Prince William and Kate Middleton current events 4: February-May 2008

[Little_star]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Why is it tacky that this young woman prefers to be called by the name her parents gave and her friends use?

If this is in fact the name her parents use...we only have the papers word for that and I was under the impression that many of these newspapers like the Daily Mail were ridiculed on this forum.

Or is that only when they post unflattering articles about Kate?

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Little_star

If this is in fact the name her parents use...we only have the papers word for that and I was under the impression that many of these newspapers like the Daily Mail were ridiculed on this forum.

Or is that only when they post unflattering articles about Kate?

I think it goes beyond what the media may call her and I don't believe this discussion started with a Daily Mail article. My belief that unnamed friends, sources etc are never to be trusted remains and the Daily Mail is in a league of it's own. As with anything if, IMO, an article is correct, regardless, I will say so but when they get it spectacularly wrong, I reserve the right to point it out, as I am sure you would.

[Duchess]

Originally Posted by Little_star

If this is in fact the name her parents use...we only have the papers word for that and I was under the impression that many of these newspapers like the Daily Mail were ridiculed on this forum.

Or is that only when they post unflattering articles about Kate?

the daily mail isn't the most reliable source in the world.

[LadyCat]

Originally Posted by Little_star

If this is in fact the name her parents use...we only have the papers word for that and I was under the impression that many of these newspapers like the Daily Mail were ridiculed on this forum.

Or is that only when they post unflattering articles about Kate?

It's not so much the unflattering articles about Kate/Catherine, but the total lack of credibility. The D----- Mail has a habit of printing wild speculation under the guise of "news" and contradicting itself a week later. The stories of Wills and Kate not attending Peter's wedding because they were on holiday in Mustique come to mind.

Cat

[Penny Royalty]

The two names are good. I hear distinctions from both and I guess if Kate ever does want to be called Catherine I'm sure the difference may ultimately make more an impression to herself. If it makes her revel in a certain way, and it calls her impressionably, it might just work. She walks in a regard all her own and at this point she has, in my eyes, embarked on a path akin to the heavenly. England is quite the beautiful country. And I'm sure along the way she finds truths and clarity bestowed by fate. I bet sometimes she must be in awe. So Catherine or Kathleen or Katie. I like either she chooses.

[Lemon Lyman]

I work with 3 Catherines - well a Katherine, Catherine and a Kathryn and all use there full name. Nothing unusual about it really- why do people like the DM have to make a big issue over it

[kpusa1981]

She prefers Catherine to Kate so what. It is a nice name. another topic
Are they on a vacations?

Keep date of these articles in mind and fact the niether William or Kate 10th and 17th repectively. These are from Yahoo news Prince William by date.

http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,23778408-401,00.html?from=public_rss
http://www.odt.co.nz/entertainment/latest-hottest/7235/call-me-catherine-decrees-middelton
http://www.newkerala.com/one.php?action=fullnews&id=61687
for about three or four weeks the paper have William and Kate were taking this Mustique
It was a rumor before Peter's wedding that going on this trip but than it turned that William had "another wedding" to attend and Kate attend Peter's wedding. Than it was supposed to be for the week or two after Peter's wedding. Now they just be going there late last night or early this morning. What going on?

[Little_star]

It just seems like there's a distinct double standard on this forum bordering on hypocrisy in that the minute an article criticises Kate, whether it be from the Mail or elsewhere, it is roundly condemned as "unreliable".

However the moment anything positive is said it's taken as gospel.

[Amelia]

Some people choose to believe the negative, some choose to believe the positive but if anybody thinks that what is written in the media about Kate, or Chelsy for that matter, is 'gospel' then they are just fooling themselves. In fact the Telegraph recently published an article on just how little is actually know about Kate - so criticism or praise, it is probably mostly fiction either way and I think that most people here have enough common sense to know that.

[LadyCat]

The only "gospel" I can state regarding Kate and anything I've read or heard in the media is that she is obviously discreet, loyal and suitable to William, and this "gospel" comes more from what doesn't appear in the media as Kate is remarkably silent and has never been directly quoted to my knowledge.

Cat

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Little_star

It just seems like there's a distinct double standard on this forum bordering on hypocrisy in that the minute an article criticises Kate, whether it be from the Mail or elsewhere, it is roundly condemned as "unreliable".

However the moment anything positive is said it's taken as gospel.

If an article sticks to known facts then it is to be praised, if it resorts to unnamed sources, a source close to, etc printing wildly speculative articles, then yes, people will point that out.

If the criticism is based on good solid facts rather than something an air headed author has invented, then most people will still post it and agree with it. Because Catherine and her friends won't speak to the media, most of the stories they print about her and/or her family is laughable and is treated as such.

As very little is known about Catherine and it is unlikely anyone 'in the know' would speak to the media, then on the whole, when they use the ubiquitous 'UNNAMED' source, close friend, royal courtier, servant, childhood friend, nail filer, plumber, etc the story is unlikely to be true.

It is only hypocritical if only the favourable articles are allowed on the forum and anyone who posts nasty unfounded remarks about her, has their post removed.

The Mail does have the occasional good article, not normally a permanent writer but it also seems to have those that scrape the bottom of the barrel.

[Duchess]

Originally Posted by Little_star

It just seems like there's a distinct double standard on this forum bordering on hypocrisy in that the minute an article criticises Kate, whether it be from the Mail or elsewhere, it is roundly condemned as "unreliable".

However the moment anything positive is said it's taken as gospel.

saying that the good articles are taken as "gospel" is a bit overstated. the good articles are more believable because they're not hurtful or negative. why wouldn't someone be more accepting/open to the postive ones? when any publication writes a negative article about someone that hasn't put a foot wrong since the media set their sights on her is unfair and obviously meant to start negative discussion for the very simple fact that that's the cycle the media takes. looking back over the years (diana, sarah, autumn and peter) all started out with glowing press coverage and then as the media decided that in order to keep selling their respective publications they needed to stir things up, they began "leaking" negative stories about them.

[princesslily]

I think Kate is very brave to put up with all this. I certainly wouldn't be able to deal with it.

[Kezza]

The Daily Mail have it in for Kate at the moment judging on the latest headline about the Queen according to the Daily Mail telling Kate to get a job.

Queen: Kate should get a proper job before Prince William announces their engagement | Mail Online

[scooter62986]

I'll wait to see the wedding, until then I wouldn't listen to these trash rags. I don't know much about their relationship, but I've heard he is going to the Caribbean. I wonder if she will stay in England and if this may put any stain on their relationship.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by Little_star

It just seems like there's a distinct double standard on this forum bordering on hypocrisy in that the minute an article criticises Kate, whether it be from the Mail or elsewhere, it is roundly condemned as "unreliable".

However the moment anything positive is said it's taken as gospel.

That's probably because when they write critical articles they have to resort to unnamed sources "close to" whoever is supposed to be voicing the criticism. For instance, in the article posted by Kezza, where the Queen is supposed to have voiced concern about Kate's lack of career, with its long string of verbatim quotes from an unnamed "senior aide," I think people can be forgiven for being sceptical about the notion that a senior aide to the Queen would be running to the Mail with a bunch of detailed remarks about what the Queen thinks. That is, unless the person had a real desire to be an ex-senior aide in fairly short order. Papers aren't going to fall over themselves posting bland positive comments from "unnamed sources" because bland positive comments don't sell papers.

[Madame Royale]

'Waity Katie should get a job'

The Queen wants Prince William's girlfriend Kate Middleton to get a proper full-time job before the young couple consider getting married.

Queen wants Kate Middleton to get a job

[tara1983]

just wanna know has kate done any interviews or has she spoken to any repoters???