Do you think Kate Middleton is genuine

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Knew her at Uni, she’s one of the most performative people I’ve ever known.

Maybe, but that's what makes her good at her job. Who knows or cares if any of it is genuine, she entered into the role voluntarily and seems to be handling it as well as possible. As long as she's good to her children (who don't have a choice in their life yet), I couldn't care less what her personal relationship is with the rest of the royal family. They're all adults and she chose this life knowing full well what it would take.

Not to get into a MM vs. Kate debate, but I think other royal figures like Diana and MM just didn't full comprehend what the lifestyle would entail until it was too late. Maybe they should have known better, but I can sympathize with someone in an unsustainable situation that can't get themselves out without millions of watching eyes. I think Kate was either forethinking enough to really get it, or has the mental fortitude to deal with it, even if it's harder than she expected. The British royal family seems like an absolute nightmare, and I don't think many of us could handle the pressure any better.

I think Kate benefits from a healthy childhood and family of origin which neither Diana nor Meghan had. When time comes to tell, the Middletons will be responsible for saving the British monarchy. I do think William is wise enough to understand this.

Yes, he's wise enough to understand it, but dumb enough he won't be able to save it. I give the monarchy 1 or 2 more generations, at most. Charles is the beginning of the end, William or George will actually be the end.

Agreed.

The late queen embodied the monarchy. Without her, there’s no real desire to keep it going. Maybe nothing happens during Charles reign out of respect for her, but the end is coming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She understands the assignment.

Agreed. She accepts that her job is to put with anything William does.

It looks increasingly exploitative and just sad as time passes. She seems to dislike William but clings to the title OR she knows that she would get nothing in a divorce and would face a fate worse than Diana. She’s been a prominent Royal for a decade and still can’t give a speech. Whether that’s due to incompetence or stupidity, it adds a depressing quality to her appearances.

Could not disagree with you more. Her speeches are quiet and relatable. She’s obviously shy. They seem to have a really strong, loving bond and from where I sit there is literally no evidence of William treating her poorly. you can tell she is stable and really benefited from a strong family of origin.

She is a strong woman and protective of her family.

Okay that is fully insane. No one protective of their family would have married a prince let alone allow the children to be public figures. That’s crazy! If someone came to you and said “hey I want your 3 year old to appear at public events and have crazy people deeply invested in him and absolutely have stalkers and paparazzi following him all the time. There’s no pay but he can have a house from his powerful relatives and a pretend job. Real jobs will be prohibited/impossible. His dad’s own family was completely wrecked by the same circumstances.”

Would you be like “Yes! Sign me up and put that toddler in a ceremonial robe!” That’s nuts. She may be a lot of things, many of them good, but “protective of her family” she is not. It’s really crazy to me that anyone would say that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just like Diana, Jackie Kennedy and other divorced or widowed women, she could easily divorce William, bag a millionaire and still be queen mother.

Diana was unmarried when she died and widows are not divorcees.

[Anonymous]

How does this personally affect you and why aren't you asking the same question of William?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She seems to be a bit of a snobby mean girl but hides it well. She seems genuine in her love for her kids although I’m not sure that extends to William any more.

she's the opposite of a mean girl. my mother had hospice care from a nurse who was at school with her. she stood up for the underdog all the time, told off the mean girls who mocked another girl who had acne, befriended the girl with acne and kept her safe

This just sounds like a made up story. I bet MM could give you a ton of examples of Kate being a mean girl.

what sounds made up? My mother was told it effectively when she was on her death bed. I'm not making it up, she didn't make it up and her nurse told her in private with nothing to gain.

On her deathbed she told a rando story about KateMiddleton and acne. Ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She understands the assignment.

Agreed. She accepts that her job is to put with anything William does.

It looks increasingly exploitative and just sad as time passes. She seems to dislike William but clings to the title OR she knows that she would get nothing in a divorce and would face a fate worse than Diana. She’s been a prominent Royal for a decade and still can’t give a speech. Whether that’s due to incompetence or stupidity, it adds a depressing quality to her appearances.

Could not disagree with you more. Her speeches are quiet and relatable. She’s obviously shy. They seem to have a really strong, loving bond and from where I sit there is literally no evidence of William treating her poorly. you can tell she is stable and really benefited from a strong family of origin.

She is a strong woman and protective of her family.

Okay that is fully insane. No one protective of their family would have married a prince let alone allow the children to be public figures. That’s crazy! If someone came to you and said “hey I want your 3 year old to appear at public events and have crazy people deeply invested in him and absolutely have stalkers and paparazzi following him all the time. There’s no pay but he can have a house from his powerful relatives and a pretend job. Real jobs will be prohibited/impossible. His dad’s own family was completely wrecked by the same circumstances.”

Would you be like “Yes! Sign me up and put that toddler in a ceremonial robe!” That’s nuts. She may be a lot of things, many of them good, but “protective of her family” she is not. It’s really crazy to me that anyone would say that.

What she’s protective of is her path to being queen consort.

Kate chased and landed Prince William and put up with an embarrassing amount of crap and humiliation (most of it by William) to be queen. Her children’s well-being doesn’t hold a candle to her dedication to finally being queen consort.

Period.

I can’t imagine she’s happy, but she’s certainly committed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She understands the assignment.

Agreed. She accepts that her job is to put with anything William does.

It looks increasingly exploitative and just sad as time passes. She seems to dislike William but clings to the title OR she knows that she would get nothing in a divorce and would face a fate worse than Diana. She’s been a prominent Royal for a decade and still can’t give a speech. Whether that’s due to incompetence or stupidity, it adds a depressing quality to her appearances.

Another Sugar whose mission is to make the royal family look bad and the principal person is Catherine. She is attacked because she has what Meghan Markle lacks. The ability to serve in a very difficult role with grace and perseverance.

Not that it will be necessary, but Diana’s divorce settlement was equal to about $15M. It was invested wisely, and a large part of it was left to Harry. That is what funded his move to the US.

Catherine gives a speech that is understandable to everyone and not a word salad of banal speak given in an histrionic manner.

For those not in the know, people who hate Meghan Markle call anyone who has anything nice to say about her “sugars.”

Now. Catherine has been in the job for 10+ years. She just gave a speech for a mental health forum somewhere in the UK and it was very basic, not saying much of substance, and she read every last word from her notecards. You’d think that if your job was public speaking and you’ve done it for over ten years, you could muster up some basic remarks like “thanks everyone for coming, this is an important topic, you’re all doing great work here” without using notecards.

You do understand that the appeal of the royal family is that they do not claim expertise but support experts and the people working in the field. Kate’s speeches are well received in the UK except by republicans and anti monarchists. You would do well to side with them and rid yourself of the monarchy rather than whinge about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People hold diana or Megan up as more genuine but I think they were also very performative—-I just think they interpreted the role differently. They thought what the monarchy really needed was a warm, relatable, emoting person. Kate follows the Queens lead in understanding that is not the role. If you give the public and press an emotive figure, they will tear you to shreds. The queen has that advice about never holding hands in public because the first time you show up not holding hands, it will be front page news (or something lke that). She survived for so many decades by understanding that it’s better to he perceived as too aloof than to have the press think your emotional and and personal life are up for discussion. I don’t know that I would want to hang out with Kate but I think she totally understands the role of the modern British monarch. Both diana and Megan seriously misjudged the role.

Did they "misjudge" the roles, or were they mercilessly attacked by the press and undermined by the Firm--including in Diana's case, her own husband?

Diana misjudged the role. She thought her husband should be faithful, and she got all upset when he wasn’t. What King of England has ever been faithful? Maybe the one that died at age 15. If you’re made of stone like QE2 or KM, the press can tear into you but they will eventually lose interest because there’s not much there to play with. Diana was too interesting. But that’s not really the job.

Diana misjudged what she could get away with by having an affair with Barry Manakee before Charles had an affair with Camilla.

What do you mean before? Charles never stopped sleeping with Camilla before and after Diana. Hence why Diana slept with someone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She understands the assignment.

Agreed. She accepts that her job is to put with anything William does.

It looks increasingly exploitative and just sad as time passes. She seems to dislike William but clings to the title OR she knows that she would get nothing in a divorce and would face a fate worse than Diana. She’s been a prominent Royal for a decade and still can’t give a speech. Whether that’s due to incompetence or stupidity, it adds a depressing quality to her appearances.

Could not disagree with you more. Her speeches are quiet and relatable. She’s obviously shy. They seem to have a really strong, loving bond and from where I sit there is literally no evidence of William treating her poorly. you can tell she is stable and really benefited from a strong family of origin.

She is a strong woman and protective of her family.

Okay that is fully insane. No one protective of their family would have married a prince let alone allow the children to be public figures. That’s crazy! If someone came to you and said “hey I want your 3 year old to appear at public events and have crazy people deeply invested in him and absolutely have stalkers and paparazzi following him all the time. There’s no pay but he can have a house from his powerful relatives and a pretend job. Real jobs will be prohibited/impossible. His dad’s own family was completely wrecked by the same circumstances.”

Would you be like “Yes! Sign me up and put that toddler in a ceremonial robe!” That’s nuts. She may be a lot of things, many of them good, but “protective of her family” she is not. It’s really crazy to me that anyone would say that.

Yes but your child would be royalty, occupying the very top tier of a hierarchical society and living in unmatched privilege. I would have signed up for that!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think I’ve ever heard her talk!

My problem with her is the “child mental health” platform. It makes no sense to me to be about child mental health and then let your small children be working royals and public figures. To me she’s in the same category as influencers who put their kids on public tik tok.

It wouldn’t sink the monarchy for the children to have private childhoods. They don’t have to be displayed.

Name an occasion where she has emphasized child mental health.

October 10, 2023 forum on mental health on Birmingham

Forum on mental health at Nottingham University

October 12, 2023 SportsAid in Bisham Village

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She understands the assignment.

Agreed. She accepts that her job is to put with anything William does.

It looks increasingly exploitative and just sad as time passes. She seems to dislike William but clings to the title OR she knows that she would get nothing in a divorce and would face a fate worse than Diana. She’s been a prominent Royal for a decade and still can’t give a speech. Whether that’s due to incompetence or stupidity, it adds a depressing quality to her appearances.

Could not disagree with you more. Her speeches are quiet and relatable. She’s obviously shy. They seem to have a really strong, loving bond and from where I sit there is literally no evidence of William treating her poorly. you can tell she is stable and really benefited from a strong family of origin.

She is a strong woman and protective of her family.

Okay that is fully insane. No one protective of their family would have married a prince let alone allow the children to be public figures. That’s crazy! If someone came to you and said “hey I want your 3 year old to appear at public events and have crazy people deeply invested in him and absolutely have stalkers and paparazzi following him all the time. There’s no pay but he can have a house from his powerful relatives and a pretend job. Real jobs will be prohibited/impossible. His dad’s own family was completely wrecked by the same circumstances.”

Would you be like “Yes! Sign me up and put that toddler in a ceremonial robe!” That’s nuts. She may be a lot of things, many of them good, but “protective of her family” she is not. It’s really crazy to me that anyone would say that.

Yes but your child would be royalty, occupying the very top tier of a hierarchical society and living in unmatched privilege. I would have signed up for that!

It doesn’t seem to have helped any of Elizabeth’s children. My ordinary parents of the same generation are far and away happier and better people than any of Elizabeth’s children. I mean, she raised Prince Edward.

I agree with the PP. She is not protective of her children at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s so weird to me that William keeps coming to America for his climate change thingie. He hung around in New York during UN GA but wasn’t part of the actual proceedings. That’s a little embarrassing. At least Kate isn’t playing the game anymore — she skipped this New York trip and supposedly won’t be going to his next one either.

It is weird. Canada would seem a much more natural place given its ties to the UK. But you know you’re on the struggle bus when someone like Eric Adam’s can’t even be bothered to meet with you.

Adams couldn’t be bothered to come in from his home in New Jersey to meet William but he sent two police cars to escort Harry and Meghan’s 7 car convoy the 200 feet from one parking garage to the next. Adams did not what a repeat of the couple’s near catastrophic 2 hour car chase in which they were almost killed by paparazzi on bicycles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She understands the assignment.

Agreed. She accepts that her job is to put with anything William does.

It looks increasingly exploitative and just sad as time passes. She seems to dislike William but clings to the title OR she knows that she would get nothing in a divorce and would face a fate worse than Diana. She’s been a prominent Royal for a decade and still can’t give a speech. Whether that’s due to incompetence or stupidity, it adds a depressing quality to her appearances.

Could not disagree with you more. Her speeches are quiet and relatable. She’s obviously shy. They seem to have a really strong, loving bond and from where I sit there is literally no evidence of William treating her poorly. you can tell she is stable and really benefited from a strong family of origin.

She is a strong woman and protective of her family.

Okay that is fully insane. No one protective of their family would have married a prince let alone allow the children to be public figures. That’s crazy! If someone came to you and said “hey I want your 3 year old to appear at public events and have crazy people deeply invested in him and absolutely have stalkers and paparazzi following him all the time. There’s no pay but he can have a house from his powerful relatives and a pretend job. Real jobs will be prohibited/impossible. His dad’s own family was completely wrecked by the same circumstances.”

Would you be like “Yes! Sign me up and put that toddler in a ceremonial robe!” That’s nuts. She may be a lot of things, many of them good, but “protective of her family” she is not. It’s really crazy to me that anyone would say that.

Yes but your child would be royalty, occupying the very top tier of a hierarchical society and living in unmatched privilege. I would have signed up for that!

It doesn’t seem to have helped any of Elizabeth’s children. My ordinary parents of the same generation are far and away happier and better people than any of Elizabeth’s children. I mean, she raised Prince Edward.

I agree with the PP. She is not protective of her children at all.

By marrying a prince, she signed up for her future children to be public figures. She has no choice in that and no royal family can keep their kids completely out of the public eye until they are eighteen, not that that would even be wise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People hold diana or Megan up as more genuine but I think they were also very performative—-I just think they interpreted the role differently. They thought what the monarchy really needed was a warm, relatable, emoting person. Kate follows the Queens lead in understanding that is not the role. If you give the public and press an emotive figure, they will tear you to shreds. The queen has that advice about never holding hands in public because the first time you show up not holding hands, it will be front page news (or something lke that). She survived for so many decades by understanding that it’s better to he perceived as too aloof than to have the press think your emotional and and personal life are up for discussion. I don’t know that I would want to hang out with Kate but I think she totally understands the role of the modern British monarch. Both diana and Megan seriously misjudged the role.

Did they "misjudge" the roles, or were they mercilessly attacked by the press and undermined by the Firm--including in Diana's case, her own husband?

Diana misjudged the role. She thought her husband should be faithful, and she got all upset when he wasn’t. What King of England has ever been faithful? Maybe the one that died at age 15. If you’re made of stone like QE2 or KM, the press can tear into you but they will eventually lose interest because there’s not much there to play with. Diana was too interesting. But that’s not really the job.

Diana misjudged what she could get away with by having an affair with Barry Manakee before Charles had an affair with Camilla.

What do you mean before? Charles never stopped sleeping with Camilla before and after Diana. Hence why Diana slept with someone else.

Read Andrew Morton’s book based on interviews with Diana. Diana said that Charles started his marital affair with Camilla after her affairs with Manakee and James Hewitt

One of the sad things about Harry’s book is that it brought up the unsavory things about Diana that people forgot on their last 26 years

William is also concerned about @The Crown” Re-enacting the Martin Bashir interview with Diana because he asked that it never be used by any media

William may also be concerned about the new season of “The Crown” which shows appearing to Charles as a ghost to discuss their marriage.

William tried to protect his mother’s memory while Harry has resurrected her memory for money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She understands the assignment.

Agreed. She accepts that her job is to put with anything William does.

It looks increasingly exploitative and just sad as time passes. She seems to dislike William but clings to the title OR she knows that she would get nothing in a divorce and would face a fate worse than Diana. She’s been a prominent Royal for a decade and still can’t give a speech. Whether that’s due to incompetence or stupidity, it adds a depressing quality to her appearances.

Another Sugar whose mission is to make the royal family look bad and the principal person is Catherine. She is attacked because she has what Meghan Markle lacks. The ability to serve in a very difficult role with grace and perseverance.

Not that it will be necessary, but Diana’s divorce settlement was equal to about $15M. It was invested wisely, and a large part of it was left to Harry. That is what funded his move to the US.

Catherine gives a speech that is understandable to everyone and not a word salad of banal speak given in an histrionic manner.

DP. Why is your basic argument that Kate is great because Meghan sucks? Maybe they both are blah.

And (1) $15M is nothing compared to being married to the prince of wales. No country home, no fancy apartment in Kensington, no cottage, no achess to jewels etc. And I’m not sure what the guarantee of a generous divorce settlement would be when all of his wealth is not marital property that could be subject to a split. (2) Kate is “middle class” in the British sense so it would be a massive demotion in status for her and her family. No socializing with the Turnip Toffs with no estate, etc.

No skin in the game but Diana was given Apartment 1A at Kensington Palace as a life estate after the divorce. Our guide at Kensington Palace said it had about 20 rooms and Diana was given an allowance for staff and maintenance

That is all I know.