General News for the Duchess of Cambridge 1: November 2010-February 2017


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
^I have to disagree. If you look at both William and Kate's patronages and other things they are involved with it's very clear what their passions are. Kate loves art, for one, which is obvious and there are many other things. You just have to look. William and Kate do more than Harry overall anyway. Not to knock Harry at all because both he and William have full-time jobs. I'm just saying they all have their interests and all do their best.
 
I do not see how opinions equate to passion, but answering the passion question, it is quite evident from Kate's patronages that she is passionate about children care and the arts. She is also into high street fashion and takes great care of her appearance. As for William, it is quite obvious he is into military and also into the conservation of endangered animals. Both are all very enthusiastic about sports, as evident from the Olympics.
 
I, for one, am tired of the "in your face" mentality of those who feel compelled to inform the world of their opinions. By all means, you are welcome to espouse any views you wish but some of us will kindly ignore them and quite happily share our own views with only our closest family & circle of friends. That doesn't mean that one's ideas & passions are more worthy than another's simply because they are made public. In Kate's particular case, her own beliefs will bear out in the charities she chooses to support and how she raises her children and serves in her royal duties over the years. She's in this for the long haul not to gain short-term notoreity.
 
Doesn't William have a passion for Africa?

As for Kate giving her opinion, isn't that kind of the antithesis of constitutional monarchy?
 
It is the antithesis of a constitutional monarchy.


Which is what critics don't get. They're attacking her for appearing to be a non-modern woman; instead of embodying feminism they say she is an example of a woman controlled by her man. They assume this because she's not vocal in public surroundings about her opinions on things, like a celebrity or a politician would be. What they fail to realize is that Royals are not celebrities. They are not politicians. They are Royals and an important part of that means maintaining an appearance of neutrality.
 
Which, actually, means that the more they critique her in such a fashion the more evidence we have to say that she is doing exactly what he should be doing and fulfilling her role as a junior royal.
 
Even when celebrities give their opinion we tell them to shut up and sing. I believe, correct me if in wrong, that Charles mostly gets away with his opinion because he is not the sovereign yet. The Queen is the main one who can't let her opinion be known; but most of her family follows her example.
Too many people want Kate to be too much to them. I hope she never falls into the trap of trying to please them because its a black hole that will destroy her.
 
Sandi Who? I thought that the POINT of feminism was the right of women to have CHOICE in how they present/ interact in public. That's what we were pushing for in the 70s &80s.
 
Diana did talk about what was important to her...... But generally after she was no longer married to the Prince of Wales.

She used her actions such as shaking hands with a HIV patient to get her beliefs across.

What the media really wants is for the Duchess to dish dirt. That is not going to happen.

I also think the media snobs are also down on Catherine because she is a regular person. Just look how they drool over Harry's GF because she has ties to the upper class.
 
Lee27 said:
Diana did talk about what was important to her...... But generally after she was no longer married to the Prince of Wales.

She used her actions such as shaking hands with a HIV patient to get her beliefs across.
Click to expand...

Except using your actions to show what is important to her isn't talking about what is important - it's showing. And to say that Catherine doesn't show what's important to her is to discredit Catherine's own charity works. She might not be shaking hands with HIV patients or going into mine fields, but she is doing things and through the work that she does we can see her opinions and beliefs just as easily as we could see Diana's.

That's not to say that Diana didn't actually speak her mind, she did. The difference is that she, by the time she was speaking her own mind, was very clearly on the path to not being a Royal. Diana and Charles married in 1981, and by 1985 the marriage was falling apart with both of them carrying on affairs. We can say that the marriage was clearly over by 1992, when they separated, so for the last 5 years of her life Diana wasn't really a royal. Furthermore, given her involvement in the writing of her biography by Andrew Morton, which was released prior to her separation, we can debate whether or not she considered herself to be a part of the Firm even as late as 1992.

In short, at some point between 1985 and 1992, Diana ceased to view herself as a Royal and started to be more open about her opinions on things. Catherine, however, presumably still considers herself a royal and is still maintaining that royal neutrality, while showing us her opinion on things through the various patronages that she chooses to grant, much like her husband and his extended family does.
 
Heres a spin for you, take it as you will: the Royal Family, apart ftom tbe Queen, are really servants of the Crown just as civil servants/public servants are. Once upon a time, public servants were not allowed to publicly express their own opinions. Why would the RF be different?
 
Trillian said:
Heres a spin for you, take it as you will: the Royal Family, apart ftom tbe Queen, are really servants of the Crown just as civil servants/public servants are. Once upon a time, public servants were not allowed to publicly express their own opinions. Why would the RF be different?
Click to expand...

I would argue that the Queen herself is a servant of the Crown in as much as, if not more so, the rest of her family.
 
Who the hell,is this SANDY? who gives a rats rear what she THINKS,
Ppfffftt
 
Ish said:
I would argue that the Queen herself is a servant of the Crown in as much as, if not more so, the rest of her family.
Click to expand...

And as such, unable to comment publicly on Policies of the government of the day.
 
It would be nice if instead of gifts they made donations to a charity or single mother's group etc.


LaRae
 
Generally speaking we do not do baby showers in the Uk. If, after the child is born, people wish to give a gift then donations to a charity could be an option. But we don't do celebrating before the event.
 
cepe said:
But we don't do celebrating before the event.
Click to expand...

Actually, we do.
In fact every person I know under the age of 35 who's had kids in the last 5 - 6 years has had a baby shower. It's becoming more and more "the thing".
 
Lumutqueen said:
Actually, we do.
In fact every person I know under the age of 35 who's had kids in the last 5 - 6 years has had a baby shower. It's becoming more and more "the thing".
Click to expand...

Well every woman I know under the age of 35 in the same circs has not had a baby shower. PResents when going on maternity leave from work but otherwise no. Maybe the women I know are more superstitious.
 
It is a sweet gesture but isn't it common standard to send such replies to letters send to the royals? I mean, lots of letters are sent to the RF members every day and their teams write and sign the replies. I doubt Kate even saw the letter this girl wrote, it is not even signed by her.
 
I'm not sure if this is the right thread, but I didn't see a magazine covers thread so here goes:

Kate Middleton and Prince William Bonding over Babies : People.com

Another William & Kate cover for People magazine. As much as I wish those two the best, this was not a good move for People. Three people died this week - Thatcher, Ebert and Funicello - and they don't get the cover? I would think Annette Funicello would because so many Americans grew up with her and she suffered for a long time with MS.

This recent edition of People reminds of when Diana was alive - every time she sneezed, she was on the cover. (Not literally, but she was the main story each week far too often)
 
My guess is that they got BP approval, and they didn't want to go back with a bump. People wants to stay on the good side of TRF. People follows trends. TRF is polling well. The stories are positive.
 
Dman said:
Pictures:
Kate spotted shopping in Fakenham-
Kate spotted shopping in Fakenham | Anglia - ITV News
Click to expand...

More about this:
As she looks forward to furnishing two new homes, the Duchess of Cambridge was on the hunt for bargains over the weekend.
Kate and a group of friends descended on the antique shops of Holt and nearby Fakenham in north Norfolk on Saturday.
The towns are close to Anmer Hall, which has been widely tipped as the Duchess and Prince William’s home after the birth of their baby in July.
At the same time the couple will shortly be moving into their new London base at Kensington Palace.
By visiting Holt, Kate is following in the footsteps of her stepmother-in-law, the Duchess of Cornwall, who likes to shop there.
However, the six-months pregnant Duchess left Mews Antique Emporium, which sells furniture, books and collectibles, empty-handed.
She spent 30 minutes looking in all 11 rooms, but failed to find anything to catch her eye.
A friend explains: ‘Kate has good taste but she prefers a more contemporary style.’
Says a spokesman for the Emporium: ‘The Duchess looked radiant and well. She was happy to mingle with other customers and security was very low key.
‘No purchases were made by the Duchess, although some were made by her friends.’


Read more: Duchess of Cambridge in Norfolk: Pals' weekend for radiant Kate Middleton | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Click to expand...
 
Sonjapearl said:
I'm not sure if this is the right thread, but I didn't see a magazine covers thread so here goes:

Kate Middleton and Prince William Bonding over Babies : People.com

Another William & Kate cover for People magazine. As much as I wish those two the best, this was not a good move for People. Three people died this week - Thatcher, Ebert and Funicello - and they don't get the cover? I would think Annette Funicello would because so many Americans grew up with her and she suffered for a long time with MS.

This recent edition of People reminds of when Diana was alive - every time she sneezed, she was on the cover. (Not literally, but she was the main story each week far too often)
Click to expand...

Actually, it was four, as Jonathan Winters passed away Thursday/Friday, but it would have been too late as this week's issue had already gone to the printers when that sad news broke. :sad: I am really surprised Annette's passing isn't the cover story, as it was People she chose as the magazine to let the World know about her MS.

I get the Cambridges' and the baby/baby bump is big right now for the celebrity "press", but this really saddens me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom