58 thoughts on “People: Kate is changing the way people discuss mental health”

1. Oh for the love of…this is just ridiculous. I fully believe that Jason sends People articles and they run them verbatim.

   She has barely worked and she has changed nothing (yet). She spouts out the same exact tired phrases in the few speeches she does make, but all they — Willam, Harry, and Kate — ever do is talk about “bringing awareness” and “starting a conversation.” She hasn’t done anything of substance.

   I am also suspicious w/r/t Heads Together and it’s purpose/function. It seems to exist mainly to have their names attached to something they “formed” themselves and to provide photo ops every few months. Why couldn’t they just work on behalf of existing organizations that are already doing great work?

   Does People magazine have such a girl crush on her that they are blinded to any actual facts?!

   1. Totally agree L. People magazine is one of the most flattering publications when it comes to Kate. In fact is one of the few publications that insist on calling Kate “Princess Kate”. This tells me everything. I agree that Jason may be behind this, so I do not believe anything of what they write.

   2. People Magazine wants whatever makes them money. Diana made them boatloads of money through the years. They keep trying to make Kate Middleton “happen” because they want a return to the money-making Diana & Fergie years.

2. Have they ever heard of schizophrenia? Why do their ideas about mental health revolve around depression? It baffles how Heads Together can cart around mental health without ever being specific. They should stop generalising mental health as if it’s one illness that can be solved by a smiling family.

   1. I used to want them to address more issues but then when I really thought about, their lack of preparedness, general knowledge and just general engagement with the issue, I realize they could do actual damage/harm.
      Unless they’re going to start addressing their own issues, they should stick to this(or change all together)

   2. Exactly! It shows her passion is nothing more than ignorance, a dalliance.

   3. ‘They should stop generalising mental health as if it’s one illness that can be solved by a smiling family.’ I don’t think they/she is saying that at all and that’s a gross generalisation of the campaign goals. They are discussing de-stigmatising mental illness by normalising he discussion around mental health. It’s part of the NHS objectives for promoting mental health from 2017-2020 in at least England and Wales. And I think Scotland too, but I’d have to check. De-stigmatising mental illness the first step to getting help to people who need it. The principals are phrasing it poorly, but still that’s the gist of what they mean.

      The campaign is not well-planned though since once mental illness is destigmatised, there needs to be adequate services in place to provide for all people who need it. The NHS is not providing adequate services now, and the campaign does not address the growth of this need.

      That strong familial/social support for people suffering a mental illness positively impacts their personal and professional functioning does have a basis in fact. Psychiatric care and medicine can only do so much for suffers of poor mental health. I’ll stop here lest I rile those who wish to believe otherwise. Good quality supportive research is easily found via Google search, if anyone is interested.

      Cheers!

3. She’s passionate about it because mental health is the new black. Like, it’s so *on point* right now! It’s non partisan, non controversial, and requires (so far) nothing more than platitudes and occasionally showing up. I mean, she had to choose something, so she chose this, and to her credit, it’s a worthy, important choice. That she could be doing so much more is her m.o. for everything. It’s her motto: I Could D More, But I Won’t.

   1. That’s true. Mental health is a vague expression. People tend to think about it differently. When you don’t get your
      your job done and have a depression is a totally different state than being downright crazy as Batman’s Joker (I know it’s a fictional character, but there are plenty of other examples).
      I think Kate wants to take care of the depressed.

      1. In a nutshell, there is nothing to talk about re. Kate’s ‘work’ because she does no work. Smiling, waving and spouting the same platitudes, parrot-like, about a subject no doubt chosen for her and for a short period of time when ordered to do so does not equate to work. If her ‘work’ comprised making daisy chains, we’d be talking about that. She changes nothing.

         ‘People’ magazine is a rag pimping for those seeking good PR. Didn’t it opine recently about the marvelous maternal skills of the ultimate pimp, Carole Middleton? If you believe ‘People, then I have some magic beans for you.

         The charities fall into line, tug the forelock about how wonderful Kate is, yet there is no evidence of her deep understanding of issues. At all. Ever. Of course the Foundation exists as a vehicle for the trio’s personal PR. Royalty latching itself to charitable causes is relatively new, done entirely for self-serving reasons of keeping the monarchy alive.

         Unfortunately, miserably, shamelessly, those in desperate need are trotted out to publicly expose their sad circumstances in front of a vain, care-less woman who just wants outta there quick, baby. As someone said in the last post, Kate’s smile disappeared just a little too quickly on exiting the Welsh charity. Ugh.

         1. Of course the charities publicly praise her. They aren’t going to be rude and end up on the royals’ sh-t list because that would mean less press for them. And by praising Kate, they get a whole new article written about them days later to get their name out there again. So of course they praise her. They are using her for good press the same way she is using them.

            1. The charities tied to the Foundation are especially compromised, jumping through the PR hoops in order to access Foundation money. I’m wondering if the trio has made grants yet to charities under the HT banner? Is it publicly declared or is this information only gleaned from the Foundation’s financial statements?

               The knighted head of Action for Children won’t ever rock the royal entitlement boat. The ‘soft menace’ of the BRF isn’t too far away.

            2. Whenever the Royal Foundation releases their 2016 financial records, we’ll know how much money they spent on HT and the various charity partners. They should have it listed how much money they gave each organization.

            3. Thanks KMR. I wondered whether they would have a press release re. release of funds, which would make sense. Also there’s whatever share of the Christmas Appeal run by one of the UK papers. Wonder what happened there.

            4. “They are using her for good press the same way she is using them.”

               In terms of utility, yes, and it’s a perverse quid pro quo because below the surface it’s not really the same thing at all. The publicity a charity desires has different motives from that of someone who just wants PR for self-aggrandisement. If they are, indeed, said to be ‘using’ her, at least their reasons are noble unlike hers, which is to exploit them and people’s most private suffering. Really, she has all the power and they have little.

               I agree with Jen that the most egregious and unforgivable thing is this callous and cynical parade of other people’s intimate pain as props, mere ciphers, in order to elevate themselves and preserve their godlike status. It costs her nothing (except getting out of bed and buying a new dress) while it costs them everything.

            5. True, but the charities are using her for good press in order to *help* people.

               Kate is using the charities for good press in order to help herself.

               Mutual using, yes. One to help those in need. The other to help keep her in the diamonds that she “needs”.

            6. Strange how as you say she’s spouting the same platitudes but still isn’t articulate or comprehensible – I have no idea what the second part of her statement means.
               I totally understand how being nervous, anxious or even startled by the flashes of cameras and people clamouring for her attention might throw her off – and sometimes words just escape us, it’s normal and happens to us all especially if we’re discussing something very sensitive that could be misinterpreted. And that’s fine if it happens on occasion or even the first couple of times but surely if you’re saying the same thing or making a similar statement over and over again, either if a speech or off the cuff, you should be able to get your point across better.
               To me, the fact that she still struggles to explain her interest in the cause speaks volumes about her actual feelings.

            7. Hello, Em I am with you 100% Yes, it can be off-putting, as you said, to have cameras popping away at you during a speech, but Kate should be more accustomed to this by now. Her inept manner of expressing herself could be rectified with practice. Surely, she must understand what she is supposed to be saying. Surely, she practices speaking before hand, Or, maybe, not! I say, “Not,”
               All that you said is spot on!
               Gosh, what an incompetent woman.

   2. People Magazine is a gossipy rag that I only see on the table in my doctor’s office waiting room, along with US magazine, some low-cost fashion magazines and a few Golf Digest issues. People is overly fawning of celebrities, and yes, they are trying to make Kate into Diana 2.0.

   3. At least she didn’t say she was “keen”.

   4. If this is Kate being passionate about something, I’d hate to see her bored =)

4. Seems like more PR to the American media about Saint Diana 2.0, if you ask me. I know, cynical.

   Organizations always talk about Kate like this–she’s so great, intelligent, so on and so forth, yet there is no actual evidence of any of it, it’s just talking her up as there is no substance or education there.

   I wish there was so we’d have a lot more to talk about.

   1. In the last century , it was on vogue to let the high society daughters study history of arts, it’s a smooth study. Actually the parents hoped their daughters to get married (remember Titanic). I have to quote another movie here, but it’s actually true.

   2. Yes, People magazine doing what they do best. Cut and paste from a PR statement that doesn’t say or mean anything with a tenuous tie to Diana, whose cover photo sold a lot of issues.I don’t understand what a People magazine KM piece accomplishes. It’s an American tabloid. Those readers want to read about the Kardashians and the Duggars. Seems like another desperate flailing move from Carole.

      1. Indiana Jones, I am an American and I don’t care to read about the Kardashians or the Duggars, so your sweeping generalization is wide of the mark. How is this a move by Carole?

         1. BethNY, If you re-read my post, you’ll see I wrote that those Americans who read People are interested in reality TV personalities. Do you read People to catch up on Kate? Do you read People? Carole has planted two articles about how indispensable she is to the Cambs’ life in People magazine in the last few months. If you know anything about PR it’s easy to identify who has planted the article.

            1. I think the whole “manipulation of the press” is disgusting. No matter who it does or for what reason.

      2. I have to say that it appears that Simon Perry went beyond the typically boring KP press release and actually did a little digging on his own: That quote from Sir Hawkhead evidently was given directly to Perry and not to other journalists. What I’d like to know is if Perry contacted Hawkhead himself or if he went through Jason Knauf to get that additional quote. I hope that he did circumvent KP–anything to lessen the control over the media that Jason and the royals themselves try to exert–and that it wasn’t that Jason offered an additional tidbit as payment for another gushing article.

         1. People magazine NEVER EVER print anything without checking with the famous person’s PR. They are infamous for dressing up PR statements as ‘articles’ to make it less obvious. They also send the finished article to the subject of said article or their PR for copy approval before sending to print. They will happily change the article according to the wishes of their subject. If you are reading People, be very aware that what you are reading is a series of press releases no matter the subject or topic.

            If Simon Perry managed to get a quote from the charity on his own initiative, you can be sure that he would have sent it to Jason to approve and or rewrite before adding it to his article.

   3. Ellie, I agree with you. If Kate has indeed done so much for mental health issues, then let’s see the results so far. PEOPLE says that more and more people are willing to talk about mental health because Kate and William and Harry are encouraging it, but where are those stats, please? And, how much money has been raised for the cause they champion? And what has the general public actually learned from their affiliation with their cuase?

      I do agree that the threesome have done something, but it’s not grandiose. It’s just another little cause they are championing, and what they are doing makes little more than a ripple, if you ask me. Of course little ripples do eventually roll on into bigger waves of concern and interest, so let me give a slight nod.

      I’m curious as to how one can really believe that Kate is so taken with this cause. Truly, if she would open up a bit and spill the beans on personal issues, that would make more sense to me and would be applauded. I still cannot believe her childhood was that perfect. Living with Carole would give anyone anxiety. But, she just keeps on saying how perfect her life was and frankly, I’m skeptical. Of course, at this point, we just don’t know, do we?
      We can only speculate. And, I do understand that the privacy of William and Kate is something that isn’t going to be broken in any articles, or in any of their causes. When William and Harry do open up on their issues pertaining to the death of their mother, they do more than Kate seems to do with her garbled words.

      1. “Living with Carole would give anyone anxiety.”
         !
         I would say, Carole loves her children of course but she subconsciously pushed them the right way. They are all keen to marry rich or famous, to please their parents. Could you imagine Pippa marrying a construction worker or a teacher out of love?All the hard work from her mother to get them into higher circles for nothing?
         I think the children felt this pressure, she not even had to say it out loud.

         1. I wouldn’t say the kids are victims of Carole’s evil machinations. I’d say they were willing/active participants and wanted the same goals (end results)as she.

            1. That makes it then easier for all of them, doesn’t it?

5. Kate consistently gets praised for doing nothing. And nothing is what she has done for the issue of mental health. A few speeches with vague comments and suggesting that it’s only kids from broken families that are really at risk is so ill informed that she actually does a disservice to the issue.

   I also doubt she even said that entire quote because it’s more eloquent than she has ever been during her speeches or when she has been recorded saying anything off the cuff.

   And kate just doesn’t care like this article claims she does. She attends things so infrequently that it’s obvious she only does to these events because she is expected to.

   1. I disagree about the quote attributed to Kate. I actually think she did say the quote because it’s pretty word salad-y. It’s not super coherent so it doesn’t seem, to me, to be a statement that was released or anything.

      1. Her speeches written by others are just as bad though. I just don’t buy a lot of the quotes attributed to her after the fact in print when others weren’t there to witness it. There is so much propanganda with the BRF that I don’t put anything past Jason.
         Even if we do give her credit for saying it, claiming she is passionate about a topic she at most bothers to attend for an hour or so every month or so isn’t exactly being passionate. The poor kids who need help in between those times are going to be screwed if they think Kate is going to help them out.
         Nothing she has done has demonstrated she is remotely serious about the issue of mental health nor does she seem to understand what it is beyond depression anyway.

         1. I’m not saying her claiming to be passionate about anything is real, I’m saying that if that attributed quote is a statement Jason put out then it is even more poorly written then his other stuff. Her speeches at least kind of make sense. That quote has a “change thought process in mid sentence” vibe in one of the sentences that her speeches don’t have. Plus Perry was apparently there with her, which is why I think it may actually be something she said. At first when I saw the quote I thought it was a statement put out later (which they’ve done before), but is is too poorly written to be a statement, in my opinion.

            1. I agree, KMR. She used the same ending words in two sentences, one right after the other. It’s her usual word salad and nothing of substance.

      2. Kate is consistently inarticulate when heard in conversation: unable to construct a coherent argument, which is then peppered with fillers such as ‘sort of’ trailing off to nothing. It’s painful. While the quote says nothing much, it has some level of coherence unusual for Kate. I’d say it been cleaned up by Jason/staff or written for her.

         Nic, I agree that the royal propaganda machine is vigilant in perpetuating Kate’s image as passionate etc. Trouble is, there’s no evidence of it, just empty words.

      3. It’s word salad-y, but still more coherent than anything she’s ever said, so it’s definitely not Kate saying any of this.

         The woman can’t talk or write in complete sentences. She repeats her self constantly and has never articulated anything. At best, she is at wonder that anyone somehow muddles through without support or she tells them to keep up the good work.

6. Sir Tony Hawkhead doesn’t explain how KM has changed the way people talk about mental health. Are donations now overflowing into mental health charity coffers? Has there been a public groundswell agitating for an increase in funding NHS mental health services? Is the man or woman the street aware that KM is now the voice of improving mental health services? Have outreach programs noticed a spike in people seeking help as a result of KM’s infrequent visits to charities?

   KM seems to have her own problems with understanding mental health in that she does not function as a responsible self actualized 35 year old. She is constantly praised by people who fawn and flatter her for doing nothing more than rarely showing up at some center, being shuttled through various sethings and then quickly disappearing as soon as her hour is up.

   1. The only mental health discussion that can be linked to Kate is related to body image issues and extreme dieting because people have noticed the changes in her over the years. Otherwise there has been no further discussion traced to her non existent efforts.

7. Wow I really do miss the Diana days. It seemed much more fun but yet again the 80s and 90s were a fun time to live in.

   1. Well, the 80s and 90s were not fun for everyone. Still, I do think that there is something lacking in today’s world when it comes to the celebrated people. Many of them, anyway.
      William and Kate really don’t do too many things to excite, move, or educate others. This cause should be one that helps others. I wonder how many people are being helped, though. To actually shine a light on mental health issues is well needed today. But, what exactly are William and Kate doing? I think Harry’s support of the military has done some things, but I truly wonder what the Duke and Duchess are doing. Kate’s words are just confusing and while she may be “keen” about this subject, it’s going to take more from her to have me give her a round of applause. Sorry, if I am not too charitable when it comes to her.

      1. Well fionamare, I think its larger than life persona/personalities that is missing in today’s world. I agree with you. It seems to me that W,K, and possibly H just like the perks of being a royal and none of the responsibilities. Kate could do so much for the world and influence good but doesn’t want to. That is what bothers me the most.

8. http://www.tatler.com/news/articles/february-2017/duchess-of-cambridge-climate-change-vladimir-putin

   This is how Keen Kate can save the world, according to Tatler. Even they have noticed Kate’s penchant to be flirtatious, her ignorance, her vanity.

   1. That was great!!

   2. Ahh! Great article!

9. Well, to give credit where credit is due…….these stories about her passion for mental health and all the work that she is supposedly doing DO improve my mental health. They say laughter is the best medicine and I know I feel better after a big laugh and my outlook on life is that much better. So thank you Kate. You do wonders for my mental health – just not in the way you probably intended to

10. Why in the world do they not control KM?

11. Do you guys think The Queen knows that the monarchy will not last once she passes?

12. In an off topic, only slightly, are you watching the Oscars? Have you seen Ruth Negga’s divine and queenly red Valentino gown? It’s red, it’s got long sleeves and high neck and a bit of lace- all elements that Kate wears and loves! Wish Kate would wear a gown like that, it would be conservative yet elegant and the red makes it so vibrant!

    1. Ruth’s dress does seem like something Kate might like, but I actually dislike the dress for all of the reasons Kate would like it. Ginnifer Goodwin is wearing a very similar gown, also in red, and I dislike that one, too.

       I like Karlie Kloss’s dress for it’s simplicity. And my Octavia Spencer bias is showing because I love her gown even though on anyone else I would hate the feathers.

       1. My first thought when I saw the Ginnifer Goodwin gown was that it would be something Kate would wear. And it’s not a good dress. Kate would wear it like that blue Saloni number. All sorts of no.

          On another note, Charlize Theron bears a striking resemblance in look and carriage to Princess Charlene.

          I agree about the Karlie Kloss dress: elegant. Also liked the Dior that Kirsten Dunst wore, for the same reason.

          Major climax in this year’s Oscars! Where was the card that Faye and Warren read out? Were there two in the envelope? That wag, actor Bradley Whitford, tweeted directly after the mix-up: “So, did Hillary win?!?!?!?!!!” which made me chuckle… best tweet of the night.

          1. I guess Faye and Warren were handed a second Best Actress envelope instead of Best Picture. I saw some people on social media saying the Best Picture mix up was planned, but if it were I hope the La La Land people were in on it because that would be very cruel to do to them if it was planned.

             1. It was clear that Beatty looked a bit flummoxed. I can see their dilemma: live show shown globally, is it a simple mistake of those in charge putting Emma Stone in with LLL rather than by itself? Quick decision = must be so announce. Last award of the night, show running late. I think it was simply a mix-up and not a prank. I doubt very much that Faye and Warren would participate in anything so cruel and unprofessional.

       2. GAhhhh!!!! I hate feathers on a dress even on the lovely Octavia Spencer!!! Makes a woman look like a goose

13. In these early fundamental years, it’s traumatic for the child or if the parent or primary career is not around, so for me to get in as early as possible is important. Particularly if you come from challenging situations, for parents to be given support as early as possible is important.”

    This statement isn’t coherent to me. It’s sort of all over the place, and really seems like Kate is talking the talk that she thinks will impress people, and sound knowledgeable. I don’t buy for a nano second that she is passionate about mental health for children or anyone else. Just sounds good to be ‘passionate’ about something extremely important. That set me off to the point where I didn’t read thru the comments but went straight away to make one. I see that others have pretty much the same take on this, but imo it can’t be over stated in such a critical and sensitive area so letting my comment stand.

Comments are closed.