Princess Kate’s child development tip: ‘Faces are a baby’s best toy’

As part of the Princess of Wales’s week-long launch of Shaping Us, Kensington Palace posted a photo from the Middleton archives. This is a pic of Kate when she was a baby, with her father, Michael Middleton. Kate was the first-born child, the golden child, I believe. Carole and Mike are still preferential towards her, although I buy that Carole tries to run all of her kids’ lives.

Again, she’s not interested in seeing photos from your childhood if you were over the age of 5. The message is clear: if you didn’t get it right in your first five years, you’re going to be terrible forever. And is a “face” really “a baby’s best toy”? Babies are learning depth perception and they’re learning facial expressions, so they will study their parents’ faces and reach out to touch faces. But “best toy” seems… creepy.

Speaking of, the i paper had another interesting op-ed about Kate’s performative, self-centering, insubstantial work. Here’s an excerpt from Ralph Leonard’s “The public is tiring of the Royal Family’s performative philanthropy.”

The Royal Family are supposed to be above politics. But philanthropy is part of their duty too. Putting their name behind good causes helps justify the privileged lives they live, and the status they enjoy. This week though, Kate and William faced backlash after their visit to a foodbank. Though we cannot know whether the couple donated too, criticisms ranged from them turning up empty handed in a luxury car, to questioning the merit of visiting a food bank like one might visit a museum or amusement park.

Perhaps Kate’s recent announcement of an awareness campaign for early childhood development was carefully selected to be above such critique. It’s more universal and doesn’t immediately allude to economic inequality. At first glance, it sounds innocuous, harmless and even quite generous.

The problem with this “major new awareness-raising campaign” though, is that she can’t say anything about what Britain is currently doing wrong. It would open her up to accusations of hypocrisy and undue political interference.

Because of her royal status, she can afford to send her children to the world class £20,000-a-year Lambrook School in Berkshire, which enjoys charitable status (as other private schools do, based on questionable charity work). That school has seen its assets increase by 64 per cent in recent years. And her focus on raising awareness carefully skates past the fact that we have plenty of research on how best to improve child development: by reducing child poverty and educational inequality. But instead, government cuts, staffing shortages and inflation caused around 300 nurseries to close from 2021 to 2022.

…There is ongoing bad press on everything from Prince Andrew’s sex abuse allegations to Harry’s revealing memoir – which makes these visits, and these causes more tempting than ever. Some of you will remember how after that Oprah Winfrey interview, Prince Charles randomly popped up at a multicultural church. As part of his Virginia Giuffre settlement, Prince Andrew made a substantial donation to a charity in support of victims’ rights. I would argue that neither has absolved the royals in the court of public opinion. In fact, when royals invited members of civil society to the palace, it actually sparked bad press after the Lady Susan Hussey debacle.

And the final, perhaps most detrimental threat is the Queen’s death. With her studied neutrality and modesty, and the near-universal respect she garnered across generations she gave the family a veneer of respectability. Even among republicans. But now, speaking up about the shortcomings of the royal family seems more fair game. BBC correspondents have veered dangerously close to publishing opinion pieces about former royals, for example.

The consistent stream of bad publicity could take its toll, especially when the good deeds to counteract it aren’t landing well. Recent polling indicates that, among 18–24-year-olds, belief that the monarchy is good for the country is as low as 33 per cent compared to 61 per cent in 2015, long before the recent scandals. There will be no powerful republican movement any time soon. But as it becomes glaringly obvious that inequality will not be solved by royal posturing, perhaps more people will begin to question what our royal family are really good for.

[From The i paper]

I agree that it’s not specifically a Kate problem, although she’s not helping herself or the family. This is a larger problem of the Windsors’ uselessness, made all that much more glaring in the wake of QEII’s death. Charles’s decades-long scheme to “streamline” the monarchy always presupposed the idea that the handful of working royals would be useful and hardworking. That’s not the case, especially with Charles’s heir and the heir’s wife. As CB and I discuss in the latest Gossip with Celebitchy podcast, for Kate, it’s gone beyond “well, at least she’s doing something.” People expect more, a lot more than this “awareness raising campaign” leading nowhere.

Photos courtesy of KP, Avalon Red, Cover Images, Instar.

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

199 Responses to “Princess Kate’s child development tip: ‘Faces are a baby’s best toy’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Tessa says:

    I wish these writers will stop putting harry in the same category as uncle Andrew.

    • Z says:

      Right!? It’s disgusting the way a pedophile is more protected than a man who simply wanted to protect his wife and kids.

      • TurquoiseGem says:

        I’ve spent nearly a week trying to find something generous to say about Kate’s latest efforts, and have now given up.

        She is just the wrong person to front any kind of campaign intended to convince that she cares about anyone beyond herself and her family.

    • Snuffles says:

      It’s intentional. They want the public to associate Harry’s name with a pedophile. They want all of the negative connotations associated with Andrew to rub off on Harry.

      • BothSidesNow says:

        @ Snuffles, agree!! Harry’s truths has ousted the “invisible contact” with the BRF and they are pissed. To add fuel to the fire, Spare is still on the NYT’s best seller list and shattered records including in the UK.

    • May Bench says:

      Kate is using way too much Botox and her starving looks age her.

    • Caribbean says:

      Maybe the whole purpose to to take the attention away from Spare and in that, she had done her job #SKatingby

  2. The good deeds are not landing well because they are not good deeds. They are nothing more than photo ops.

    • Chloe says:

      And that is the thing. Because even for an awareness campaign it’s is poorly executed. The whole campaign can be summed up in 1 sentence and a fancy hashtag. But where is the information? Why are the first 5 years so important? Where can struggling parents reach out to for help? And what are some of the small things the people around them can do to help? She didn’t highlight any of those things.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        That is because it isn’t really an awareness campaign but a marketing campaign that is supposed to sell Kate to the public as a serious royal with a cause. However, the cause is secondary to Kate’s image.

      • Mary Pester says:

        Chloe, I’m so sick of the press in my country (the UK) making her out to be some of kind of mother Teresa, I have sent an email to the Daily Mirror, which I doubt they will publish.! Telling them it’s about time they started ASKING questions, like, what happened to the 5 BIG QUESTIONS campaign? Why is she copying everything Megan does from clothes and their colours, to useing billboard? Why is she useing celebrities as talking heads and not experts? Why is she not asking questions about why “Sure start centres” were closed down? Why is she speaking to children and not their parents “and How much money has this vanity project cost when the money could have gone to support children’s charities. Maybe she can answer those BIG questions, but I’m not holding my breath

      • Chloe says:

        @mary pester: now those are some valid questions!

      • Elizabeth says:

        There is information on the website, but you are right; they should highlight these resources on the Instagram account, the website address should be included at the end of all these videos, etc. Why are they so bad at this?

      • Lucy says:

        What I would also throw in, is this isn’t even her first awareness campaign. For the exact same issue. She did a campaign last year (or the year before?) Where they had that little typewriter clip, and that’s all I remember. This one is splashier, it’s more than two tweets. And she’s actually appeared in multiple videos. That doesn’t make it effective or anything past a very involved photo opp for her.

        I’ve said for a long time that they aren’t good at charity because they see their presence as the charity and the photos as the point. I doubt they’ll ever prove me wrong.

      • BothSidesNow says:

        @ Mary Pester, I am certain that those looking for answers to her “campaign” are asking the same questions as well!!

      • SomeChick says:

        @Mary Pester, I really appreciate your comments! And your letter. Even if they don’t publish it, someone at the Mirror will at least have to read it as part of their job.

      • Jais says:

        @lucy- I think she’s done an awareness campaign every year since Meghan arrived on the scene.
        -Broken Britain awareness
        -5Q awareness
        -early years center(keenwell) awareness
        -shape up awareness
        Am I missing one?

  3. girl_ninja says:

    Faces are the best toy huh? What about wiglets? How would babies react to that? She’s so unserious and embarrassing.

    • Tessa says:

      I wonder where she came up with that line

      • BothSidesNow says:

        @ Tessa, someone within Keens earshot made this comical comment and she ran with it. I can’t think of any other potential reasons with this fakata tagline as it certainly isn’t based on her own research”.

      • DouchesOfCambridge says:

        the many blindside slaps in the faces inspired this one.

    • First comment says:

      Actually, this phrase was the first practical thing that came from her whole campaign no matter how obvious…. however, the fact that she posted her childhood photo to “advertise”that she had a “perfect ” childhood in a “perfect ” family is quite condescending to the rest of people who had difficult childhood for various reasons.

      • ThatsNotOkay says:

        But it isn’t though. It’s good for the baby to study your face and learn expressions, maybe a little empathy, but you know what’s a far more important “toy”? Talking to your baby all the livelong day. Narrating everything you’re doing and pointing to things and saying what they are. Reading books with pictures and stopping every page to point out the things in the illustrations, object by object, action by action, and REPEATING IT AND REREADING THE SAME BOOK EVERY DARN DAY! It’s tiresome and boring for the parent, but it is magic for the child. THAT’s what’s gonna connect those synapses. And so, going back to the best toy crap, having access to things and books and a parent’s time are crucial. You don’t have to own things, but need access and someone who isn’t food insecure or too impoverished to be able to focus on the baby’s needs. And this is for babies who are not differently abled. Those kids need other strategies. But no, this woman assumes everyone should have or should want what she had because she considers herself the optimal specimen and proof positive that being like her guarantees one success, when she’s actually one of the biggest losers and least admirable specimens the world has produced.

      • Ang says:

        I totally agree. Faces are a baby’s best toy is an excellent tagline, reminding people to engage with baby not plop it in front of a screen. (Or spend ridiculous money on plastic crap).
        Other than that single sentence, I say this whole make work project is laughable and gross, and the monarchy should burn to the ground.

      • Nic919 says:

        This isn’t for all kids up to age five. Playing with faces is a tool for pre verbal kids. By the time they are forming words they need much more than that.

    • Sue E Generis says:

      She’s talking about mirroring. When babies learn by observing their parents facial expressions. A vital aspect of socialization and developing empathy. However, it is not the ‘best toy’, merely one of many vital interactions and experiences for healthy development. I don’t think Kate really understands anything about early development. She just vaguely grasps the surface outline. The way she translates and regurgitates information is very telling. There’s very little going on between those ears.

      • Lady Digby says:

        I have concerns about who Louis was copying when he stuck fingers in his mum’s face and then put his hand over her mouth!!

      • ArtHistorian says:

        If she’s talking about “mirroring” then she should explain it better instead of just condensing this concept to a catchy slogan. As an educator it drives me nuts that her team is approaching an awareness campaign like it is a marketing campaign. Slogans are a substitute for imparting important knowledge!!!!!!

      • Cessily says:

        @ladydigby exactly! Louis saw that behavior from someone because I have never seen a child point a finger in a parent’s or anyone’s face like that, and the expression on his face was very telling. I’ve seen a lot of meltdowns and temper tantrums in my lifetime but that was quite disturbing.

      • BothSidesNow says:

        @ ArtHistorian, that is the crux of Keens terrible “campaign” as she doesn’t have the slightest iota of what she is actually talking about. You are absolutely right that Keen is missing the crux of “mirroring” and has lost any credibility.

        The issue is that Keen hasn’t a clue what her Shaping Up campaign from the actual research and is simply repeating the same dribble over and over. What Keen has produced so far it’s falling faster than the wages in UK.

      • ThatsNotOkay says:

        Yes. Exactly. She is so simple-minded, I’m worried she is going to do more harm than good with these misguided and even inaccurate BS marketing stunts. Bet she refuses even to listen to or consult Pippa on these matters because, like her husband-in-arms, she has to prove to everyone and herself that she’s better than and more of an expert at anything her kid sibling does.

      • Nic919 says:

        When she did the survey she hired a polling company and not an organization specializing in research questions. Any first year psych student would know that how questions are phrased affect what is measured. Her staff ran this like a political campaign instead of how a research psychologist would do it.

        This has been a PR exercise for her image from day one.

    • SadieMae says:

      I actually read about someone once whose preschooler had an old wig as her security object. She’d been playing with some of her great-grandma’s old hats and jewelry and there was a “fall” (sort of a 1960s wiglet) in there and I guess she liked it because it was soft. She carried it around for YEARS. And if they forgot it, she would cry: “My hair!! My hair!!”

    • Julia says:

      What I resent about this is it basically means: don’t put your little kid in daycare, because they won’t receive as much personalized attention (“facetime”) as they would in a home setting with a one-on-one caretaker. And, okay, maybe you could argue that is actually damaging some element of early-childhood development, but what is Kate suggesting people do? Provide parents financial support so they can stay home with their young children? Provide daycare centers with enough money to hire more staff? She’s not suggesting any of that, because it would be “political”. So, basically, her advice is, as always: be a rich person.

    • Lorelei says:

      I was reading a book the other day and one of the characters described another (as diplomatically as possible, lol). by saying, “Reality was not her constant companion” and I swear to god it immediately reminded me of Kate.

    • Rose7483 says:

      So I’m not a fan of this campaign by any means, but this is actually true – I used to work on an early childhood program and we used to say things like this to remind families that they don’t need to buy expensive toys to support their child’s development, because “their favourite toy is you”. Does highlight the fact that there is already extensive early childhood research (Harvard has a great centre dedicated to it for example) – and her campaign is vague and unlikely to solve any problems.

  4. equality says:

    No average person in the world doing paid charitable work gets as many perks or the pay that the RF does. Somebody seriously needs to do a cost-benefit analysis and an in-depth look at the financing of the monarchy. With a look at where the money could be better used to benefit the “subjects”.

    • Jais says:

      Not even sure it’s actually charitable work. They call it a life of service and duty, one that Harry apparently abandoned. But their service is a joke. It’s just one big lie. At some point, let’s be real, the RF is given money to be tabloid fodder and a soap opera that distracts from govt failures. So I guess that’s their service? Partaking in the symbiotic invisible contract. Being a shield for the tories.

      • Eurydice says:

        “Life of service” actually means service to to the King or Queen. That’s why they give out all those shiny medals.

      • Debbie says:

        @Eurydice: Thank you for expressing the full meaning of that saying. And if we think about it, they seem to be saying that their work (and only their royal work) represents actual “service.” But not all people are members of the royal family, so does that mean that people who perform charitable work but are not royals are not serving? That is such a presumptuous position to take.

  5. Tessa says:

    the Kate publicity overload is annoying
    Kate is do stepford and vacuous

  6. Amy Bee says:

    I thought Kate soliticiting under 5 pictures from the public was a terrible idea. Kate assumes that every had a good childhood like her. Even then she doesn’t explain why her brother still suffered from depression if they had such a good childhood. Now that Kate has launched the awareness campaign what’s the next step?

    • Snuffles says:

      The brother is the Rob Kardashian of the Middletons. If he had a vagina to throw at a royal, aristocrat or a rich man, Mummy would have paid more attention to him.

      • Amy Bee says:

        @Snuffles: I’ve said the same thing about Kate’s brother.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Carol(E) would have loved for Missy Percy to fall for him but Missy’s too smart for that. Just like her brother was too smart to marry Pippa. May have taken advantage of the community bicycle as many others did, but wouldn’t marry her esp after his mother made clear her opinion of the Middletons.

    • Chloe says:

      The whole thing was reminiscent of 40×40. Only with 40×40 communities of women actually came together to help each other. And kate wants people to talk about their childhood (personally i don’t remember a thing from age 0-5) but she failed to talk about her own. Maybe if she would start the conversation others might be more inclined to join.

      • Amy Bee says:

        @Chloe: I don’t think Kate’s awareness campaign is anything like Meghan’s 40×40. Meghan’s initiative had a real objective which was encouraging women to help others in tangible ways. She gave examples of how people can help. Kate is just saying the early years is important. Ok.. so what’s the next step? What are we do about that?

      • Snuffles says:

        I have flitting memories of random moments but nothing solid until Kindergarten.

    • Tessa says:

      Kate saying her growing up was idyllic is patronizing. Nothing is perfect

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        I think to kHate her childhood was idilic as the oldest she would have gotten the most attention and opportunities from her parents. The childhood she and her siblings had would have been different, esp with Carol(e) for a mother. I have seen this in families where there is at least one parent who is a narc – the eldest child is usually the golden child.

        Let’s remember that kHate is speaking to a certain demographic with this ‘campaign’, She is pandering to her middle class middle Englander Tory Brexit base – the ones who live in home counties. She is not interested in the poors and their children under 5.

    • Eurydice says:

      It’s self-selective and like asking everyone to be complicit in her performative charity, isn’t it? It’s not likely people in a homeless shelter will have baby pics on them. People who are satisfied with their lives will send in pretty pics to show how well they’ve done and then they’ll feel even more satisfied because they’ve “contributed” to Kate’s cause.

      • Amy Bee says:

        @Eurydice: That’s exactly what happened yesterday. Kate even got a few celebrities to join in. I thought what was even weird was that a few members of the Royal rota posted pictures. That was unprofessional and sycophantic.

      • Lorelei says:

        Members of the ROTA were posting baby pictures?? Good god, how unprofessional.

        ETA @Nerd I just saw your comment below and totally agree. The ROTA have become huge cheerleaders for *anything* the remaining royals do, no matter how pathetic, and not only is it embarrassing to watch, it’s not working. They can try to polish these turds as much as they want, but it’s a lost cause.

    • Roop says:

      @AmyBee, I couldn’t agree more. I don’t have a picture from my 5th birthday to share with the world. I don’t have any photos from my (pretty terrible) childhood.

      But you know what? Despite all of those adversities, I have an excellent education, have a high performing career, make very decent money by anyone’s standards, have a stable and happy marriage, and my kids have had a stable and happy childhood with none of the challenges I experienced.

      Because despite a shitty childhood, you can still achieve great things. This is well-studied and well known. There are reasons for this (like having other adults to look up to when your bio parents aren’t a good role model, etc). It would be nice if she highlighted how to succeed when you don’t have a perfect first five years.

      And I really hate her invasive comments about “share about your early years with people this weekend!” Um, no thank you. That’s very presumptuous and rude.

      • Nerd says:

        Amy Bee I think the Royal Rota are desperate for the leftover royals to shine since Harry and Meghan were forced out so they have been very cringey cheerleaders with everything the royals do. They have become an even bigger PR arm for the royals and are trying to push a global appeal to surpass Harry and Meghan. They know they are failing because the leftovers are stale and dry so they have to be louder and more out there in their approach. It’s like they were kicked out of the cool club so they have to be louder and more pronounced in the leftover crowd to not seem injured or bothered that they were knocked down a peg.

    • BeanieBean says:

      Yes, what happened to him in his first five years, Kate?

    • viviene says:

      deal with teenagers doing crime and drugs , get your hands dirty woman, you are not fooling anyone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  7. Noor says:

    William and Kate are in their 40s . They are experienced royals, aided by senior civil servants and professional staff. They should know very well the limitations of their roles and should not have chosen a life long project like raising awareness on the importance of early childhood where they spend a lot of charity money, produce glitzy videos but make little differences on the ground.

    • SURE says:

      Not sure K’s ever done anything with the intention of altruistically making a difference on the ground. This awareness campaign is very on bland for her. She knows the media just want clickbait images which is why she’s always preening for the cameras. It’s something she’s done since she strutted down the catwalk in a see through outfit hoping to snare W’s attention. Performing for the media is what has actually been her life’s work since she began pursuing W.

    • Mary Pester says:

      Yep and yesterday we were all treated to Bloomberg, talking heads celebrity’s and oh joy, they were all talking about earth sht. They are SO scared of “Spare” and the public buying it in their millions. They are also pssd that there is no talk of THEM and the clownation of chinless Charlie, its all talk of Harry and Megan. Poor little neglected souls

      • Lorelei says:

        People like Bloomberg (what did he even say, btw? I missed that) can try as hard as they want, but that ship has sailed. Spare is out there and many millions of copies have been sold. People are going to form their own opinions.

        The RF might think it’s clever to be sending people out constantly to bash Harry and praise them or whatever, but it’s way too little, way too late, imo. Most people see right through that sh!t now.

        The BRF’s image was already in free fall, from the Andrew fallout and the disastrous Caribbean tour, and imo the Queen’s death was pretty much the end for them.

        Having “Harry and Meghan” and Spare released shortly afterward only solidified many people’s feelings about this family. No one cares what Rupert Everett or Michael Bloomberg thinks; everyone can see for themselves exactly what that family is.

  8. Hail says:

    The creepy claymation “movie” premiered in theatres on Friday. Did anyone hear anything about it, or was it forgotten just like the other arrly yers relaunches?

    • sparrow says:

      Your comment prompted me to watch it. I’ve not seen it before because I thought Kate’s voice was on it, but I girded my loins and pressed play. It is truly awful. The claymation is horrible. Sorry, but the kid is really vile looking. You can animate to look purposefully amateur and child like, to fit the spec, and it comes out brilliantly, but this was awful.

      Another poster said it would have costed c. £100K to make. What a waste of money. There was nothing in it of any purpose or revelation. What was the message meant to be? Things will be a tiny bit tough, like your mum going off to work I presume (talk about an awful message), but you’ll get through it. There’s nothing about growing up in poverty, or without proper childcare; it is such a blinkered view of the minor difficulties of childhood for those with money. And those difficulties are so obvious, they don’t merit retelling in clay because they’re already set in stone.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Sparrow, it was SO BAD. Beyond creepy. How that got approved by…however many people needed to approve it is beyond me. I’m cringing just thinking about it

  9. Afken says:

    Why is the quotation “faces are a baby’s best toy’ unattributed? Who said it? Why don’t they get credit?

    Also, is Kate aware she is positioning herself and her early childhood as an exemplar one? She talks about sharing photos before 5 to bring some smiles etc. what if you are interested in early years because your childhood was terrible or traumatic? Not everything is sunshine roses, climbing trees and making jam. She said this campaign was about getting to the roots of societal problems like addiction. Not nostalgia for an idyllic rural childhood. Anyhoo, that’s what will speak to her Boomer Tory base so good for her.

    • Mary Pester says:

      Afken you are so right, my first years up to the age of 10 were OK. We didn’t have a lot of money, but we were happy, healthy and we ate what my parents could afford. At the age of 10 I suffered a serious sexual assault by a member of the family and I’m afraid to say it wiped out a lot of happy memories for me. The need in children’s lives doesn’t end at 5 and many, many things can impact a child’s life. So maybe looking at things that affect the whole childhood is what is needed, not a First 5 years, vanity project by this vacuous woman

      • BothSidesNow says:

        @ Mary Perster, I am incredibly sorry that happened to you. I too suffered inappropriate touching by my brothers best friend but it was nothing as serious as your sexual assault. The terrible trauma you suffered from is heartbreaking and a traumatic experience, especially for a child. I hope that you have been able to heal and find peace.

        But you are absolutely spot on that the years of a child are crucial past the age of 5. We must protect all of the children up until adulthood and some still need our emotional support as well. That is what is called being a parent.

  10. Steph says:

    This statement feels very exclusionary (I might have made up that word). What about children who are visually impaired? Are they permanently f*cked bc they can’t see faces? It’s not like she’s making an impact with this farce to begin with, the least she can do it promote ideas everyone can use regardless of financial status, ableness, etc.

    Also, I love that they are calling out the RF ‘s uselessness

    • Miranda says:

      And this is why I’m almost positive that this idea came from Kate’s own incompetent people. I think that, if she were actually listening to the experts she’s roped into this campaign, they might’ve told her it was exclusionary. When I was teaching, we were given guidelines about seemingly innocuous things like sharing vacation photos with our students in a way that didn’t draw attention to our own socioeconomic status — for example, it was OK to illustrate a lesson with a photo you took of a koala in Australia, but not a photo of yourself holding that koala — and we had an informal list of off-limits journaling prompts that might make some kids feel left out (i.e. “what I did on my summer vacation” or “my favorite birthday/Christmas gift”). Even young children really do pick up on things like that.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Miranda, that’s interesting. I mean, the way you explain it shows that it’s plain common sense, I’d just never thought about it before and didn’t realize there were such specific rules around things like that, but it’s smart to have them. There are probably tons of educators out there who inadvertently say things that make children feel badly about themselves without even realizing it. It’s likely quite eye-opening to lots of people who read it for the first time.

    • minnieder says:

      @Steph yes!!! I hadn’t even thought of it that way. Her message tells us that if your baby is born blind you’re shit out of luck. Why can’t she say that multiple types of interactions are important? Babies need tactile, auditory and visual stimulation. She’s such a fuc*ing moron.

    • Mustlovedogs says:

      Yes! And all children who are differently abled. She has long been vacant, entitled, and insufferable, but this is really beginning to get to me. My son has autism and simply could not stand people’s faces up close as a baby and toddler. He simply could not bear direct eye contact and would have a meltdown. We really struggled in his first five years and the twenty five that have followed. But we sure did our best. Like all humans do. I was raised by a narcissistic mother and find it very difficult to look at photos of my sister and I as children… I can only imagine how it is for many others. This is performative “philanthropy” at its worst. ie. when it actually begins to do harm.
      PS. hugs to you Mary Pester. Understand. ❤️

  11. Brassy Rebel says:

    People are really starting to notice that without the queen the royals are boring, uncharismatic, lazy, and, frankly, not very bright. They bring nothing to the table but expensive clothes, wiglets, and empty photo ops. Their so called philanthropy is meaningless without real political commitment to change. I think Vegas may soon start an “over-under” on how long this decrepit institution can hang on, at least in it’s current anachronistic form.

    • Amy Bee says:

      And useless. People are now expecting more from the Royals. But they’re still stuck in the 50s and probably think that people are criticising them unfairly.

    • Solidgold says:

      Betty Windsor was the same dull, uninspiring layabout. The BaRF make appearances, that’s it. That is the role. Stop expecting Kate or any of them to do anything that will move the needle.

      • Tessa says:

        In her nineties eluzabeth was light years ahead of 30 something Kate. In work numbers Kate is the laziest

      • SurelyNot says:

        This. They are no more or less boring than they were 6 months ago. We bang on about numbers of engagements but is 20 vs. 200 impressive if NONE of them actually produce results.

        As far as Kate doing anything different — how would we spend the coffee hour in the mornings without her?

  12. Belli says:

    “Faces are a baby’s best toy” does feel as though it was designed specifically to address Louis slapping a hand over her mouth at the jubilee. Oh he wasn’t annoyed and overstimulated and wanting his mother to stop fussing him, he was just playing and learning!

    Only a few months until all of Kate’s children are 5 and she can give up parenting because their futures are already fixed.

    • Ohno says:

      THIS x 100. You can just tell she’s still SUPER embarrassed about it, she hasn’t tried to interact with Louis in public again since, always puts one of the other kids between them. Which is shocking when you remember she put out all that PR about how he was “her favourite” bc he wasn’t heir or spare. So is he no longer her favourite, or is her theatre-level makeup job just too expensive a toy for Louis?

      • Mary Pester says:

        Bothsidesnow, thank you, and I hope you have managed to wipe out some of the things that happened to you. Because of who it was the repercussions throughout my family were terrible, and I was made to feel guilty. I got to the age of 17 and joined the army, after basic I did advanced training for the military police and I’m happy to say that I enjoyed every minute of it. From meeting Harry (twice) facing down my demons and being able to help some children who had been through similar trauma. I think people might be surprised at the amount of child abuse that happens in millitary families. Maybe because of the enjoyment, release and sence of SELF WORTH the army gave me, I can really emphasise with Harry how he felt about his military service and why he is still supporting the military

      • SomeChick says:

        Khate put out PR that she has a favorite child and said who it is?!?!?

        There’s some good parenting for you. I swear!

        Oh, but I guess since the other two kids are over 5 it doesn’t matter. Right?

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        Mary Pester, what an amazing person you are. You dealt with your demons and then turned something horrible into something wonderful by helping children who were similarly traumatized. Sending very positive thoughts your way.

  13. Isabella says:

    Imagine being told to be a face when you’re worried about food and rent and heating.

    • Jais says:

      Well, I guess a face is free. Is she trying to say the best toy is free? Therefore, no need to make donations.

  14. First comment says:

    I don’t know what was the purpose or posting her photo as a baby apart from embiggening herself and her family.. how does that help her campaign to raise awareness of the importance of “under 5”? And the fact that they asked people to post their own? What’s the point (apart from engaging in the social media and raising their numbers of engagement)? The whole campaign lacks substance and its only purpose is to show a “busy ” Kate while she’s already somewhere enjoying her holidays…

    • Tessa says:

      That photo was shown many times beginning during her dating years with William. A google search can bring up her family pictures. Enough is enough

  15. Miranda says:

    Yes Kate, faces are a baby’s best toy. I’m sure you own kids have had hours of fun just pushing around the fillers in yours.

  16. Scooby Gang says:

    OMG. Every time I read “Faces are a baby’s best toy,” I hear Diamonds Are a Girl’s Best Friend. 😂🎵

    A hand on mum’s mouth
    May be quite entertaining.
    ‘Cause faces are a baby’s best toy.

    Your campaign’s going South.
    All that concern you’re feigning.
    But faces are a baby’s best toy.

  17. Harla A Brazen Hussy says:

    I either don’t share recollections of my childhood with anyone or I lie through my teeth and I don’t imagine that I’m the only one. Kate has such a narrow, myopic view of what childhood was like/is like for people, she seems to think that it’s butterflies and unicorns with the occasional rough time thrown in. But for so many childhood is a time of pain, suffering and terror with no one to trust or turn to for help. I’m so tired of the royals skirting tough issues in their mental health campaigns and now in the early childhood sector.

    • Roop says:

      @Harla, same.

      And I feel terrible about the lying, but when you’re in a situation where you HAVE to share something, it’s the only way out of that scenario without revealing your trauma and terrible memories.

      You know what else I hate? Those stupid workplace “team building” games where they make everyone share a baby photo and you try to guess who it is. I had a boss once tell me “everyone has a baby photo!” Actually, no. Not everyone has a baby photo. I don’t have a baby photo. And the reason why is absolutely none of your damn business. So for those games, I’m stuck with two choices: google a baby photo that looks sorta something like I think I resembled as a baby and claim it’s me (which is a lie), or tell my boss a very sensitive and upsetting truth (which I have no interest in doing).

      • SomeChick says:

        I have started to tell (a carefully curated version of) the truth sometimes. I say something like, that was a difficult time for me, or things were not good then. I give zero details. They can ask and I may say a little more, or not.

        But a statement like that gets the point across, usually gets them to shut up about it in perpetuity, and is a learning opportunity around how not everyone had/has a pretty suburban life. You have to be willing to shut down questions you don’t want to answer. Most of the time, they will be sufficiently mortified to drop it for good.

    • SadieMae says:

      We adopted our son as a toddler and he had had early emotional and physical neglect. Several times his schools asked the kids to bring in a baby picture, or to do a family tree or a genetics project where they compared their physical traits with those of their family. That was always painful for our son because he didn’t have baby pictures or any knowledge of his bio family other than what he knew about his early trauma (which was tough and emotional to think about).

  18. Amy Bee says:

    Kate’s campaign wasn’t thought out very well. Is she saying that once a child under 5 has a good upbringing that they will never suffer trauma when they get older?

    • BothSidesNow says:

      Yup and unless you garner the perfect childhood for your children by the age of 5 they’re screwed.

    • Aidevee says:

      She’s most definitely not saying your life is screwed if you don’t get it right by age 5.
      However, if you are interpreting it that way, then she’s obviously not substantiating her claim with the adequate explanation.

      Your face is one of a very young baby’s best toys, though – she’s not wrong there.

  19. Jay says:

    I’m still reeling from the fact that private schools like Lambrook have charitable status??? That’s outrageous!

    The “post a photo of yourself at 5” is in the same school of viral marketing from a decade ago, like the ice bucket challenge. Sure, lots of people will want to share how cute they were at 4 or 5.

    But what happens if people start using that tag to post some real talk about their childhoods, and how they were affected by cuts in the programs that might have helped? What if one of the families who rely on that food bank near Windsor castle blast her for how her indifference is “shaping” their children?

    • Lurker25 says:

      @Jay I caught that too. What does “charitable status” mean in the UK? Like tax exempt in the US?

      Because while there are lots of dubious (at best) churches and orgs with tax exempt status here, no school that’s for-profit would ever be considered tax exempt. Especially any rich private (public in UK) school.

      • Aidevee says:

        It means that private schools pay less tax in return for offering their facilities to the community.
        However, this usually only equates to totemic gestures. Like, my kids get to sing in a choir ar the Chapel at our local private school on a Saturday.

        It’s nice, but it’s not enough to justify the tax break, I don’t think anyway.

  20. Mooney says:

    By that logic, Louis is going to be a brat for the rest of his life because he disrespected his mother as an under five. Got it.

    I’ve already said the Wails’kids will be their karma. All the three of them have a history of being brats under the age of five and they never got a scolding for that. So let’s see….

    • Jaded says:

      The look on Louis’s face in the photo says it all, doesn’t it. Mean, arrogant, disrespectful. If I’d done that to my mother she would have dragged me off and tanned my hide. Let’s just see how the *ahly yahs* expert’s kids turn out — my guess is insolent, entitled and useless.

      • Mary Pester says:

        JADED, yes, yes and yes. The worst thing about that picture, and I’m so sorry for the little lad, is that he has the same ARROGANT look as Andrew!!!

    • TheWigletOfWails says:

      This is especially funny to me because the tabloids embiggened Baby brains and her parenting skills while saying Archie was going to be a spoiled brat before he was even born! And from what we’ve seen and heard, Archie is a very well-mannered kid.

    • Lorelei says:

      @Mooney, I despise W&K but to say that all three of their kids have a “history of being brats” is a bit much, imo. The kids should be off-limits in general. They did not ask to be born into this shitshow.

      But to address your point, I’ve never seen George act bratty, and Charlotte stuck her tongue out one time (what child doesn’t?? She just had the misfortune to be caught on camera) — they’re always well-behaved, imo.

      Yes there was the one obvious incident with Louis which was pretty bad, but we all pretty much agreed here that it was his parents’ fault for dragging him to an hours-long event and expecting him to sit still after an already long day. It’s unfair to write the child off as a “brat” after one incident. And we have no idea how they’re scolded; obviously Kate wasn’t going to make a scene on camera during the Louis meltdown (she should have just removed him, but she apparently froze). Hopefully they do receive discipline at school and at home, by Nanny Maria if no one else. We have no idea.

      I hope and believe that karma will come for W&K, but it’s not fair to wish poor outcomes for their children. Those kids haven’t done anything wrong. I feel nothing but sympathy for them, being born into that fishbowl of criminal idiots.

      • SURE says:

        I always suspected that K encouraged C to stick out her tongue for the sake of the rota photographers.

      • TigerMcQueen says:

        My siblings and I didn’t stick out tongues out as children, and my kids didn’t when they were under five (and still don’t now that they’re older). If I ever attempted it, my parents would have shot it down immediately. I can honestly say, I never saw my kids do that kind of thing, or their friends, and if I did, I would have shot it down immediately too. It’s rude and disrespectful, and most of all, learned. As @Sure said, I suspected K encouraged it…and that that specific behavior was practiced at home.

        That said, I wouldn’t call the Windsor kids brats or say they have a history. It’s not fair to the kids, because all kids misbehave. Mine didn’t stick their tongues out, but they DID do lots of other not-so-nice things. All kids misbehave. It’s how their parents deal with that behavior that tells the tale (and IMO Kate failed miserably with Louis that time…she was more focused on the public appearance than parenting, or else she would have picked up Louis and left). So I somehow doubt the newest generation of Windsors have learned from the past.

  21. Kat says:

    I really hate this campaign. I clicked on the twitter link to see the responses and it is all people bragging that they are great people because they were lucky enough to have two good parents. I am happy for people who had a nice childhood. But that does not help parents who are struggling right now to provide for their own children. This is doing nothing to break cycles.

    In response to Kate, I had a terrible childhood. Me and my anxiety are doing just fine now. People are not lost if their childhood was not ideal. It would be more helpful to promote causes that support people struggling as adults as well.

    • JD says:

      Kat, I’m with you — on the anxiety as well unfortunately. It’s clearly lost on Kate (actually her advisors) that while she was the product of a two-parent household that did well financially etc, she turned out to be a vapid mannequin who can’t function properly in normal society let alone a work environment. Add to that a crippling eating disorder and a tsunami of mean girl tendencies. I’m supposed to look up to her as a role model of early years? I’d take people who grew up learning resilience any day.

    • Lorelei says:

      @Kat, I hate this campaign, too…my early years were great (by most conventional standards) and it mattered not one bit because now I’m a mess! Constant anxiety, I’m on loads of medications, and feel like a walking raw nerve most of the time. My parents didn’t do anything wrong; my brain chemistry is what it is and it changed over time. It’s not their fault, ffs. It has absolutely nothing to do with how I was treated during my Aarly Years.

      Kate’s asinine campaign is just wrong in so many different ways, it manages to offend almost everyone. I hope more professionals chime in about how off-base she is and how harmful most of what she preaches actually is.

    • SenseOfTheAbsurd says:

      This whole shitty campaign is about promulgating the class system through pushing the idea that the only valid way for kids is for them to grow up in wealthy middle class nuclear families. There’s no acknowledgement at all that abuse and neglect happen to children in all socio-economic groups.

  22. one of the marys says:

    “And the final, perhaps most detrimental threat is the Queen’s death”

    He’s ignoring the departure of the Sussexes. That’s a huge threat too. They had and have so many effective projects they showed the public how it can be done. The comparison to the ones left leaves those royals at a glaring disadvantage

    • Daisy May says:

      This is so true. Harry found an absolute gem in Meghan, who practically on her own could have done wonders to improve the image of the RF with actual meaningful work and intelligent speaking skills. So they they tried to destroy her. They really don’t deserve to go on for another minute.

  23. Mariam says:

    I don’t understand why is it so hard for her to really work all the resources in the world and you’re still mediocre.

  24. Tessa says:

    She ignores that some children are not born healthy and need corrective surgeries in their early years. She is very oblivious to reality.

    • Marion says:

      I is it possible Khate is trolling us all with her stupidity?
      I can’t see how she’s serious with her ignorance.

  25. MaryContrary says:

    I keep thinking about a friend who is happily married, provided her kids a wonderful childhood-they’re great parents, their kids went to private schools, had lots of lovely vacations, close with extended family and friends-and her oldest son ended up with an opiod addiction, od’d and died. I think this whole campaign is such a slap in the face for people like this too.

    • Lorelei says:

      @MaryContrary, could not agree more. There are so many examples of this (and lots of high-profile ones, that Kate and her team would be aware of). Everything she says is just offensive and wrong.

      Hopefully now that the “launch” is over, she’ll flit off to Mustique and we won’t have to hear about this anymore because it’s gotten beyond grating. I’m so sick of waking up each day to see her being praised for saying something stupider than she did the day before.

  26. TheOriginalMia says:

    The embiggening of the mediocre, unserious woman is both disappointing and ridiculous. This campaign reeks of ableism and financial discrimination. It assumes a lot and discredits those who don’t have the time or resources to spend as much time with their children as Kate and her cronies do. It also ignores parents and children who aren’t able bodied. All this campaign does is place Kate in a position that wholly unearned where she can spout a bunch of phrases to make herself seem intelligent, curious, serious and dedicated, when the reality is that this woman puts more thought and energy into the fashions of her dead mother in law/husband’s grandmother and her sister in law than she does in the public she’s supposed to serve. And we know she lacking as a early childhood authority, when we see that picture of her child putting his hands on her mouth to shut her up. No amount of claymation is going to erase those Jubbly images from people’s minds.

    • Chrissy says:

      Thank you, well said. She has no credibility on this topic at all as she’s living with all sorts of dysfunction in her own situation. Her pie in the sky view of child development is so disturbing. It ignores situations not included in her narrow personal experience: first world, upper middle class, two-parent-family, without physical, developmental or learning disabilities with endless leisure time. It’s so disturbing how out of touch she is and equally how out of touch her team are in suggesting that she’s the personification of the ideal parent. It’s laughable. Just manufactured expertise – trying just keep trying to make fetch happen, don’t they?

    • Lorelei says:

      @Mia, everything you said, and I’d add “disingenuous” to the list describing the embiggening. You cannot tell me that everyone pushing this, especially the ROTA members, and even people on Kate’s team (particularly whoever made bank on that creepy claymation video), aren’t laughing and rolling their eyes behind the scenes no matter what they publish in their rags or put on Twitter.

      So many grown-ass adults totally sacrificing their dignity in order to praise this ridiculous woman. They MUST know how vacuous she is, at least some of them.

  27. Lady Digby says:

    I am encouraged that despite all the nuclear fawning over the,RF that a UK newspaper has printed an article questioning their relevancy in 2023. We Brits are brought up on the notion that RF cost us the price of a pint on an annual basis, bring in tourist bucks and do loads of charity events. RF just like any long-term institution seeks to self perpetuate when so many are on its gravy train. They are in bed with the Tories and the BM with plenty of teddy bears for everyone. Truly one hand washes the other so none of them relished Spare revealing the compact between them all. None of us sheep so are entitled to question the validity of the monarchy in the modern world especially their performative attitude to charity!

    • Mary Pester says:

      LADY DIGBY, well said, and as a fellow Brit I agree with you. I have never swallowed the “they cost every person in the UK the price of a pint”,, well does that include every baby and child of school age? Not only that, NONE of the tourists that come to the UK think they are going to sit down for afternoon tea with the Royals! They come to see the palaces, gardens, museum’s, the London Eye and places like madame Tussauds. Let’s face it, we still had to pay for them even during lock down when there weren’t any tourists. I had this argument with a royalist the other day, and she blocked me when I said that France has not had a royal family for many, many years and make MORE than us from tourism and that’s because all of their institutions are open to the public

    • Debbie says:

      I understand what you’re saying about “the price of a pint” and all (Ha!) because the power of propaganda is great, and I know next to nothing about England, but I do know my math, and when one small group has ALL the riches, castles, palaces, plus a gold piano (gold?!), and the rest support them (from modest homes), then I must question whoever calculated the equation about the price of a pint. Then, on top of everything else, you lot must curtsey to them and call them “your royal highness” too. Who thought up that system?

  28. [insert_catchy_name] says:

    It’s crazy how bad she (and her team) are at this job.

  29. Tessa says:

    The queens children as they grew up were praised to the skies and look how they turned out

    • SURE says:

      It’s called Shaping US but I love how people (or autocorrect) are misreading it as Shaping Up. What’s the point if you can’t even get the campaign tagline to stick.

  30. aquarius64 says:

    Some of the public is not driking the Royal Kool aid anymore . That picture of Kate; she should be re-named the People’s Eyebrow since Dwanye The Rock Johnson is no longer using it. New slogan: Can you smell the BS Kate is còoking?

  31. Zoro says:

    Maybe I’m being defeatist but it really doesn’t matter how anyone feels here. Besides a few mildly critical articles the rota is squarely on her side which means the British media is too. Meanwhile the US media doesn’t care enough to do actual investigate journalism on the royals..
    So we will continue to see more unearned, over the top praise especially around the coronation and Kate will continue to do the bare minimum for the “appearance” of popularity. She’ll continue to copy Meghan and take all the credit for modernizing because she can get away with it.

    • Kyle O says:

      Of course the media will continue to act as PR for the royal family – that’s unfortunate. But despite the media’s cheerleading, approval of the RF is low among the young, and we can expect it to continue in a downward trajectory. Kate and the rest of them are anachronisms and no fakata campaign can change that fact.

      • Deering24 says:

        Kyle O–agreed. The RF has been lucky to not only have Elizabeth as a figurehead, their Men In Gray have always played the long propaganda game and manipulated public opinion to maintain RF support. But they have the same problem the Republicans here have–young folks are hip to the game and how right-wing policies damage them. And no amount of fake polls and sunshine-up-the-RF-ass is going to help when RF supporters start really dying off.

    • Tessa says:

      I would say until she can’t get away with it
      The saint Kate spin is a turn off and this so called campaign is strictly smoke and mirrors spin for Kate

    • Nic919 says:

      The comments under the sky article about this photo thing are pretty scathing and even under the wales account itself.

      The UK media won’t cover it, but regular people who need help are getting turned off by this nonsense. It more of a negative reaction against Kate than she’s ever had and it’s by people who don’t normally pay attention to royals, especially in the Uk.

      • BothSidesNow says:

        @ Nic919, I do hope that the negativity from Keens “campaign” starts to take shape. It’s appalling that she is out there mumbling over and over with the same talking points and is producing nothing.

        The strikes that are going on in UK right now should be a warning shot to not only the BRF but the Tories as well. You would think that the Britshidmedia would highlight the current crisis in the UK instead of wasting paper on Keens PR puff game.

      • Zoro says:

        @NIC919 I remember when Meghan released a few great projects or made a great speech and the British media would take one comment on Twitter with no likes a create a whole article about Meghan getting “backlash.”
        That’s what I want for Kate and we’re getting nothing like that. Just excuses and coverups. It’s aggravating.
        I really truly hope the fawning backfires at some point but I’m not optimistic.

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        Zoro, I keep thinking that the brf and Tories are going to have to start addressing some issues, because at some point people are going to get loudly vocal. I keep seeing more and more pressure being applied on the people who can’t take much more. Have they asked themselves what happens when the straw that breaks the camel’s back happens? It’s something I think about for the US when I see what our right wing extremists want for our country. It ain’t gonna be pretty.

  32. Jaded says:

    I know plenty of parents who gave their kids a great upbringing and the kids turned out to be nightmares — using and dealing drugs, B&E, stealing cars, prostitution, jail time, the list goes on. Khate’s take on this is utterly simplistic and useless, and doesn’t address the economic crisis which is causing untold stress and misery to many parents of young children as jobs are lost, bills mount up, foodbanks are running out of supplies. And yet Keen and Mean show up with nothing more than stupid platitudes and empty-handed every goddam time. I’m so pleased they’re getting more and more bad press, it’s time for the tide to turn and embarrass them into REAL charity and public service.

  33. kelleybelle says:

    That wonky left eyebrow, lol! It has to be botox as it’s a fairly new thing, and we know she was incredibly tweaked before the Caribbean tour. And they’re photoshopping the hell out of her lately, making her skin-tone darker, and I think trying to make her look like Meghan. Meghan glows when a spotlight is on her. Kate’s glow is makeup and photoshop.

  34. Well Wisher says:

    Imagine being one of the parents of the one million children going hungry having to listen to this particular discussion about child development.
    How infuriating it must be when this individual is taking valuable energy to state the obvious, but cannot for political reasons speak on the real problem- lack of funding and support for parents.

    Instead that money dispensed in salaries alone from the Waleses could have helped to relieve the dire present situation in some way via contribution to foodbank, Library supplies etc.

    Yet ……

  35. MissMarirose says:

    I understand the reason why that photo of Louis was included here, but I’m reading Spare right now, and just knowing more about his childhood, it makes me sad for Charlotte and Louis. They’re going to have a rough road ahead. So, it doesn’t really help for the press and public to use those children as tools to criticize their parents. I’m sure many of you all don’t remember when Will and Harry were young, but they were used in the same way by the media. It didn’t help them and ultimately, it didn’t change anything about the way Charles and Di treated them. So, what’s the point really? Do you need to keep seeing this photo of Louis having a bad day to criticize Kate?

    • Tessa says:

      There was no social media and Internet when will and harry were children. Charles and Diana would issue photographs and family Christmas cards. About a year after diana died harry started to get scapegoated to protect William the heir. The media enabled this. And will had those talks with the queen preparing him for his future. I see that George being treated as more special started early.

    • Lorelei says:

      @MissMariRose, I totally agree with you.

      The kids shouldn’t be used to try and illustrate what failures W&K are—they do a perfectly good enough job doing that themselves. The children should be left out of it. They didn’t ask for any of this scrutiny.

      KATE asked for it for more than a decade, so all criticism should be directed squarely at her and her alone.

    • Same says:

      I agree with your point — but criticizing Kate and by extension her family and children is the money maker. It is the same reason the BM rant on and on about H&M at every given chance.
      Hate and discontent feeds the almighty dollar.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Well since Kaiser didn’t want to remove this trolling post, I’ll respond. I do remember when they were young, don’t make assumptions.

      W&K choose to use their kids for PR, so yes it is fair game to criticize Kate for her poor parenting. It has been clear for years that W&K are not hands-on parents. The nannies raise the kids.

      Louis wasn’t having a bad day, he was having a great day. His mother’s PR antics annoyed him, he made that clear, and he kept enjoying his day. It was Kate and her ‘Early Years Expert PR’ that had a bad day. Since she deliberately used her own child for her PR, it will continue to be discussed on this site complete with illustrations. CB isn’t following W&K around, CB isn’t hounding them and taking pictures. CB is using one existing photo to illustrate a crucial point about W&K and their PR games.

      If that doesn’t jibe well with you? I suggest you visit every other royal forum on the planet. They’re all pro-Kate and violently anti-Meghan. I’m sure you’ll feel at home there.

  36. notasugarhere says:

    ‘I agree that it’s not specifically a Kate problem, although she’s not helping herself or the family.’

    I’ll disagree some, Kaiser. Yes the whole clan is performative, but some of the work Charles did as POW and Duke of Cornwall was more than performative. Kate is the *most* performative of any of them. She is worse than those who just show up and pin ribbons on sheep, because at least they show up and don’t pretend to be doing anything more.

    First Kate failed to show up for the first eight years. Now Kate has this silly CEO PR sh!tshow. Insisting everyone kowtow and treat her like she’s doing something of value. Still shows up less than 100 hours a year. Acts like she’s the Keen Authority while stealing/garbling the talking points of people who do the real work. William is *nearly* as bad.

  37. Lovely Lady says:

    Sorry but all this seems to be a mere distraction from “Spare”. Let’s take the spotlight away from the Sussexes. Many years of planning yet it seems rushed and lacks soooo much.

  38. Nic919 says:

    Kate was arrogant enough to believe that sharing a new baby picture of herself would have the same effect as when she used to share baby photos of her kids. It has blown up in her face because baby photos do nothing to help people right now. Reminiscing about your childhood isn’t how you make life better for kids now.

    • Kel says:

      It is kinda funny that her big weekend sharing her picture and getting a celebrity to do PR for her has been completely overshadowed by Harry.

  39. Polo says:

    I’m so tired of the mediocrity of this woman. Truly a Melania Trump in every way except melania had people exposing her in the media. Kate meanwhile is coddled and treated like a child even in criticm.

  40. QuiteContrary says:

    Kate, you don’t know me well enough to ask about my childhood.

    • TheWigletOfWails says:

      @quitecontrary haha I love your comment!

    • SIde Eye says:

      @QuiteContrary brilliant!

    • JoJo says:

      That was exactly the phrase that popped into my mind when I saw the baby pic thread 🤣.

      I do hope we are not going to be subjected to weekly or monthly middle-class platitudes about what everyone should be doing to ensure the years 0-5 are as idyllic as Kate’s apparently were.

      Meanwhile, Willy’s clearly still busy in the background sorting out his own ‘life’s work’ as announced in 2018. What was it again… oh yes… ‘Lasting Peace in the Middle East’ . How’s that coming along then Willy? I wonder if a clay-motion video or a billboard might help…🙄.

    • Lorelei says:


  41. Mslove says:

    This is not a good look for Kate. In the middle of a cost of living crisis she is talking about the “first 5 years” or whatever in the most vanilla kind of way. It’s like talking about how to come up with a fire safety plan during a hurricane. Kate needs to put on her work jeans and help feed hungry children.

  42. Nina says:

    I want someone to ask to see what her multi-year plan is for this endeavor and what success metrics she’ll be measuring project milestones against.

    I imagine that the sound of crickets will be deafening.

  43. Mica says:

    1. If the press is correct then Camilla was right. Kate isn’t raising royalty. I don’t even know if William will be king at this point. He didn’t chose a good wife. He chose a good wife to raise a banker.

    2. This is why the Queen checked out after Philip got sick. The family is transitioning to upper class, maybe aristocrats. I don’t have a problem with Chuck because atleast he has ideas. Andrew is a snake but that might be good for England in terms of supplies. But William and his kids don’t have any connections. What type of counselors will they be? No point in having them.

    3. Kate better have a real initiative at the end. This can’t be it. I could put this together in a month. She has to show results.

    • Emily_C says:

      Did I just read someone say that Andrew might be good for England? Well it’s gonna be just “England” pretty shortly, and they’d better hope not to lose Cornwall too.

    • Tessa says:

      Will with his anger issues is not good king material
      Kate is a lightweight and lazy

    • Daisy May says:

      Shaping Up sounds like an exercise program, not a child development program. Michelle Obama did a very hands-on program to get kids moving. She also planted a garden and encouraged kids to eat more fruits and vegetables, which was quite successful despite constant inane criticism from the Repukes. Of course Be Best Melania ripped it out, along with Jackie Kennedy’s beautiful rose garden.

  44. Lurker25 says:

    I have never worn a hair piece or extensions or any kind of wig, wiglet, hair thing. So when y’all comment on her hair, I honestly stare and stare at the pictures, trying (and failing) to spot the unblended fake bits.

    But that last photo of her waving, wearing the green coat, her hair pushed to the side.. MY GOD!! That thing is five inches above her head!

    I finally see it!! Even I can see it!!

    (That is all. I’m not wasting any more time or brain cells on these fakakta photo opp projects of hers. They are badly conceived badly executed a waste of money and insulting to those they’re supposed to help. Always. The end.)

    • Lorelei says:

      @Lurker, lmao! I usually can’t see them, either— like 99% of the time when everyone else is talking about how obvious they are, I just *cannot* see it. But every once in a while, it absolutely jumps out at you and then it’s like “okay, THAT’S what everyone is referring to!”

    • SomeChick says:

      it’s really too bad she won’t admit to the wiglets. she could get credit for rewears!

  45. Unblinkered says:

    I know why you say that, Zoro, further up this post c10.42, but the tide always does turn in the end. Always.
    My feeling is that Charles needs to get an urgent grip on the situation with W&K: they need reigning in immediately and their press office brought under the control of B.Palace – if not disbanded altogether. They’ve effectively been allowed to set up their own Court, that needs to end!

  46. J.Ferber says:

    With all her spouting off about babies and little children, I’d bet she’s not spent one dime (or the British equivalent) to HELP an actual baby or child. We call that LIP SERVICE in the U.S. She’s promoting HERSELF, which is crystal clear and, in my view, is NOT working. All the money she could be using to fund kids’ programs is all spent on her and her vanity project. Galling, cynical and a true tragedy for all the kids who need support that could have impacted their lives. But they’ll get nothing from her. For that alone, I can truly say I despise her (maybe even on a “cellular level,” whatever the f-ck that truly means).

  47. SadieMae says:

    Thing is, the vast majority of people know that you should play with your kids and give them stability and security and send them to a good daycare/school where they’ll get age-appropriate play, socialization, and education. Mostly, kids who don’t get this either have abusive/neglectful parents (who won’t listen to what Kate says about this anyway) or they have parents who don’t have the financial/emotional resources to provide stability, security, or an expensive education (and who need programs that will actually help them do all that, not just early years education/encouragement – though sometimes that’s needed – but subsidized housing, job training/placement, access to enough healthy food, and strong and nurturing daycare/schools).

    For those latter folks, it’s like they’re at the bottom of a well – you can’t just lean over the top and yell, “It’s not good for your kids to be down there, you need to climb up!” Without a rope, no matter how determined and loving a parent you are, you’re not gonna be able to do that. (And it’s hugely insulting for someone to assume that if you’re still in the well, it’s because you just don’t understand that the bottom of a well is not a good place for kids to be.) But Kate apparently feels she can’t actually advocate for the government to provide such programs because it would be political. So I can’t see the use of any of these Early Years programs, without concrete help to back them up. They’re just a lot of hot air.

    • Julia K says:

      @sadiemae, this is an excellent analogy, not having a rope to climb up and out of poverty. Thank you.

  48. Linney says:

    I’ve said this before, but who DOESN’T know early years are important? I wish they would stop promoting her ideas as so revolutionary. Further, her “campaign” comes across as so condescending. If you don’t have a “perfect” family, (i.e. like hers), then you are beaten before you started. Families come in all shapes, sizes, colors, etc., but this “brilliant” life’s work appears to put everyone in one little box. And if you are not in that box, then somehow you are not a good parent. My sister is a teacher with absolutely no interest in the royal family, but she read an article about Kate’s project and said, “Is this a joke?” She thought it vapid and somewhat offensive.

  49. J.Ferber says:

    SadieMae, excellent comment in general, but one point: Kate COULD raise money through benefits, cook books, etc. (copy Meghan on THAT, not her clothes) OR she could easily make her own charitable donations or fund projects out of the vast wealth given to her family through the people’s own taxes. But she won’t do any of that because she’s a selfish fill-in-the-blank who is trying to make a name for herself on children’s problems that she has no intention of trying to fix. THAT is bullshit.

  50. Jen says:

    from the first paragraph of the The i paper quote: “This week though, Kate and William faced backlash after their visit to a foodbank. Though we cannot know whether the couple donated too, criticisms ranged from them turning up empty handed in a luxury car, to questioning the merit of visiting a food bank like one might visit a museum or amusement park.”

    Uh… why can’t we know if they donated? I’m pretty sure the lack of a statement that they donated means they did not. What possible reason can there be to not disclose it if they did indeed make a donation?

  51. Cathy says:

    To quote a comment above “you don’t know me well enough Kate to ask to see photos”. I couldn’t show you photos anyway as my sister destroyed any photos of me that my parents had years ago. To her way of thinking, if there are no photos of me as a baby and toddler then that means I didn’t exist in the family and was adopted later. So Kate’s flippant jolly hockeysticks “join me and share photos” is really triggering. It must be just as bad for those whose parents couldn’t afford to have photos printed?

    But I think Kate doesn’t really care. She’s got her “life’s work” done and dusted as she’s run her campaign to get everyone to say the first 5 years are the most important. Those looking for what comes next maybe waiting a very long time? I suppose she should get a round of applause for getting out of the house (aka Palace) but how many £££££ did it take in new clothes? I’m more inclined to wonder if this promotion of Kate’s is more about showing how she is everywhere and that means she’s useful to the British Royal family so William better stop thinking about putting her aside?

  52. Marion says:

    faces are a baby’s best….

    Tell that to a blind child Einstein.

    Honestly this women’s ignorance is terrifying.

  53. Emily_C says:

    I just saw someone online completely unrelated to any royal watching try to reassure someone else not to despair just because their child’s first 5 years weren’t perfect. Kate is hurting people with her garbage. And I am not giving her any points for “good intentions.” I do not believe either she or her awful husband have good intentions about anything ever.

  54. SourcesclosetoKate says:

    Oh so that’s why she spends so much money on hers, most expensive face in world, could feed a whole village if she gave up on those fillers.

  55. CA says:

    “Faces are a baby’s best toy, which is clearly why I’m always playing with mine.”

  56. Tessa says:

    Kate is being refereed as marie Antoinette in some dm comments. The avalanche of keen falling flat

  57. Raz says:

    I really don’t like defending her, but that faces comment is just something really basic, that’s recommended all the time. So she’s not wrong, even though she certainly didn’t reinvent the wheel.

  58. HuffnPuff says:

    I think what we are seeing now is that Charles didn’t have any plans whatsoever for the monarchy. He just thought he’d become king and everyone would instantly love him and that would be that. William seems to have the same vague idea. They think they can just be royals and that is enough. Well this isn’t the 1950s. People can see what’s happening with their own eyes. To follow the queen, Charles needed to have a strong vision. We can see that despite all the time he had, he failed to do that. His only plan was to boost working royals. Very tone deaf when ordinary people currently see the stark contrast between haves and have nots let alone the different treatment of people from certain races and genders. Who wants to watch that play out on the royal level? Not me. He should have underscored the family aspect of the royal family not the business side of it. That’s more real and people could have related to it. What a wasted opportunity. Shame on the courtiers who pushed this on Charles and shame on him for not caring enough to think this through.

  59. Tessa says:

    This is the same Kate who made those horrid faces at Harry and Meghan at the Service. Then had that threatening look at Meghan during the walkabout. Maybe the “pleasant” face is just for PR and she does get caught out not being a nice person.

  60. Pamela says:

    Meanwhile, Archewell funded SmartWorks’ Female Unemployment Index.

  61. Thelma says:

    Can we please stop hearing from this vacuous woman until she has something original to say?! I do realize this might be that we would never hear fro. Her but that’s not a bad thing. I’m sick of her performative work.

  62. alexis says:

    The best toys are faces and that’s all they need, what if the parents are struggling so badly because of the British economy, the babies are only going to see sadness and hoplessness. What a boring uninspiring woman, her learned accent is barely understandable. There is absolutely no evidence of intelligence, brilliance, or passionate interest in anything other than always trying to be the tallest person in the room and her relentless scanning as to where the camera lenses are facing and posing for photos. An extremely wealthy person with a team of nannies and servants, is telling the masses how to bring up their children. She has no qualifications and during the past 20 years there is nothing to suggest that she has ever achieved anything to make a difference in childrens lives in the UK population. It is puzzling how someone could be so personally unaware, that they are happy to publicly embarass themselves on a regular basis and be completely tone deaf to what is happening in their own country. There seems to be no sincerity or warmth, just photo opportunities. In the videos, the children always seem to be unsure and very wary of her, none of them relax and have fun. Princess Diana when she was alive, Harry and Meghan always treat the children with love and respect, it shows in the childrens beaming happy faces. Also does she really need to wear sky high heels to talk to children ?


  63. Mary Pester says:

    Thank you SAUCY AND SACCY