prices are political everywhere. It absolutely is seen as a jab at the Tories by some and horribly out-of-touch by others.
      There was just a huge funeral where food banks were closed and millions of taxpayer pounds were spent on it, for one woman who once requested money from British poverty funds to heat her palaces.
      Of course, it’s political.

    • sparrow says:

      I think it’s more a general disgust that she thinks food banks are a good thing. Their work is brilliant but should not be needed. I give to food banks but am also aware that my donations are letting the government deflect its responsibility. Raving about food banks sounds all well and good, but it is a loaded topic. If it was said, it comes over as straying towards “let them eat cake”. It is naive and not thought out, and therefore typical of someone with money and not forethought. In that regard she sounds right wing to me, not left; there is no way she has been brought up as anything but Tory.

    • Fredegunda says:

      So she is making a jab at the Tories by commenting on the cost of living while simultaneously supporting Tory policies by raving about food banks?

      • C says:

        I can’t tell if you’re trying to be disingenuous or not. Obviously she’s not trying to make jabs but they are perceived as such.
        Maybe you missed the statement of Tory politician Lee Anderson who recently stated food banks are unnecessary and only for people who “don’t know how to budget”? and the cuts to meal programs by Tory politicians in general?

      • sparrow says:

        Fredegunda. Kate was not making a jab at the Tories at all. She has pulled “cost of living crisis” out of the general discussion in the UK and put jolly food banks into the mix to come up with a naive comment. Kate sounds political here but isn’t. Kate is no radical; it’s highly flattering to think so. In regard to food banks being Tory policy. They aren’t. They are a hidden element of life in Britain under the Tories. Kate would not understand that they obliquely limp along underneath the day to day struggles created by Tory policy. As C says, I don’t know whether you are trying to dance on the head of what you assume is a clever pin, or whether you really aren’t aware of what politics are like in the UK, as you said at the top.

      • Fredegunda says:

        My point was that she said something that can be twisted to mean two opposite things, so while COL may be a political topic inherently, her statement is fairly chameleonic.

        I don’t live in the Anglosphere and don’t follow the minutiae of UK politics so have no idea who Lee Anderson is nor meal program policy there. Having said that, I’m sorry that you have such incompetent and callous politicians.

      • Fredegunda says:

        @C – Thanks for your further clarification. I did not realise that food banks are such a politically charged topic in the UK. The COL discussion where I live is not apolitical, but undertaken in a very different way. For the king to express his sympathy for people who are suffering due to government policies (for example during the Covid lockdowns) and to praise the work of volunteers who work to mitigate those issues is considered empathetic not political.

    • aftershocks says:

      @Fredegunda: No, to your initial query about whether Kate’s reported comments about the food bank were being interpreted here as a jab against the Tories. It’s quite the contrary, per my reading of the intelligent commentary in this thread. Far from being a jab to the Tories, KP handlers apparently erroneously instructed Kate to make these comments in part as a cover for the Tories’ cruel, failing policies. As usual, KP embiggeners clumsily thought such inept patter would make Khate seem caring and engaged. 🙄 That her reported comments have backfired, is frankly unsurprising and inevitable.

  21. Amy Bee says:

    I agree with Kaiser that the comments were probably planted. She’s a lightweight and I just don’t think she has the awareness to talk about those things. If she was conscious of the cost of living crisis she would have brought some items for the foodbank and the baby bank.

  22. Eurydice says:

    If these utterly benign comments are considered “a foray into politics,” then just imagine how hamstrung is the royal family. Probably, a donation would have been called a constitutional crisis. Still, that’s the tabloids, and there’s no excuse for keeping at arm’s length like that and not setting a good example.

  23. Lauren says:

    They went to a baby bank during a cost of living crisis & brought nothing? They visited a food bank & did nothing. One 4 hour volunteer shift at a food bank accomplishes the following:
    • Makes 360 boxes
    • Which hold 11,160 LBS of food
    • For a total of 9,300 meals (4,368 meals feed a family of 4 for a year) 🙄

    It would have been better if they showed up and did some actual volunteer work to help out these charities which are probably stretched very thin due to the situation for normal people in the UK.

    • JRenee says:

      While I’ve donated and volunteered packing at a food bank, it’s far more rewarding to do the food packing. It’s demanding but you leave feeling the impact of your work…

      • Lauren says:

        I 100% agree I volunteer at food banks 2-4 times a year and yes, it is a lot of work, but it is 100% rewarding. Wouldn’t it have been amazing to see the Wales roll up their sleeves and do a few hours of packing food… the PR would have been way better. After a few hours they could have posed beside all the boxes they packed and bring better awareness to the initiative!

    • Elizabeth says:

      Didn’t they do something similar to that when Will & Kate went to visit Denmark? They packed boxes with Mary and Frederik?

  24. Athena says:

    Isn’t it wonderful! Aren’t you blessed to be poor and in need, this way you get to come to this wonderful place and have company. Look at poor little old me all by my lonesome self in one of the many homes at my disposal. You know, Louis my little one would love this place, he’s always “poor man” when the kiddies play “ Rich man Poor man”.

    You’ll never see me here again and I won’t give you or your needs a second thought after I leave here, but yes it was grand that you got to meet me.

    • sparrow says:

      Athena. You have hit the nail on the head. This was not a dig at the Tories. This was a happy go lucky comment about how great food banks are and isn’t it wonderful people come together. She hasn’t a clue and as soon as she gets home it’ll be all forgotten. A bit like W’s comment about driving through London with their kids and one of the kids asking what people were doing sleeping on the streets. It makes the BRF look more out of touch than in. She is no political crusader; she is a clueless poverty tourist.

      • A says:

        The Tories want people to rely on community and religious organizations like these for their charitable needs. They encourage and promote these sorts of things as poverty alleviation efforts, so that they can then easily and successfully cut benefits and decimate the social security net for the poor in Britain. It is a strategy they use on purpose, and that is the context that this visit from these two needs to be understood in.

        In that context, this was absolutely not a criticism of the Tories, it was support for them. This is two people who receive millions from the govt, going around and telling the peasants how they’re doing such a good job for not being “benefits scroungers” and relying on govt handouts.

    • Lucy says:

      It also makes clear she hasn’t been part of a faith community before, the multi generational aspect is one of the rewards. It wouldn’t be a big deal, except she’s married to the future head of the church?

      And you’re 100% correct, their charity “work” is poverty tourism, always. Which is again, a very Victorian/edwardian outlook to have in 2022.

      • Becks1 says:

        Yeah, I went back and read that quote and its weird in the context of a church. Most churches are multigenerational. So has she never attended church regularly or been involved in church activities etc?

        I don’t and I’m not at this point, but for her, being involved in her local church (in Berkshire, in Norfolk, in Windsor) would be an easy “win.” no one could accuse her of being political if it was an Anglican church, she could probably show up once a week and mingle at coffee hour or whatever and would be received well, etc. But nothing.

  25. Conan the Librarian says:

    I liked Kate better when she kept her mouth shut.

    Can I just say that the perma grin she’s had on her face ever since the Queen died makes me want to barf. She’s probably so darn ecstatic because Charles told Willy that he CANT divorce Kate now that Kate is Princess of Wales, or else spend the rest of his life hearing people compare Will and Kate’s divorce to Charles and Dianas. And they would sound awfully similar, and guess who the cheating bad guy would be?

    • vertes says:

      She looks very peculiar when she shifts her lower jaw sideways while grinning. She needs to practice in front of a mirror.

  26. Eyeroll says:

    Even if she did say this, I’m not sure why it’s deemed ‘political’ or how it’s news. She stated a fact. Hooray! So weird that this is what’s used to laud her.

  27. Scooby Gang says:

    What a flipping dipsh*t she is. She either said these things or she didn’t. My opinion stands either way.

    “Oh, I have a gabillion dollars, but I don’t need to give in some way to help those in need. So long as I remind people how extraordinary it is that old and young can come together and ‘engage,’ all will be well.”

  28. girl_ninja says:

    Never worked, never had to worry about bills, or food or shelter. It occurs to me that KKKate may think that work is beneath her. That she be held to a certain standard and that responsibilities that others have to no apply to her. What a lazy bum.

  29. Aeren says:

    HRH The Grinchess of Wales

  30. Harla A Brazen Hussy says:

    #PerformativeFrugality

    • First comment says:

      You are so right Harla.. people are supposed to think that royals spend their time thinking about their problems and finding ways to support them…this comment made by Kate (I’m pretty sure it’s one of the lines given to her by her team to repeat) and the decision for a modest coronation for Charles and investure for William are a combined effort from their marketing team to show that the royals aren’t out of touch and that they are close to people’s problems, they are thrifty etc. They are fighting for their survival..

  31. Brassy Rebel says:

    Cute little girl though!

    • vertes says:

      Cute toddler, but absurdly costumed, presumably by the pajama-clad woman to whom she ran after her performance. Do palace staff select & appoint someone in advance to do something ridiculous? It would have been much cuter to use a child in normal clothing,
      If royals aren’t supposed to accept gifts (looking at you, KC) and everyone knows this, why did they gift basket the Wails? Maybe Kate took the basket back to the food bank as a donation?

  32. aquarius64 says:

    I thought this was a joke when I saw it on my Twitter notice. And the walk back from KP: some minion with a brain cell realized it make Kate look like the reincarnation of Marie Antoinette. Even if the situation in the UK does require redress on the food bank crisis, the message should not come from a woman who never earned a living (Party Pieces doesn’t count), gets around by helicopter, lives in four palatial homes, and flaunted royal jewelry before the late queen was lowered into the royal crypt. If the statement didn’t come from Kate, my tin foil tiara says someone is out to kneecap the new PssOW. My money is on Camilla; she’s had practice on Diana. Carole is a rank amateur by comparison.

  33. Highland pony says:

    I thought the same thing but from her husband to make her look bad at her job

  34. Beautitude says:

    There was a video clip yesterday of her saying the first part. I cannot find it anywhere today, I guess it has been scrubbed. She was sitting at a table with older people and it was a close shot of her talking to them. Ugh, where is the clip?!?!?

    • Anna says:

      I saw it somewhere too. She had the craziest eyes when she was saying this, it looked so weird.

      • BEAUTITUDE says:

        Yes, crazy eyes and weird energy

      • Jaded says:

        It’s on the Fail website. Her eyes are indeed crazy, does she get hopped up on uppers or something to do these visits or is she overdoing the ‘tox? In any event, time to stop with this performative BS because Royals *don’t get involved in the nitty-gritty*. Why can’t she simply call in some of the rota, say she’s starting a fund drive that will help out these food banks and tap some of her wealthy contacts to donate. Her so-called PR people could do the rest. When I had breast cancer in 2016 I contacted almost everyone I know to tell them of my diagnosis and that I was starting a fund-raising drive for the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation. I raised almost $12K. Imagine what she could do if she did something that simple. But as we all know she’s too fecking lazy, fiddling while Rome burns.

      • vertes says:

        It looks as if her plastics doc overdid the eyelift. It usually takes a few months for those to settle.

  35. Steph says:

    She is talking about the importance of food banks? B*tch, your family literally closed them and decided people didn’t need to eat bc your granny in law died. The balls of these people.

    • A says:

      Right? She talks abt food banks and community organizations and how it’s so important for people to have a place to go and get help, during a crisis that was caused BY the government.

      A government which, by the way, has spent a decade implementing austerity measures, cutting critical services and social security benefits for the poor, which is the reason why these community organizations are so desperately important for people. Meanwhile, this b-tch and her family receive millions of pounds of taxpayer money from that SAME British govt to furnish their lifestyle and her 800000 coatdresses that she then wears to go tell the poors how they shouldn’t ask the govt for handouts (which, make no mistake, is exactly what this outing is about, even if it’s not said explicitly).

      Her grandmother-in-law literally got two funerals, with all expenses paid by a British govt that, just a year or two ago, was going to refuse to provide free school meals for children during the Covid outbreak and stay-at-home orders.

      Just. This makes me so mad. Maybe I shouldn’t get this angry abt this, but seeing these two swan around at events like this, knowing what they’re trying to propagandize for, makes me angry. I just can’t with these two willful idiots. Charles might be a twit, but he has the gumption and the decency to oppose the Tory govt and its awful policies on occasion (when he opposed those deportation flights to Rwanda, for example). Baldy and Weasel are willing reactionaries and propagandists for this govt, and that is not an exaggeration in the slightest. Just awful.

  36. one of the marys says:

    This is pure fantasy for many reasons but as I read about what’s happening in the UK I think, why is one of the royals not out there *everyday* visiting and supporting the public, at the food banks, shelters, hospitals, overrun emergency rooms, polluted beaches, water treatment facilities, places like smart works, Hubb kitchen etc etc Bring food, supplies, help clean up, meet people, dig in, support your subjects! This would endear you to people of the new millennium and new generations, or at least shore up support of the public. I can think of so many things off the top of my head. William and Katherine really could be the peoples’ Prince and Princess. I know it’s not going to happen mostly because they look for excuses for it not to happen but my god your subjects are suffering

  37. sparrow says:

    Having worked in social housing builds and hosting visits from local dignitaries, we called this kind of nonsense poverty tourism. I think this is the drive of the new Elizabethans: let’s show we’re in touch by getting to grips with the issues of the day. But they can’t escape the isolationism of their monied lives and come up with remarks like this. I don’t see this as political. I see it as her being clueless.

    • kelleybelle says:

      Spot on, and profoundly insincere … as usual.

    • Anna says:

      Poverty tourism indeed. I am from small, pretty poor city in Easter Europe, but now live in Germany, and obviously my life is much more comfortable that my friends and family from the small city. When I visit, I try not to stroll around in my best clothes, it just feels inappropriate somehow. I cannot imagine going to a food bank in brand new, most pricey clothes and patronize people about the importance of such places. It is mind blowing. They act like most ignorant tourists, just making big eyes, nodding and then leaving to their palace. Why do they even go there? They really believe that just being there does anything?

  38. Pam says:

    Okay…I’m all right with this, and I honestly don’t think speaking up about something that’s a nation crisis is too political. However…shoot, at least BRING something to these places! Or sell one of those 4 homes and donate the proceeds somewhere.

  39. HuffnPuff says:

    I think a better course of action when visiting any sort of charity is to give your time. That is how you learn about people and connect with them. Otherwise anything that you say comes off as out of touch and as someone said “poverty tourism”. All working royals should be volunteering locally especially while their country is in an economic crisis. And she shouldn’t be parading around in expensive clothing. Show the country how to look good with used clothing or at least accessible clothing. Just everything about this family says it’s time to go. I think H&M could have shown them how it’s done but they ran them off.

  40. A says:

    “We need places like this to bring people together, places where people can come and engage.”

    No, what people NEED is an end to austerity measures. What they NEED is a government that invests in a strong, robust safety net that takes care of its citizens. What they NEED is an economic policy that doesn’t tank their currency, one week into the new PM’s tenure, a move that apparently would have sent mortgage payments doubling by the middle of next WEEK, and left pension funds entirely insolvent by the next day, if the Bank of England hadn’t stepped in.

    People need to understand what’s being left unsaid here. “It’s a real family organisation. We need places like this to bring people together, [so that the government doesn’t have to give a sh-t, bc the govt is not responsible for poverty, or for providing services to its people].” Those who know about the Tory party in Britain know that this has been a part of their platform since Thatcher was PM. They implement austerity, cut social services, and choose to put the responsibility for addressing poverty on “local authorities”, “community run organizations”, and “private citizens” instead, bc it’s much more important for them to line the pockets of the already unimaginably wealthy, rather than take care of the most vulnerable in their society.

    Waity and her husband are nothing but Tory stooges, bought and paid off by a complicit media that’s giving them favourable coverage. In exchange, they quietly, but willingly, promote the absolute worst of what the Tory govt stands for. They have willingly become the face of the reactionaries in this culture war that’s being waged in Britain against progressive ideals. Weasel Wife in particular has benefited hugely from the racism directed towards Meghan, that she purposefully fanned the flames of. So she can just shut ALL the way up.

    • Saucy&Sassy says:

      A, and that’s the position that the right wing political extremists in the US want to do here. Murdoch wasn’t happy destroying the UK, because now he’s here doing the same thing with the help of the extremists.

  41. QuiteContrary says:

    She could have handed over her brand-new L.K. Bennett red coat and raised thousands for the food bank she was hailing.

  42. happy45 says:

    Also, William has known that he was the next Prince of Wales since he was a child. Why wasn’t learning the Welsh language part of his education? Charles dropped the ball there. And William could have worked on that at any point these last twenty years. Same with Kate. Once they got married, it would have looked really good to the people of Wales if she had learned some of their language.

  43. ChillinginDC says:

    Child. Let me be quiet. I have nothing good to say.

  44. notblinkered says:

    All this makes depressing reading. Very depressing.
    Yet something does make me think that the British press/media will no longer sit back and let W&K ‘get away with it’, as they’ve done for over 11 years. W&K (and Carole the puppet-master) may be in for an unpleasant surprise from the British press.

  45. Candy says:

    I actually believe she said this. It sounds like her to double up adverbs. She’s always had this sort of weird stunted sentence construction.

  46. Bisynaptic says:

    Harmsworth is sending Kate a warning: don’t talk about the poors.

  47. DrFt says:

    A is spot on.