Is public opinion against Kate Middleton, the Duchess of Cambridge?

[wessexxfan]

 I'm a foreigner, and I don't use to read other countries' newspapers at all, but I've read the opinions of british citizens (or not) seem to be very negative towards Kate Middleton. Seriously, I've thought I was one of few people who were annoyed with Kate's mediocrity, but I see lots of people think the same, in other side, it seems that only the press praises her, that's so strange, tell me what really going on.
Just check out the opinions in a leading UK newspaper:
http://www.google.com.br/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=kate%20goes%20solo&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Ffemail%2Farticle-2098169%2FKate-Middleton-goes-solo-Duchess-Cambridge-visits-Lucian-Freud-exhibition-National-Portrait-Gallery.html&ei=BqIzT_yHC4LyggeEurCHAg&usg=AFQjCNGITGg_Qo5_-YhkdOygwQCY1OqKKg

ERR, I really like the dress, it really becomes her, but I must remark that the more  time passes, the less I think Kate pretty!

[Orchid]

I'm a Brit and from what I see and hear I don't believe their is one dominating tide of opinion for or against her.  Commentary in newspapers is mixed and is only representative of a minutiae of the population.  The same goes for forums and message boards. There is a definite mix of opinion but it can't be gathered to assume a reflection of the wider public. 

Post wedding, the press have been either favourable or neutral in their coverage and that is a fair reflection of the remnants of the wedding hype and her uncontroversial role to date.

But in sum, i'd say it's impossible to account for the wider public's opinion in the absence of any substantial opinion poll or national survey. Certainly there will be sections of the British public who don't have an opinion and have little to no interest and sections who are either in favour or opposed to her for a variety of reasons.

  

[v_voom]

I wouldn't take the comments from Daily Mail seriously. They like to moan and groan on every topics that the Daily Mail prints. In our office, we call the Daily Mail the 'Whiney Mil' .

[Orchid]

The Daily mail has its fair share of positive comments regarding Kate and the royals: it's often fairly balanced. Do you not take those comments seriously either then?   

[nymphette]

I think that much of the public is a little confused with Kate and Wills, especially with regards to press releases and then retractions.  They are glamorous and young and are trying to settle into their roles, and time will only tell if the current wave of negativity will stick with them or not.

[Blue Clover]

I agree! It really does seem that public opinion about Kate Middleton is mixed. Not solidly adoring and not solidly negative, but a real mixture of positive and negative.

I wouldn't take the comments from Daily Mail seriously. They like to moan and groan on every topics that the Daily Mail prints. In our office, we call the Daily Mail the 'Whiney Mil' .

I do take comments from the Daily Mail seriously. I saw over 400 comments about the National Gallery visit yesterday and apparently 400 people took the time to comment on the event, so they obviously wanted to voice their impressions of Kate. So I am not sure why their voices matter so little? Again, I found the comments to be mixed, not all were "whining," as you put it, but some were actually very favorable and supportive of Kate. 

[Orchid]

I often think the reputation the Daily Mail has as a sensationalist tabloid gets mixed up with the opinions of its readership, which are as varied as varied can be.

Insofar as the commentary goes in that paper, the opinions are as valid as those expressed anywhere else. They are the opinions and perceptions of Joe public so I really don't see how they are debased on the basis of being tabloid commentaries.

[Lothwen]

I agree with Orchid and BlueClover


The thing is, before the vacation to Mustique, it seemed as though the Daily Mail wouldn't print any comments that were critical of the Cambridges.  Now they do, and those are the comments that get the best ratings. 

I think that much of the public is a little confused with Kate and Wills, especially with regards to press releases and then retractions.  They are glamorous and young and are trying to settle into their roles, and time will only tell if the current wave of negativity will stick with them or not.

It is a little confusing, isn't it?  I find myself getting headaches if I try to follow what it is the press is trying to do with this couple, especially Kate. 

[Eri]

People just don't like her the best comment about this chick I have ever read is that she has great hair people just don't like her because she isn't giving them anything to work with ...the real issue for Kate will be WHEN the press ends the honeymoon with her that will be brutal because the British press takes no prisoners and it's not like anyone "loves" her ...

[wannable]

I wouldn't take the comments from Daily Mail seriously. They like to moan and groan on every topics that the Daily Mail prints. In our office, we call the Daily Mail the 'Whiney Mil' .

I agree but for a different reason, comment section isn't representative of their 10 million daily readers.  i.e. 400 comments doesn't represent not even a 1% of their readers.

On another hand, the views they express is a reflection of their reality.

[cinrit]

The comments are much like polls, aren't they?  The only difference is they're public and we can actually read what people think.  But if polls aren't valid, why are comments?  The sentiments are the same.

Cindy

[wannable]

Both are valid but with the dose of facts/reality -- the example I gave in my previous post, the comments, be it positive or negative is a reality to 0.4% = 400 comments of 10,000,000 daily readers.

[Blue Clover]

I agree with Orchid and BlueClover
The thing is, before the vacation to Mustique, it seemed as though the Daily Mail wouldn't print any comments that were critical of the Cambridges.  Now they do, and those are the comments that get the best ratings. 

Lothwen,
Funny you should mention this because I really thought the DM would take a position of extreme adoration towards Kate given the tone of the coverage of the wedding and the months after. It was during the Mustique trip when the DM shifted away from that position and allowed mixed opinions about Kate to come through in reader comments. I do think the press gives new BRF members a pass for awhile, they tend to extend goodwill during a honeymoon period.

[lil157]

Richard Palmer wrote on his twitter, earlier today, about Kate's last night visit to the National Gallery.

"I don't suppose it will worry her yet but royal photographers are getting fed up with Kate's refusal to even turn her head for the cameras."

https://twitter.com/#!/RoyalReporter/status/167522781813157888

If you check his profile (https://twitter.com/#!/royalreporter), he then on proceeds to reply/have discussions with other twitter users about the subject.

[shopper]

Could someone post the several  articles critical of Catherine 's and William  Mustique vacation . I saw none. What I saw were comments from people on internets sights and the Daily Mail normal nasty comments from people who usually are overly critical of whatever she does . The articles about these two are extremely positive.

[Blue Clover]

Could someone post the several  articles critical of Catherine 's and William  Mustique vacation . I saw none. What I saw were comments from people on internets sights and the Daily Mail normal nasty comments from people who usually are overly critical of whatever she does . The articles about these two are extremely positive.

I said reader comments were finally allowed for the DM articles, in the past, some believe, only positive comments were posted - this is related to the Mustique trip.

Again, you can chose to support/believe only comments that are positive or take all of them as a whole.

[cinrit]

Richard Palmer wrote on his twitter, earlier today, about Kate's last night visit to the National Gallery.

"I don't suppose it will worry her yet but royal photographers are getting fed up with Kate's refusal to even turn her head for the cameras."

https://twitter.com/#!/RoyalReporter/status/167522781813157888

If you check his profile (https://twitter.com/#!/royalreporter), he then on proceeds to reply/have discussions with other twitter users about the subject.

What a funny tweet.  I remember when there were so many criticisms against Kate for constantly looking at the cameras and smiling.  (Oh, yes ... there were loads of criticisms about that.  Check the old threads.)  Only a couple of months ago, another reporter wrote that Kate knows how not to stare at the cameras, but to look at them and smile just the right amount of times.  I guess the opinions lie in who gets looked directly at and who doesn't. 

Cindy

[Lothwen]

^There's only been one or two articles being critical of the trip (yahoo had an article that talked about the inconveniences to the other guests). 

It is hard to determine exactly what public opinion is of Kate based only on reader comments from the Daily Mail, or People magazine, or any other online website.  However, I read through some of the opinions on the Daily Mail article about the trip, and there were several where the person said that they had started off liking Kate, but that her limited number of engagements last year and her 10 day vacation and the restrictions her family placed on the other guests had caused them to change their opinon.


Also, some of the members of the press are pretty peeved that the Cambridges have complained of harrassment over the dog picture in Anglesly

http://twitter.com/CamillaTominey

If they keep complaining the press will stop fawning over her. 

[shopper]

I said reader comments were finally allowed for the DM articles, in the past, some believe, only positive comments were posted - this is related to the Mustique trip.

Again, you can chose to support/believe only comments that are positive or take all of them as a whole.
[/quote]

Readers comments are always allowed for the DM articles. I did not say the comments were positive .  I said I did not see any negative article about their trip. Only negative internet posters , and they usually comment on some of these articles.

[wannable]

Richard Palmer wrote on his twitter, earlier today, about Kate's last night visit to the National Gallery.

"I don't suppose it will worry her yet but royal photographers are getting fed up with Kate's refusal to even turn her head for the cameras."

https://twitter.com/#!/RoyalReporter/status/167522781813157888

If you check his profile (https://twitter.com/#!/royalreporter), he then on proceeds to reply/have discussions with other twitter users about the subject.

What a funny tweet.  I remember when there were so many criticisms against Kate for constantly looking at the cameras and smiling.  (Oh, yes ... there were loads of criticisms about that.  Check the old threads.)  Only a couple of months ago, another reporter wrote that Kate knows how not to stare at the cameras, but to look at them and smile just the right amount of times.  I guess the opinions lie in who gets looked directly at and who doesn't. 

Cindy

Great find Lil 

Cinrit agreed, I couldn't help myself -- various smiley facial expressions, I mean old time royal watcher, so yes I've read old threads of Kate and the Paparazzi. 

[Blue Clover]

I said reader comments were finally allowed for the DM articles, in the past, some believe, only positive comments were posted - this is related to the Mustique trip.

Again, you can chose to support/believe only comments that are positive or take all of them as a whole.

Readers comments are always allowed for the DM articles. I did not say the comments were positive .  I said I did not see any negative article about their trip. Only negative internet posters , and they usually comment on some of these articles.
[/quote]

I didn't mention any negative articles. Internet posters are real people who are allowed to voice thier opinions.

[Princess Pea]

The British look for substance, charisma and compassion and they read those in the echelons of celebrity like the front cover of a book. Yes we are trying to look deeper into the Kate affect but we are searching unlike Diana, and that's the problem the public are trying to find those three words at the beginning of my sentence.

[Orchid]

That's a lovely and valid point, Princess Pea!

Could someone post the several  articles critical of Catherine 's and William  Mustique vacation . I saw none. What I saw were comments from people on internets sights and the Daily Mail normal nasty comments from people who usually are overly critical of whatever she does . The articles about these two are extremely positive.

If you're interested in the holiday news you can visit the dedicated thread.  Here is a link which starts at the first article reporting the negative effect on fellow holiday makers: CLICK!

As Blue Clover has pointed out, she was speaking of the Daily Mail's publication of mixed reader comments. She wasn't speaking of the articles or any negativity within those articles. Her intention was quite clear. 

Readers comments are always allowed for the DM articles. I did not say the comments were positive .  I said I did not see any negative article about their trip. Only negative internet posters , and they usually comment on some of these articles.

Reader comments are not always permitted.  Restrictions are often placed on certain articles and ultimately the Daily Mail decide on the mix and extent of comments published. They control the feedback on articles.

[cinrit]

^^ Does that mean someone is paid to sit at a desk and do nothing but go through reader comments for every single article in the paper?  Or are certain articles chosen for moderation?  How (and who) decides which article comments should be moderated before allowing posting?  What makes this person or persons qualified to make the decision?  If this person is not the editor (who surely has more important decisions to make), what makes this person qualified to make the decisions on his/her own?  Who directs them as to what is or isn't allowed to be posted that particular day?  Would a political article be more important than what Kate wore to ... wherever she went the day before?  Are more comments allowed for the articles about Kim Kardashian than are allowed for Kate?  Which comments get read/approved (or not) first?  Unless all of these questions are valid, it would be silly for any newspaper to actually pay someone to do nothing but read comments and make decisions about what is allowed.  There is a forum editor who kinda oversees posts on my local newspaper's online forum, but if there are a couple dozen posts a day, it's a busy day ... and the editor is seldom there, anyway.  I can't imagine how it would work with a newspaper on the level of the Daily Mail.

Cindy

[sophiechloe]

Well I am a member of the British public and Kate does not - in any way shape or form - impress me.  Yes, she has nice hair and teeth - but is that is?  Goodness 

The British look for substance, charisma and compassion and they read those in the echelons of celebrity like the front cover of a book. Yes we are trying to look deeper into the Kate affect but we are searching unlike Diana, and that's the problem the public are trying to find those three words at the beginning of my sentence.

Princess Pea    - Well said