Originally Posted by Somebody
including this new one because she is married to the queen's first cousin-once-removed and seemed interested in the cause during a conversation.
Sometimes that's all it takes: Member of the royal family (especially with a title) +interest = patronage, especially for a newer charity. I can see that she'd be interested in a charity that helps families through surgery in general after her family's ordeal but they didn't go in to detail, even though that was alledgedly the point if the article.
I think her point about poor and disadvantaged children was supposed to be that the schools and families don't have the resources available that she does. That has been a discussion during lockdown. She does admit that Thomas's is being fantastic with the teaching and what they have, just that she's terrible at making Maud do the work (and doesn't seem very sorry about it) so that's why she's going to be far behind. As opposed to someone that doesn't have the reasources, time or even computers to homeschool their kids.
The article was all over the place though and I think she had some points that got completely lost in the tone and meandering nature and talk about threatre roles and the connection missing on Zoom. I did roll my eyes at Tatler's little sly dig about being an actress best known "among certain a subsection of the population" as Channel 4's Peep Show's Susan.