Kate's New Picture

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It feels like they are moving the timeline for her return? What has been stated for a while was "Easter" which if she attended a church service (Luke she did at Christmas) would be March 31.
Now it sounds like they are talking about releasing a photo for George's birthday, and returning to public duties after kids return to school after Easter break, and those aren't until mid April.

No, they said from the beginning "after Easter." Louis's birthday in April would be totally in keeping with their it final timeline.

I think one mistake they made early, which they may now be attempting to correct, is that they were intentionally very vague-- regarding her illness, her recovery, her condition, etc. From the start they stated that this was for her privacy, which is understandable. But I think knowing her immense popularity, the better approach would have been to be much more specific about a limited number of things. Like without disclosing her illness, they could have very specifically said "the princess will be solely focused on her health and her family during this time, and will not be making appearances even by photograph or video during this time" and "while the exact date of her recovery cannot be known it will not be until April at the earliest." Providing firm, clear language would have made people talk, yes, but it also would have stamped out a lot of the speculation. So many people are expecting her to rise like you-know-who on Easter morning and when it doesn't happen, even though they never said it would, it's going to give rise to ANOTHER round of speculation.

They created this controversy even before the release of that idiotic photo and the lies about it's provenance, by playing coy with a public and press that have a clearly demonstrated appetite for photos of the princess. They needed to be more clear and declarative from the getgo. It would have shaken people up at first but been better in the long run.

I hope this is a lesson learned. This is why transparency is useful. Lots of organizations need to learn this.

Gong to disagree with you there. The statement is fine. The issue is with social media and parasocial relationships. I promise you even if they had made an statement just like yours we'd still have wild rumors.

Their mistake in all of this was the release of the photo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One theory I have regarding the photoshopping and Kate's confession, which I find so odd because there's just no way she was totally rogue in that:

I wonder if the photoshopping occurred due to pressure from Kate (and possibly William), or out of a sense of trying to protect Kate. But in any case I wonder if it was internally clear that the press office decisions around its release were driven by intentions to protect the princess, and if then W&C were unwilling to publicly lay the blame with the press office if it seemed like a well-intentioned screw up, and that's why Kate shouldered the blame. If they'd revealed the press office was involved (which they must have been because there was an announcement to the rota that a photo was coming and a palace spokesman went if record regarding the photos date/location/photographer), there would be pressure to fire someone, and perhaps the details of the situation would have made this feel unjust.

I know this is a very generous read, but I'm trying to understand why someone who is recovering from surgery and clearly not running press operations would be left to shoulder all the blame, without resorting to wild speculation about divorce or affairs (which also might be true, I don't know, but some of that speculation sounds so soap opera-y to me).

I have always thought this. She and William are notoriously protective of staff.

Makes sense to me. W&K can recover from divorce and affair rumors, they have been swirling around them from the start and they just keep on moving A staffer may not recover as easily, it would also be bad optics for W& K to blame it on staff even if it were true.

I think it's a possibility but it is again bad PR, because it's so unbelievable. that might be magnamaous of them but it still seems dishonest and inept, so they are sacrificing a lot of the integrity and goodwill of the institution for the sake of the job of a staffer. I also don't find it particularly believable that they would have actually fired someone, regardless of how much pressure they got to do so; if they are kind enough to have kate take the blame it seems like they would also be kind enough to forgive someone else's mistake.

I dunno, it's all just weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it odd that Charles and Camilla didn’t make any statement whatsoever on Kates abdominal surgery back in January? A dutiful well wishes could’ve been appropriate.

Charles and Camilla reportedly went to see Kate.

William also didn’t visit his father at London Clinic. Harry did. I am not sure if that’s royal protocol that two heirs can’t be in the same hospital room or what but it is interesting nonetheless.

In addition, no cars are driving off from the palace during school hours so Williams excuse of cancelling work to take care of the kids and take them to school is also strange.

Yes! Nobody in the BRF has commented about her condition. The most William has said publicly is “my wife is more artsy.” I totally get that she deserves some privacy and shouldn’t have to appear until she’s ready but the rest of the family avoiding the subject is strange.

The Queen had bone marrow cancer and was ill for a long time. Not one word to the public about the exact nature of her frailty, and she was reigning at the time.

The Queen also wore outdated matchy-matchy hats with her outfits and had bagpipes played under her bedroom window every morning. Things change. They always have. This is not your father's monarchy anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It feels like they are moving the timeline for her return? What has been stated for a while was "Easter" which if she attended a church service (Luke she did at Christmas) would be March 31.
Now it sounds like they are talking about releasing a photo for George's birthday, and returning to public duties after kids return to school after Easter break, and those aren't until mid April.

No, they said from the beginning "after Easter." Louis's birthday in April would be totally in keeping with their it final timeline.

I think one mistake they made early, which they may now be attempting to correct, is that they were intentionally very vague-- regarding her illness, her recovery, her condition, etc. From the start they stated that this was for her privacy, which is understandable. But I think knowing her immense popularity, the better approach would have been to be much more specific about a limited number of things. Like without disclosing her illness, they could have very specifically said "the princess will be solely focused on her health and her family during this time, and will not be making appearances even by photograph or video during this time" and "while the exact date of her recovery cannot be known it will not be until April at the earliest." Providing firm, clear language would have made people talk, yes, but it also would have stamped out a lot of the speculation. So many people are expecting her to rise like you-know-who on Easter morning and when it doesn't happen, even though they never said it would, it's going to give rise to ANOTHER round of speculation.

They created this controversy even before the release of that idiotic photo and the lies about it's provenance, by playing coy with a public and press that have a clearly demonstrated appetite for photos of the princess. They needed to be more clear and declarative from the getgo. It would have shaken people up at first but been better in the long run.

I hope this is a lesson learned. This is why transparency is useful. Lots of organizations need to learn this.

Gong to disagree with you there. The statement is fine. The issue is with social media and parasocial relationships. I promise you even if they had made an statement just like yours we'd still have wild rumors.

Their mistake in all of this was the release of the photo.

People who have been following and reporting on the royals for a long time disagree. Just one example:

https://www.businessinsider.com/kate-middleton-and-prince-william-controversy-2024-3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s been “after Easter” the whole time, but the internet just heard “Easter” so when everyone remembers about Kate in two weeks, it’ll go around again.

They’d be smart to get ahead of that, but it’s KP we’re talking about.

Evidence from the very first statement that something in January seemed off and/or further confirmation that KP (or whoever’s running the show) is really bad at their job. We had a whole thread about what abdominal surgery keeps you in the hospital 14 days and takes 3 months recovery. Moving on to Kate’s return, KP used ambiguous, vague, language (understandable) “unlikely to return to public duties until after” but then tied it to an oddly specific date by referencing “Easter”, which is March 31. So much of this is instigated by KP missteps. They created the fire and keep providing fuel to keep it going.

I’m one who thought the statement settled very little and was an invitation to questions, confusion and chaos. And here we are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am embarrassed to admit this but I have seen rumors all over Tiktok (what has become of me) that the BBC received an injunction of some sort that means that major news from the palace is coming out this week? Has this been discussed here/has anyone else heard this?

PP here and I'll add that the big news is apparently not an update on Kate's health.

It was a nothing burger and what they announced is that they will release a picture after April 17 and she will speak about her surgery. What’s being widely discusesd is that not only is her face puffy from the steroids but she may have had something like a stroke that has altered her face a bit. All postop complications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am embarrassed to admit this but I have seen rumors all over Tiktok (what has become of me) that the BBC received an injunction of some sort that means that major news from the palace is coming out this week? Has this been discussed here/has anyone else heard this?

PP here and I'll add that the big news is apparently not an update on Kate's health.

It was a nothing burger and what they announced is that they will release a picture after April 17 and she will speak about her surgery. What’s being widely discusesd is that not only is her face puffy from the steroids but she may have had something like a stroke that has altered her face a bit. All postop complications.

They could not have announced a difficult recovery with postop complications before the surgery - y'all are nuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am embarrassed to admit this but I have seen rumors all over Tiktok (what has become of me) that the BBC received an injunction of some sort that means that major news from the palace is coming out this week? Has this been discussed here/has anyone else heard this?

PP here and I'll add that the big news is apparently not an update on Kate's health.

It was a nothing burger and what they announced is that they will release a picture after April 17 and she will speak about her surgery. What’s being widely discusesd is that not only is her face puffy from the steroids but she may have had something like a stroke that has altered her face a bit. All postop complications.

They could not have announced a difficult recovery with postop complications before the surgery - y'all are nuts.

What? No one said that.

[Anonymous]

Charles should announce what kind of cancer he has. He’s not the Prime Minister, he’s just a royal ceremonial figurehead who is easily replaced since everyone on the planet knows the drill re: the heir.

They’ve created this drama by not putting the King out front and center to announce his diagnosis and prognosis (even if it’s a positive spin).

Had he done that, then the media would make that the focus of their attention.

Similarly, they could have shared an update on Kate’s health.

“The duchess is recovering well without any serious complications from X surgery.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Charles should announce what kind of cancer he has. He’s not the Prime Minister, he’s just a royal ceremonial figurehead who is easily replaced since everyone on the planet knows the drill re: the heir.

They’ve created this drama by not putting the King out front and center to announce his diagnosis and prognosis (even if it’s a positive spin).

Had he done that, then the media would make that the focus of their attention.

Similarly, they could have shared an update on Kate’s health.

“The duchess is recovering well without any serious complications from X surgery.”

Try not to sound like such an idiotic American. Smh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One theory I have regarding the photoshopping and Kate's confession, which I find so odd because there's just no way she was totally rogue in that:

I wonder if the photoshopping occurred due to pressure from Kate (and possibly William), or out of a sense of trying to protect Kate. But in any case I wonder if it was internally clear that the press office decisions around its release were driven by intentions to protect the princess, and if then W&C were unwilling to publicly lay the blame with the press office if it seemed like a well-intentioned screw up, and that's why Kate shouldered the blame. If they'd revealed the press office was involved (which they must have been because there was an announcement to the rota that a photo was coming and a palace spokesman went if record regarding the photos date/location/photographer), there would be pressure to fire someone, and perhaps the details of the situation would have made this feel unjust.

I know this is a very generous read, but I'm trying to understand why someone who is recovering from surgery and clearly not running press operations would be left to shoulder all the blame, without resorting to wild speculation about divorce or affairs (which also might be true, I don't know, but some of that speculation sounds so soap opera-y to me).

I have always thought this. She and William are notoriously protective of staff.

Makes sense to me. W&K can recover from divorce and affair rumors, they have been swirling around them from the start and they just keep on moving A staffer may not recover as easily, it would also be bad optics for W& K to blame it on staff even if it were true.

I think it's a possibility but it is again bad PR, because it's so unbelievable. that might be magnamaous of them but it still seems dishonest and inept, so they are sacrificing a lot of the integrity and goodwill of the institution for the sake of the job of a staffer. I also don't find it particularly believable that they would have actually fired someone, regardless of how much pressure they got to do so; if they are kind enough to have kate take the blame it seems like they would also be kind enough to forgive someone else's mistake.

I dunno, it's all just weird.

This is my problem with the theory too. They could easily have blamed it on anonymous "staff" and never even named a staffer. Then if it was a staffer, and they really were concerned about this person, they could have either left them in their position or moved them laterally to another position that doesn't involve pr.

There were so many easy options, and they took none of them.

[Anonymous]

I think if they had never released a statement and Kate just quietly stopped working for a few months all of social media would be in an uproar about how "lazy" she is (even more than they already are). They released a statement asking for privacy, trying to provide enough so that anyone with a modicum of decency would give her a wide berth and it blew up. I hope they never explain what happened and then just proceed as business as usual once she feels better.

[Anonymous]

https://imgur.com/gallery/QHyrtaJ

Ahahaha.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One theory I have regarding the photoshopping and Kate's confession, which I find so odd because there's just no way she was totally rogue in that:

I wonder if the photoshopping occurred due to pressure from Kate (and possibly William), or out of a sense of trying to protect Kate. But in any case I wonder if it was internally clear that the press office decisions around its release were driven by intentions to protect the princess, and if then W&C were unwilling to publicly lay the blame with the press office if it seemed like a well-intentioned screw up, and that's why Kate shouldered the blame. If they'd revealed the press office was involved (which they must have been because there was an announcement to the rota that a photo was coming and a palace spokesman went if record regarding the photos date/location/photographer), there would be pressure to fire someone, and perhaps the details of the situation would have made this feel unjust.

I know this is a very generous read, but I'm trying to understand why someone who is recovering from surgery and clearly not running press operations would be left to shoulder all the blame, without resorting to wild speculation about divorce or affairs (which also might be true, I don't know, but some of that speculation sounds so soap opera-y to me).

I have always thought this. She and William are notoriously protective of staff.

Makes sense to me. W&K can recover from divorce and affair rumors, they have been swirling around them from the start and they just keep on moving A staffer may not recover as easily, it would also be bad optics for W& K to blame it on staff even if it were true.

If they are protecting staff, I doubt it's for noble reasons seeing as how they all throw their family members under the bus whenever useful. They don't want to give staff reason to leak against them, I'm sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It feels like they are moving the timeline for her return? What has been stated for a while was "Easter" which if she attended a church service (Luke she did at Christmas) would be March 31.
Now it sounds like they are talking about releasing a photo for George's birthday, and returning to public duties after kids return to school after Easter break, and those aren't until mid April.

No, they said from the beginning "after Easter." Louis's birthday in April would be totally in keeping with their it final timeline.

I think one mistake they made early, which they may now be attempting to correct, is that they were intentionally very vague-- regarding her illness, her recovery, her condition, etc. From the start they stated that this was for her privacy, which is understandable. But I think knowing her immense popularity, the better approach would have been to be much more specific about a limited number of things. Like without disclosing her illness, they could have very specifically said "the princess will be solely focused on her health and her family during this time, and will not be making appearances even by photograph or video during this time" and "while the exact date of her recovery cannot be known it will not be until April at the earliest." Providing firm, clear language would have made people talk, yes, but it also would have stamped out a lot of the speculation. So many people are expecting her to rise like you-know-who on Easter morning and when it doesn't happen, even though they never said it would, it's going to give rise to ANOTHER round of speculation.

They created this controversy even before the release of that idiotic photo and the lies about it's provenance, by playing coy with a public and press that have a clearly demonstrated appetite for photos of the princess. They needed to be more clear and declarative from the getgo. It would have shaken people up at first but been better in the long run.

I hope this is a lesson learned. This is why transparency is useful. Lots of organizations need to learn this.

Gong to disagree with you there. The statement is fine. The issue is with social media and parasocial relationships. I promise you even if they had made an statement just like yours we'd still have wild rumors.

Their mistake in all of this was the release of the photo.

A real photo would not have been a mistake or caused a stir. The problem was releasing a photo so heavily doctored, it cannot be considered authentic.