Duke and Duchess of Cambridge Current Events 5: March-December 2013

[GracieGiraffe]

...I have no problem with contrary opinions on TRF. What is disappointing, is this recent surge in sarcastic, eye-rolling judging of others. You don't like these royals or monarchy in general, that's fair enough. But, please then don't belittle and deride those of us who do.

Please point out to me where I have derided or belittled any of you who happen to like Will and Kate. Please. And if I have, you might want to balance it out with the commentary hurled at me today with people who simply disagree with my views.

I do like the royals and monarchy and general. This is why I comment on Will, and to a lesser extent, Kate. I don't think he does much for the image of the monarchy. Now you may disagree, but I think perhaps people should hesitate before an entire day is spent making this thread about me. P.S. I'm not the one who make it about me. By the way, I kind of like Kate. It's not beyond me to make a comment about her that's eyebrow raising, but I don't dislike her and find much of the Daily Mail commentary about her to be unfair (as well as the commentary about her family - the public for the most part has no business in going down that road). Will is another story in my mind, but that's for another day. No, I don't care for him, for a variety of reasons.
Please point out to me where my commentary on Will or Kate is anything but commentary on their contributions, or lack thereof, to the BRF. You might not agree with me, but I challenge you to find anything which is an attack unfitting of adult discourse; an attack on their looks, an attack on their dress (I've defended Kate's dress many times), an attack on gender, or anything else that is not directed at their attitude towards their roles in the BRF. You might not agree with my commentary, but I thought that the purpose here was to discuss the royals, not some sort of mutual lovefest about them, that ignores the bad. If one supports the monarchy, one cannot ignore the bad of the moment - monarchy must always remain on its toes to remain relevant.

If you don't like what I said, I am perfectly reasonable and am willing to listen to a counter argument. Frankly, blind support of one's idols does not help in the court of public opinion. Nor does statements such like "haters" (the weakest argument of all), malicious, and I could go on. Name calling does not support one's argument.

If you notice, I never say anything bad about any of the other members of the BRF: I have much admiration for the Queen, the D of E, Charles and Camilla, Edward and Sophie. In fact, it's what I sense in Will and Kate that has me worried that all of the good work done by the Queen for 60 years might go down the drain with what I see as a lack of work ethic in these two - yes, I know Will is in the RAF full-time, but I mean a lack of work ethic in royal duties.

 

[cinrit]

Frankly, blind support of one's idols does not help in the court of public opinion.

It is equally unfair to refer to approval or admiration as "blind support of one's idols". Okay, I'm out of this discussion.

 

[soapstar]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I thought it was unfair to claim that William and Kate are selfish and their visit to the Child Bereavement event was "a crass publicity stunt." I also thought it was unfair to make a dig about William bringing his mother into lawsuits. He's only done that once - when Kate was photographed topless. .

It's interesting that Harry and William do the same amount of royal duties (well actually Harry does a little less), yet William is the only one that is called out for having a "lack of work ethic".

 

[GracieGiraffe]

It is equally unfair to refer to approval or admiration as "blind support of one's idols". Okay, I'm out of this discussion.

Taking one phrase out the the entire context of the entire post does not lend itself to the counterargument.

If the group cannot hear any criticism without spending THE ENTIRE DAY chastising one post, coupled with the most recent suggestion to "eff off" (Sister Morphine), then I think it is a blind support of an idol.

 

[cepe]

What this discussion has highlighted is that unless one tunes in on an on-going basis its easy to miss what the royals are doing.

Those that have followed the DDo~C for a while know that the Palace issued a statement saying that they were part time. Catherine would be based with William in Anglesey and that for the first 2 years this is how it would be. I read that and accepted it. Good grounding for Catherine, stability in the marriage (and as some of us know from experience, that is not the same thing as dating someone) and it would coincide with the decision to be made in 2013 as to what William's next career move would be.

If you didn't know any of that, then you wouldn't understand why these two pop in and out of royal duties. But that decision (rightly or wrongly) was made.

Personally I think Catherine gets it right and William is too uptight but with his background I'm not surprised. I'm not one that thinks being born royal means you have to get it right every time.

What has offended some people over the past 24 hours is that some posters didn't appreciate the whole picture and ripped into the couple; some posters don't cut either the royal couple or other posters any slack.

These two have tried to balance private with public and they dont always get it right and sometimes they are poorly advised. But they try.

Let's cut them some slack - and let's do that with each other as well.

End of sermon

 

[HRHHermione]

Taking one phrase out the the entire context of the entire post does not lend itself to the counterargument.

If the group cannot hear any criticism without spending THE ENTIRE DAY chastising one post, coupled with the most recent suggestion to "eff off" (Sister Morphine), then I think it is a blind support of an idol.

Don't play the martyr. You suggested earlier that William and Kate use the pain of others as part of a publicity stunt instead of recognizing that what they were doing is a pretty standard royal engagement and then made fun of William for speaking about his mother's death. You had to know people would find that incredibly distasteful.

The lesson here is to be more measured in your criticism and make it far less personal or people are going to tell you that you crossed a line.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I thought it was unfair to claim that William and Kate are selfish and their visit to the Child Bereavement event was "a crass publicity stunt." I also thought it was unfair to make a dig about William bringing his mother into lawsuits. ...

I respect your opinion on this matter.

Don't play the martyr. You suggested earlier that William and Kate use the pain of others as part of a publicity stunt instead of recognizing that what they were doing is a pretty standard royal engagement and then made fun of William for speaking about his mother's death. You had to know people would find that incredibly distasteful.

The lesson here is to be more measured in your criticism and make it far less personal or people are going to tell you that you crossed a line.

I in no way feel like I am a martyr. Pages and pages of criticism do not bother me. I am a trial attorney, and if you think this bothers me in the least, I assure you I could not do my actual job. I've had judges and opposing counsel say far, far worse to me.

I am sorry that people found my comments distasteful, but I have no problem making comments that people find distasteful - I do not make distasteful comments for the sake of making them, but for the sake of putting my comments out there for others to think about. If you reject it, it is fine, and you most certainly have rejected it. But I take no offense.

 

[cepe]

I in no way feel like I am a martyr...

As a trial attorney, you should understand that all of the evidence needs to be taken into account.
You take no offense, and seem to not regret having given it - that is a sad statement.
I think its time to drop this.

 

[roseroyal]

Here's the article. She visited the scouts last week. She's been meeting with them frequently, but it's just not reported in the media.



Pregnant Duchess of Cambridge braves the snow to volunteer with Scouts | Royal | News | Daily Express

Wow, I did not know Kate had the Scouts to her home! How cool is that?What a gal!I think it's time we focus on wonderful things like that, and not the negative.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

As a trial attorney, you should understand that all of the evidence needs to be taken into account.

You take no offense, and seem to not regret having given it - that is a sad statement.

I think its time to drop this.

I really have seen no evidence to the contrary other than palace spin. I am sorry if my commentary offends, but my commentary stands - I do not regret giving my honest commentary whether it offends or not, that's the difference.

If you want to drop it, it is fine by me. The thread IS about the Duke and Duchess, but today it is about me.

 

[HRHHermione]

Wow, I did not know Kate had the Scouts to her home! How cool is that?What a gal!I think it's time we focus on wonderful things like that, and not the negative.

I thought that was a great story too. What a memory for those kids.

 

[casualfan]

Here is an article on K&W's outing that shocked me! I had not considered the point of view of any individual who had lost a child...shame on me!

Prince William and Kate Middleton's eerie Child Bereavement UK visit

I am really sorry to say that this is an article from Louisiana. Good news is, this woman and her apparent fascination with someone she's never met are far from the public eye. No one reads this stuff. This is not from a well-known news source, and that's good-because it's hard to see how she could have taught anything in an institute of 'higher' education.

 

[casualfan]

MARNOE: Although many people visit this forum, many find W&K interesting, but not "all that." I am one of those people. I can see both sides of this visit, but I do think it was a tad callow of William to have Kate with him. This is a perfect example of not thinking things through. A person can't know what it is to lose a child until a person has experienced it. Bad call IMO.

DUCHESS: Irrelevant to the discussion.

Two probs with this: the organizers at the charity didn't think it was a bad idea, and they are trained experts. Secondly, these people aren't gods, but there are few other people who could sympathize with the bond these parents had with their children than expectant parents. One could say it would've been hard for a pregnant woman to visit with people who suffered the loss of their children, but empathy is all about being able to put your heart with someone else's and lend them a hand.

 

[Daria_S]

Here is an article on K&W's outing that shocked me! I had not considered the point of view of any individual who had lost a child...shame on me!

Prince William and Kate Middleton's eerie Child Bereavement UK visit

Wow. That's beyond disgusting. I wonder if the 'author' of this diatribe knows William and Catherine personally to make such remarks. Rude, uncalled for, and distasteful.

This is an shocking article written very spiteful and nasty; probably someone who also would find fault, if they wouldn't support that charity, 'for not caring for bereaved people, while having all the luck in the world' -

The writer must be someone with lot of hate and littleness in his mind.

In complete agreement here. Again, just goes to show that this couple cannot win, because there will always be someone who will find fault and reason to spew such nasty vitriol.

I'd rather read about the good that William and Kate do than to see the space wasted on idiots like the Kardashians or Paris Hilton or the Ecclestone girls. To me they are just useless entities taking up unneeded space - yet these useless people are "heroes" to millions of misguided kids. Sick.

Indeed! I have a lot of respect for William and Catherine, and have used their charitable activities as examples of being kind and helping the community when speaking with young children. They thought it was 'cool' that a 'prince and princess went to see people and children who were really sad and needed a hug'.

Recently I had contact with a child who had never met her father, because he died of cancer before her and her twin sister were born, and she said that she wished 'William and Kate would come and see her when she was sad and missing her Daddy, because Mommy doesn't know what it's like, and can't help'. This child was just four years old and if that doesn't show that at least some good comes from William and Catherine visiting charities like that, I don't know what does.

Add to that a little boy who was being treated at Royal Marsden who is now in remission and his parents were checked back up on by Hello and the Mom and Dad told them that every 3-4 weeks W&K themselves call the hospital to check on the progress of all the kids they have met.

I remember reading about this, and getting a lump in my throat. To some, this may be a small gesture, but to me, it says a great deal about the couple and what priorities they have. They DO care for others, and want to make a difference.

"In the busyness of each day keep our eyes fixed on what is real and important in life and help us to be generous with our time and love and energy.
“Strengthened by our union help us to serve and comfort those who suffer. We ask this in the Spirit of Jesus Christ. Amen.”

-Their Royal Highnesses The Duke & Duchess of Cambridge.

I love this prayer. I think it states their intentions quite clearly and perfectly, not to mention that the couple definitely lives by these words.

That article disgusts and annoys me!I agree with posts# 195, 205,06,and 09.I believe that by their actions William and Kate have shown they are intent on living out the prayer, in post 227- it was not empty words.As to the ? of whether William and Kate comfort families without cameras, if I had a penny for every time I read that they did, I would be able to buy a palace next door to theirs.I quoted the above, because I had never heard that, and it warms my heart. I do not find it surprising in the least however.Why can't we just celebrate the kindness William and Kate show, and not pay attention to articles that are so negative?

I agree, and please see the little story I wrote earlier in this post. Seems like this couple's magic is beginning to attract my students .

Wow, I did not know Kate had the Scouts to her home! How cool is that?What a gal!I think it's time we focus on wonderful things like that, and not the negative.

That made me smile. I'd love to be a fly on the wall during something like this .

 

[roseroyal]

That story brings tears to my eyes! How can anyone doubt W&C make a difference? The work they do affects many more people than just them and the people they meet!Wrote you a PM!

 

[HRHHermione]

It might even be worth writing through Child Bereavement U.K. It might help cut through some bureaucracy- but I've never written to them so I don't know.


Good on you for taking an extra interest in this little girl- kids who have been through something that hard need people to look out for them. And you're right, that's a perfect example of why the Cambridges' support of Child Bereavement UK is so positive- if it helps a little girl like that one feel less alone, that's wonderful.

 

[roseroyal]

HRH Hermione you said it! I also think writing thru CBUK is a great idea.They could then pass the letter along....

 

[roseroyal]

CBUK-Child Bereavement UK-Clare Charity Centre Wycombe Road Saunderton Buckinghamshire HP14 4BF TRH Duke and Duchess of Cambridge-Clarence House London SWIA 1BA

 

[Sister Morphine]

I know I said I wouldn't respond to GracieGiraffe's comments anymore, but something she said made me break that rule just this once. I didn't tell her to "eff off". If she bothered to read my reply to KittyAtlanta correctly, she would have seen me saying that I did NOT tell her that.

I don't care if people here disagree with something I've said, but I do care a great deal when they accuse me of saying something I did not. Next time you want to fly off at the mouth, make sure what you're accusing me of saying is something I've actually said, and not your poor interpretation of it.

 

[Ish]

I would suggest writing to both Child Bereavement UK and the Cambridge's themselves. Cover all your bases.

 

[TLLK]

That was a dreadful article by someone looking to criticize...

have to agree.
My parents have been in this situation losing their son when he was 23. Each family and person is different in how they cope with this type of tragedy. In regards to the couple and the charity I believe that like all royal visits this was scheduled some time ago. When it was announced that Kate was pregnant and accompanying William, the counselors would have had the opportunity to share the news with the families. The families could then choose to meet with them if they were comfortable with being near an expectant mother. I'm glad to read that the couple had the opportunity to meet with families away from the press.

...but I do think it was a tad callow of William to have Kate with him. This is a perfect example of not thinking things through. A person can't know what it is to lose a child until a person has experienced it. Bad call IMO.

My parents have been through this exact situation and I believe that I can share what they would likely be thinking about this situation. It would be impossible to know what every single grieving parent would be thinking or feeling. The counselors and the Cambridges more than likely discussed how would this be received if Kate were present. The families would have been informed that she was accompanying William. The choice would then be theirs if they were comfortable with meeting an expectant mother. The British royal family has decades of experience in meeting with members of the public in many different situations sometimes it is after a tragedy has occurred. I do believe that the royals and their staff make the effort to ensure a smooth and comfortable event for all who will be present.

 

[AfricanAUSSIE]

Please point out to me where I have derided or belittled any of you who happen to like Will and Kate.

I totally support this, and I am sorry you received so many personal attacks for simply stating your opinion or making a joke. I too love to have different sides of any argument and look forward to new angles and information that will enlighten. To purposely choose to read or hear takes on my side of opinion is what I call very boring indeed. I mean, what would be the point of participating in any forum?

For those who feel the need to ask anyone not to post here (or suggest anyone's post be ignored) because their opinions are not in line with their own, is it not they who need to join a "fan" site? Or is it that this site should more appropriately be called The Royal Fansite?

 

[HRHHermione]

I totally support this, and I am sorry you received so many personal attacks for simply stating your opinion or making a joke...

There's a difference between criticism and character assassination. It is one thing to state that you disapprove of how William and Kate have structured their schedule and that you think they should do more royal duties. It is quite another to suggest they exploited someone else's tragedy for personal publicity in a way that was hurtful to the people involved, especially when it ignores the fact that the parents chose to participate and the meeting was private.

It is also never acceptable to make fun of how any human being chooses to deal with the death of their parent and it is quite distasteful to mock them for speaking about their loss publicly.

Such criticism steps over the boundaries of good taste, and exhibits a disdain that distracts from the conversation.

 

[Roslyn]

I'm coming in late to all this, but I just wanted to say how surprised and disappointed I am to see the way Gracie has been attacked for stating her opinions.

I actually thought the Whalan article made some good points. I thought it was quite inappropriate for William to be equating the death of his mother with the loss of a child, and poor taste to take a pregnant wife to a child bereavement centre.

This is a discussion forum, after all, not a fan site.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I actually thought the Whalan article made some good points. I thought it was quite inappropriate for William to be equating the death of his mother with the loss of a child, and poor taste to take a pregnant wife to a child bereavement centre.

I agree with you on this, however personally I've been afraid to state my opinion.

This is a discussion forum, after all, not a fan site.

Sometimes I don't think you can tell the difference.

 

[Nice Nofret]

Roslyn: Again, why should it be bad taste? It was a scheduled visit - everybody new who was to be there. Everybody knows Kate is pregnant.

It is their royal duty to care for the sick and destitute and bereaved people in their country - in no other context anyone asked them to be destitute and sick and bereaved themselves. Where is the difference? You do NOT have to know a specific tragedy by own experience to be compassionate and feeling.

AFAIK Diana had no HIV and had not cancer - but still everybody lauded her for her visits, she did not loose a limb by landmines etc.

I am not blind, their are no blind people in my family but still I support and help the blind people institute where I live ... And you know what? Those blind people do not feel it is bad taste on my part, that I still have my eyesight; they do not feel that s.o. who takes an interest in them, has to share their affliction.

Do I have to be hungry to feed the hungry? Do I have to be homosexual to ask for same rights? Do I have to be black to ask for respectful treatment of ALL human kind? Do I have to be a woman to be a feminist?

 

[CanRoyal]

I thought it was quite inappropriate for William to be equating the death of his mother with the loss of a child, and poor taste to take a pregnant wife to a child bereavement centre.

I agree with you on this, however personally I've been afraid to state my opinion.

I'm scratching my head over your statements and cannot follow your logic.

The stated purpose of Child Bereavement UK is for support when a child grieves or when a child dies.

Here is a direct quote from their website:

Child Bereavement UK believes that all families should have access to the support and information they need when a child grieves or when a child dies.

Examples given on Child Bereavement UK's website of when a child would grieve include if their mother, father, sister, brother or even a beloved grandparent died. If any of these events happened in a child's life, they would be eligible for the support and services of Child Bereavement UK.

William was not equating the death of his mother with the loss of a child. He was saying that he grieved when his mother died - one of the two stated purposes for the existence of Child Bereavement UK.

And what would happen if, say, a child was bereaved by the loss of a sibling and that child's mother was pregnant at the time? Are you suggesting that child's mother be banned from the premises of Child Bereavement UK because she was pregnant?

 

[soapstar]

I didn't see many attack Gracie. But I did see many debate her opinions. If you're going to post on a forum, you have to be prepared to get your ideas/opinions challenged

I'm coming in late to all this, but I just wanted to say how surprised and disappointed I am to see the way Gracie has been attacked for stating her opinions.

I actually thought the Whalan article made some good points. I thought it was quite inappropriate for William to be equating the death of his mother with the loss of a child, and poor taste to take a pregnant wife to a child bereavement centre.

This is a discussion forum, after all, not a fan site.

Why was it in poor taste to take Kate to the Child Bereavement headquarters? It's not like William and Kate popped in unannounced. These visits are months in the making. Therefore anyone William and Kate met during this visit, would have known well in advance that they were going to be there and they would have had a choice about meeting them.

Also, I don't believe William was equating losing a child to losing a parent. The group he and Kate were privately introduced to, meet once a month to discuss issues around grief. So when William told them that he had been, "in similar circumstances," he was obviously talking about the grieving process.

I think one of the founders of the organizations said it best: "Grief, in its many forms, is one of the most painful experiences that anyone can suffer..."

 

[cinrit]

It might help to know the purpose of the charity before making criticisms of it's patrons. William certainly did nothing wrong in mentioning that he had also lost his mother when he was a child.

Child Bereavement UK ... Child Bereavement UK :

"The death of a parent, brother or sister; miscarriage or still birth; the loss of a baby or child of any age; these life-shattering events can plunge anyone into a devastating world of grief.
Child Bereavement UK believes that all families should have access to the support and information they need when a child grieves or when a child dies."

It would also help to thoroughly read posts before responding to them. AfricanAUSSIE, Sister Morphine never said that she was putting anyone on "ignore". As a matter of fact, if I remember correctly, she specifically said she has no intention of doing so.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

Here is what I find troubling about this visit; as far as I am aware, Will became patron of this charity in 2009. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this is his FIRST visit to the charity (and please, actually correct me if I am wrong) He makes this visit at a time when public opinion about him is falling - he and Kate are being called out on their commitment to the BRF, on their vacation schedule, on Kate's downtime. It is obvious from the visit and the quotes of conversation that this was all introductory; comments on yummy brownies, etc. I've never seen public opinion regarding him this low. As far as I am aware this week is virtually his first week of royal duties since the solitary unveiling of Kate's portrait in January. So in he pops to one of the most serious charities in which he is patron.

If someone could please point out to me how long they spent inside the center I would appreciate it. But given what I am aware of: 1) first visit, 2) the tenor of the commentary and conversation, and 3) the length of the visit, this is nothing more than a photo op. And to use such an organization as a photo op, even if invited and welcomed by the charity, is disgusting. I'm guessing this charity has invited him several times in the four years that he has decided to become its patron, but as far as I am aware this is his first visit - again, correct me if I am wrong. If he has visited before, and has actually worked inside of it, the tenor of the visit would be completely different, IMO.

I don't care what charity a person decides to become patron of, however noble the cause - if you don't spend time with the charity, you are using the charity for self-aggrandizement. It might be a mutual use, but the benefit to William in this instance is far greater to me than any benefit he gives to the charity.