Do you think Kate Middleton is genuine

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She has a job but it's not traditional and she can't opt out.

I don't think having a traditional job is a prerequisite for being a role model.

Maybe not a traditional job but she still isn’t doing anything that garners admiration. She’s not someone I would ever want my daughter to look up to.

What?? Who wouldn’t want their daughters to chase after a prince, land him, and then spend the rest of their life pretending to be happy in front of paps as the prince carries on having affairs?

I wouldn’t ever want my kid to be famous- except for maybe winning a Nobel prize/journalist. Never entertainment famous for sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure, but she’s then obviously not a protective mother.

Disagree. I think Kate is not particularly fascinating or intelligent, but she is a good mother and prioritizes her children above everything else. And she is fortunate to have an excellent support system in her parents and sister. Her kids have a very good chance of being normal, functional adults. Kate & Will will learn their lesson from the Harry debacle too, and make sure the younger two have their own paths in life instead of being hangers-on.

I genuinely don’t think anyone who lets their young children be used or uses them as public figures can be a good mother. Whether it’s Kate Middleton, a TikTok maker, a stage mom or whatever.

I know there are kids who really love acting but even then I think a good mother would restrict them to theater or something and avoid anything with too much exposure like TV or movies at least until they are older.

For the ones born into the monarchy, they would have to break tradition which would be hard, certainly, but not impossible. I don’t think Harry/Meghan’s children make public appearances which is great but maybe that’s just because they left, not saying they’re role models on it. Just that it’s possible.

Whereas Kate Middleton chose this for herself and her children. I’m a very casual consumer of royal news and I’ve seen a TON of pictures and videos of her children at official events, none of which was necessary. She even did the photo shoot right after giving birth.

Kate has been a social striver her entire life. Her kids are a means to an end. That’s it.

Sure, we all can see how she is faking her love for her family. Did you mother not love you, pp?

I’m puzzled by all the posters saying she doesn’t love her kids. Um, most people love their kids and that’s not something to be praised even. It’s generally the default. The cruelest person I know loves her children to death and prioritizes them above all else. I believe Kate does love her children but I don’t think it’s something she should be lauded over.

I’m the PP who said Kate’s kids are a means to an end. I think she loves them in her own way, but they are definitely a means to a queen-consort end.

As famous people and their kids go to me She is much better about it than say Britney Spears’ parents or even Taylor swifts because they are profiting off of their offspring. Kate may be “using them” but I think that is more about presenting the children in a way she is in control of because they are a public family. Their job is the family. Contrast that to show moms/families who profit off their kids monetarily and their kid is a primary source of income. It is different to me. In entertainment the kids are the commodity whereas for Kate the kids are part of the family commodity and she is trying to present them in a way where they still can have some privacy and aren’t exploited.

To me it’s the same or worse. It’s more understandable if a family needs money and they have a talented kid who can earn it. There’s no reason her kids need to be public figures. They could just not do it. I don’t think it would threaten the monarchy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure, but she’s then obviously not a protective mother.

Disagree. I think Kate is not particularly fascinating or intelligent, but she is a good mother and prioritizes her children above everything else. And she is fortunate to have an excellent support system in her parents and sister. Her kids have a very good chance of being normal, functional adults. Kate & Will will learn their lesson from the Harry debacle too, and make sure the younger two have their own paths in life instead of being hangers-on.

I genuinely don’t think anyone who lets their young children be used or uses them as public figures can be a good mother. Whether it’s Kate Middleton, a TikTok maker, a stage mom or whatever.

I know there are kids who really love acting but even then I think a good mother would restrict them to theater or something and avoid anything with too much exposure like TV or movies at least until they are older.

For the ones born into the monarchy, they would have to break tradition which would be hard, certainly, but not impossible. I don’t think Harry/Meghan’s children make public appearances which is great but maybe that’s just because they left, not saying they’re role models on it. Just that it’s possible.

Whereas Kate Middleton chose this for herself and her children. I’m a very casual consumer of royal news and I’ve seen a TON of pictures and videos of her children at official events, none of which was necessary. She even did the photo shoot right after giving birth.

Kate has been a social striver her entire life. Her kids are a means to an end. That’s it.

Sure, we all can see how she is faking her love for her family. Did you mother not love you, pp?

I’m puzzled by all the posters saying she doesn’t love her kids. Um, most people love their kids and that’s not something to be praised even. It’s generally the default. The cruelest person I know loves her children to death and prioritizes them above all else. I believe Kate does love her children but I don’t think it’s something she should be lauded over.

I’m the PP who said Kate’s kids are a means to an end. I think she loves them in her own way, but they are definitely a means to a queen-consort end.

As famous people and their kids go to me She is much better about it than say Britney Spears’ parents or even Taylor swifts because they are profiting off of their offspring. Kate may be “using them” but I think that is more about presenting the children in a way she is in control of because they are a public family. Their job is the family. Contrast that to show moms/families who profit off their kids monetarily and their kid is a primary source of income. It is different to me. In entertainment the kids are the commodity whereas for Kate the kids are part of the family commodity and she is trying to present them in a way where they still can have some privacy and aren’t exploited.

To me it’s the same or worse. It’s more understandable if a family needs money and they have a talented kid who can earn it. There’s no reason her kids need to be public figures. They could just not do it. I don’t think it would threaten the monarchy.

The kid is the next in line for king and I don’t think it is up to her if her kids have a public presence. The kingdom literally owns the kids not her. There is some archaic law or something that “isn’t tested” right now, but the king owns the kids so that may be hard to get out of. I mean do they have princess charlotte clothes, towels and tote bags? I don’t know but that would be the line for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure, but she’s then obviously not a protective mother.

Disagree. I think Kate is not particularly fascinating or intelligent, but she is a good mother and prioritizes her children above everything else. And she is fortunate to have an excellent support system in her parents and sister. Her kids have a very good chance of being normal, functional adults. Kate & Will will learn their lesson from the Harry debacle too, and make sure the younger two have their own paths in life instead of being hangers-on.

I genuinely don’t think anyone who lets their young children be used or uses them as public figures can be a good mother. Whether it’s Kate Middleton, a TikTok maker, a stage mom or whatever.

I know there are kids who really love acting but even then I think a good mother would restrict them to theater or something and avoid anything with too much exposure like TV or movies at least until they are older.

For the ones born into the monarchy, they would have to break tradition which would be hard, certainly, but not impossible. I don’t think Harry/Meghan’s children make public appearances which is great but maybe that’s just because they left, not saying they’re role models on it. Just that it’s possible.

Whereas Kate Middleton chose this for herself and her children. I’m a very casual consumer of royal news and I’ve seen a TON of pictures and videos of her children at official events, none of which was necessary. She even did the photo shoot right after giving birth.

Kate has been a social striver her entire life. Her kids are a means to an end. That’s it.

Sure, we all can see how she is faking her love for her family. Did you mother not love you, pp?

I’m puzzled by all the posters saying she doesn’t love her kids. Um, most people love their kids and that’s not something to be praised even. It’s generally the default. The cruelest person I know loves her children to death and prioritizes them above all else. I believe Kate does love her children but I don’t think it’s something she should be lauded over.

I’m the PP who said Kate’s kids are a means to an end. I think she loves them in her own way, but they are definitely a means to a queen-consort end.

As famous people and their kids go to me She is much better about it than say Britney Spears’ parents or even Taylor swifts because they are profiting off of their offspring. Kate may be “using them” but I think that is more about presenting the children in a way she is in control of because they are a public family. Their job is the family. Contrast that to show moms/families who profit off their kids monetarily and their kid is a primary source of income. It is different to me. In entertainment the kids are the commodity whereas for Kate the kids are part of the family commodity and she is trying to present them in a way where they still can have some privacy and aren’t exploited.

To me it’s the same or worse. It’s more understandable if a family needs money and they have a talented kid who can earn it. There’s no reason her kids need to be public figures. They could just not do it. I don’t think it would threaten the monarchy.

The kid is the next in line for king and I don’t think it is up to her if her kids have a public presence. The kingdom literally owns the kids not her. There is some archaic law or something that “isn’t tested” right now, but the king owns the kids so that may be hard to get out of. I mean do they have princess charlotte clothes, towels and tote bags? I don’t know but that would be the line for me.

Well then, yet another reason I would not say she’s a good or protective mother. Would you agree to that before marriage, that your kids legally belong to your in-laws?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure, but she’s then obviously not a protective mother.

Disagree. I think Kate is not particularly fascinating or intelligent, but she is a good mother and prioritizes her children above everything else. And she is fortunate to have an excellent support system in her parents and sister. Her kids have a very good chance of being normal, functional adults. Kate & Will will learn their lesson from the Harry debacle too, and make sure the younger two have their own paths in life instead of being hangers-on.

I genuinely don’t think anyone who lets their young children be used or uses them as public figures can be a good mother. Whether it’s Kate Middleton, a TikTok maker, a stage mom or whatever.

I know there are kids who really love acting but even then I think a good mother would restrict them to theater or something and avoid anything with too much exposure like TV or movies at least until they are older.

For the ones born into the monarchy, they would have to break tradition which would be hard, certainly, but not impossible. I don’t think Harry/Meghan’s children make public appearances which is great but maybe that’s just because they left, not saying they’re role models on it. Just that it’s possible.

Whereas Kate Middleton chose this for herself and her children. I’m a very casual consumer of royal news and I’ve seen a TON of pictures and videos of her children at official events, none of which was necessary. She even did the photo shoot right after giving birth.

Kate has been a social striver her entire life. Her kids are a means to an end. That’s it.

Sure, we all can see how she is faking her love for her family. Did you mother not love you, pp?

I’m puzzled by all the posters saying she doesn’t love her kids. Um, most people love their kids and that’s not something to be praised even. It’s generally the default. The cruelest person I know loves her children to death and prioritizes them above all else. I believe Kate does love her children but I don’t think it’s something she should be lauded over.

I’m the PP who said Kate’s kids are a means to an end. I think she loves them in her own way, but they are definitely a means to a queen-consort end.

As famous people and their kids go to me She is much better about it than say Britney Spears’ parents or even Taylor swifts because they are profiting off of their offspring. Kate may be “using them” but I think that is more about presenting the children in a way she is in control of because they are a public family. Their job is the family. Contrast that to show moms/families who profit off their kids monetarily and their kid is a primary source of income. It is different to me. In entertainment the kids are the commodity whereas for Kate the kids are part of the family commodity and she is trying to present them in a way where they still can have some privacy and aren’t exploited.

To me it’s the same or worse. It’s more understandable if a family needs money and they have a talented kid who can earn it. There’s no reason her kids need to be public figures. They could just not do it. I don’t think it would threaten the monarchy.

The kid is the next in line for king and I don’t think it is up to her if her kids have a public presence. The kingdom literally owns the kids not her. There is some archaic law or something that “isn’t tested” right now, but the king owns the kids so that may be hard to get out of. I mean do they have princess charlotte clothes, towels and tote bags? I don’t know but that would be the line for me.

You don't know a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure, but she’s then obviously not a protective mother.

Disagree. I think Kate is not particularly fascinating or intelligent, but she is a good mother and prioritizes her children above everything else. And she is fortunate to have an excellent support system in her parents and sister. Her kids have a very good chance of being normal, functional adults. Kate & Will will learn their lesson from the Harry debacle too, and make sure the younger two have their own paths in life instead of being hangers-on.

I genuinely don’t think anyone who lets their young children be used or uses them as public figures can be a good mother. Whether it’s Kate Middleton, a TikTok maker, a stage mom or whatever.

I know there are kids who really love acting but even then I think a good mother would restrict them to theater or something and avoid anything with too much exposure like TV or movies at least until they are older.

For the ones born into the monarchy, they would have to break tradition which would be hard, certainly, but not impossible. I don’t think Harry/Meghan’s children make public appearances which is great but maybe that’s just because they left, not saying they’re role models on it. Just that it’s possible.

Whereas Kate Middleton chose this for herself and her children. I’m a very casual consumer of royal news and I’ve seen a TON of pictures and videos of her children at official events, none of which was necessary. She even did the photo shoot right after giving birth.

Kate has been a social striver her entire life. Her kids are a means to an end. That’s it.

Sure, we all can see how she is faking her love for her family. Did you mother not love you, pp?

I’m puzzled by all the posters saying she doesn’t love her kids. Um, most people love their kids and that’s not something to be praised even. It’s generally the default. The cruelest person I know loves her children to death and prioritizes them above all else. I believe Kate does love her children but I don’t think it’s something she should be lauded over.

I’m the PP who said Kate’s kids are a means to an end. I think she loves them in her own way, but they are definitely a means to a queen-consort end.

As famous people and their kids go to me She is much better about it than say Britney Spears’ parents or even Taylor swifts because they are profiting off of their offspring. Kate may be “using them” but I think that is more about presenting the children in a way she is in control of because they are a public family. Their job is the family. Contrast that to show moms/families who profit off their kids monetarily and their kid is a primary source of income. It is different to me. In entertainment the kids are the commodity whereas for Kate the kids are part of the family commodity and she is trying to present them in a way where they still can have some privacy and aren’t exploited.

To me it’s the same or worse. It’s more understandable if a family needs money and they have a talented kid who can earn it. There’s no reason her kids need to be public figures. They could just not do it. I don’t think it would threaten the monarchy.

The kid is the next in line for king and I don’t think it is up to her if her kids have a public presence. The kingdom literally owns the kids not her. There is some archaic law or something that “isn’t tested” right now, but the king owns the kids so that may be hard to get out of. I mean do they have princess charlotte clothes, towels and tote bags? I don’t know but that would be the line for me.

The kids have a public role and can never be regular private citizens. It’s best that they are carefully exposed to the media and acclimated by parents who want what’s best for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's genuine. A wonderful role model for women today! And what is wrong with boundaries and decorum? She is so kind and warm in her engagements for her job. She doesn't overshare, great to see. I'm working on that myself.

How is she a wonderful role model??? She’s never held an actual job. She changed schools to chase a boy. She put up with years of being strung along and publicly embarrassed by William. He finally agreed to marry her and now they have a family. It doesn’t seem like a particularly happy marriage. She goes around a couple of times her month to smile and say hello to people, maybe reading nothing of substance aloud from notecards every so often, while looking as pretty as possible. As we’re supposed to look past how unimpressive it all is just because she married the future king? Sorry, no.

Since when is holding a job a barometer for success on this board? Lol. Every other post on dcum is a SAHM with a rich DH who gave up her job “because it’s best for our family.” At least Kate works, though admittedly she doesn’t seem too invested in it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's genuine. A wonderful role model for women today! And what is wrong with boundaries and decorum? She is so kind and warm in her engagements for her job. She doesn't overshare, great to see. I'm working on that myself.

How is she a wonderful role model??? She’s never held an actual job. She changed schools to chase a boy. She put up with years of being strung along and publicly embarrassed by William. He finally agreed to marry her and now they have a family. It doesn’t seem like a particularly happy marriage. She goes around a couple of times her month to smile and say hello to people, maybe reading nothing of substance aloud from notecards every so often, while looking as pretty as possible. As we’re supposed to look past how unimpressive it all is just because she married the future king? Sorry, no.

I’m the PP and a SAHM you probably think I don’t have a “real job” either. Well I didn’t know having a job is required to be genuine anyway, even though I think she does work in philanthropy and often. I think dating in your early twenties for a long time is probably age appropriate as opposed to marrying right out of college. They took a break and then got engaged, seems reasonable. Yes it’s not a competition of martyrdom. There’s room enough for many women to be successful in different ways. She knows her place and is successful and happy in that, what is wrong with that?

[Anonymous]

Her job is raising the heir and wearing modest fashionable outfits. They don’t have to do the charity part. The British public would probably rather they donated a few billion to end hunger than their empty handed “raising awareness” visits to food banks.

Kate does the fashion part well, and they produced the next generation, so she’s set.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's genuine. A wonderful role model for women today! And what is wrong with boundaries and decorum? She is so kind and warm in her engagements for her job. She doesn't overshare, great to see. I'm working on that myself.

How is she a wonderful role model??? She’s never held an actual job. She changed schools to chase a boy. She put up with years of being strung along and publicly embarrassed by William. He finally agreed to marry her and now they have a family. It doesn’t seem like a particularly happy marriage. She goes around a couple of times her month to smile and say hello to people, maybe reading nothing of substance aloud from notecards every so often, while looking as pretty as possible. As we’re supposed to look past how unimpressive it all is just because she married the future king? Sorry, no.

I’m the PP and a SAHM you probably think I don’t have a “real job” either. Well I didn’t know having a job is required to be genuine anyway, even though I think she does work in philanthropy and often. I think dating in your early twenties for a long time is probably age appropriate as opposed to marrying right out of college. They took a break and then got engaged, seems reasonable. Yes it’s not a competition of martyrdom. There’s room enough for many women to be successful in different ways. She knows her place and is successful and happy in that, what is wrong with that?

Absolutely nothing. Only people who are unhappy with their own lives bring down other women.

[Anonymous]

If OP is MM, she knows who is THE performer here. There’s no better itsy bitsy spider than her.
I think Kate M. is genuine. She may perform quite a bit because it’s part of her job as a princess and future queen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Her job is raising the heir and wearing modest fashionable outfits. They don’t have to do the charity part. The British public would probably rather they donated a few billion to end hunger than their empty handed “raising awareness” visits to food banks.

Kate does the fashion part well, and they produced the next generation, so she’s set.

Not sure about this. Sure, they'd want the few billion, but they'd also want the charity part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure, but she’s then obviously not a protective mother.

Disagree. I think Kate is not particularly fascinating or intelligent, but she is a good mother and prioritizes her children above everything else. And she is fortunate to have an excellent support system in her parents and sister. Her kids have a very good chance of being normal, functional adults. Kate & Will will learn their lesson from the Harry debacle too, and make sure the younger two have their own paths in life instead of being hangers-on.

I genuinely don’t think anyone who lets their young children be used or uses them as public figures can be a good mother. Whether it’s Kate Middleton, a TikTok maker, a stage mom or whatever.

I know there are kids who really love acting but even then I think a good mother would restrict them to theater or something and avoid anything with too much exposure like TV or movies at least until they are older.

For the ones born into the monarchy, they would have to break tradition which would be hard, certainly, but not impossible. I don’t think Harry/Meghan’s children make public appearances which is great but maybe that’s just because they left, not saying they’re role models on it. Just that it’s possible.

Whereas Kate Middleton chose this for herself and her children. I’m a very casual consumer of royal news and I’ve seen a TON of pictures and videos of her children at official events, none of which was necessary. She even did the photo shoot right after giving birth.

Kate has been a social striver her entire life. Her kids are a means to an end. That’s it.

Sure, we all can see how she is faking her love for her family. Did you mother not love you, pp?

I’m puzzled by all the posters saying she doesn’t love her kids. Um, most people love their kids and that’s not something to be praised even. It’s generally the default. The cruelest person I know loves her children to death and prioritizes them above all else. I believe Kate does love her children but I don’t think it’s something she should be lauded over.

I’m the PP who said Kate’s kids are a means to an end. I think she loves them in her own way, but they are definitely a means to a queen-consort end.

As famous people and their kids go to me She is much better about it than say Britney Spears’ parents or even Taylor swifts because they are profiting off of their offspring. Kate may be “using them” but I think that is more about presenting the children in a way she is in control of because they are a public family. Their job is the family. Contrast that to show moms/families who profit off their kids monetarily and their kid is a primary source of income. It is different to me. In entertainment the kids are the commodity whereas for Kate the kids are part of the family commodity and she is trying to present them in a way where they still can have some privacy and aren’t exploited.

To me it’s the same or worse. It’s more understandable if a family needs money and they have a talented kid who can earn it. There’s no reason her kids need to be public figures. They could just not do it. I don’t think it would threaten the monarchy.

The kid is the next in line for king and I don’t think it is up to her if her kids have a public presence. The kingdom literally owns the kids not her. There is some archaic law or something that “isn’t tested” right now, but the king owns the kids so that may be hard to get out of. I mean do they have princess charlotte clothes, towels and tote bags? I don’t know but that would be the line for me.

You don't know a lot.

Feel feee to educate me and fill in the gaps!

[Anonymous]

Maybe a little bit of both..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If OP is MM, she knows who is THE performer here. There’s no better itsy bitsy spider than her.
I think Kate M. is genuine. She may perform quite a bit because it’s part of her job as a princess and future queen.

You actually think this, don’t you, PP?

Lord, you folks are wacko.