Kate Middleton's Friends May Be Creating an Unexpected Problem by Calling Her ‘Future Queen’
A recent profile of the Princess of Wales in The Times Magazine has reignited debate over how — and when — Kate Middleton should be presented as Britain’s future queen. The supplement-page spread, which described her as ambitious, bold, and keen to deliver 'impactful change', prompted commentary from Daily Mail columnist Amanda Platell, who questioned whether such framing is premature while Queen Camilla continues to carry out her role. She also questioned whether those closest to her had done her any favours by speaking so freely.
The headline — 'Arise, Queen Kate' — was striking, and prompted questions as to who sanctioned the story. Platell suggested that Middleton is instinctively cautious about optics and the existing hierarchy and would be uncomfortable with others projecting her future role so openly. “My point is that a good number of friends and acquaintances – some named, others anonymous – do talk about Kate in the article,” Platell wrote. “And, given all this emphasis on her as our future Queen, I don’t think they should have.” It’s just too soon for anyone to be cheering: ‘Arise, Queen Kate,’ Platell slammed.
She shared that her first reaction to the title was momentary confusion. “When I saw the headline on the front of a Saturday newspaper supplement, I thought for a shocking moment something terrible had befallen Queen Camilla,” she wrote. That, according to Platell, is the major problem – the language leapt ahead of reality. The article summarized Middleton as planning to make an 'impactful change,' to be 'more ambitious and bolder than any of us appreciated,' and as someone who would be 'a Queen who really listens.'
Platell stressed that what caught her off guard was that it was framed in such a way that it inevitably invites comparison with the present Queen, who remains very much in place and fully active. Another thing that Platell pointed out in the article was its sourcing. The article claimed its information was gathered from “Palace insiders and close long-term friends of the Prince and Princess of Wales.” This poses a troubling question about reporting — was it an official signal, or was it freelancing? Platell wondered, "Did Kate and William, in fact, sanction this article… about her intentions when she becomes Queen?"
Either way, in her opinion, there is potential for jeopardy in this forward-looking commentary. Even if unconsciously offered, this attention to Middleton’s future position might come across as jumping the gun. “Kate would never have intended any slight towards Camilla, of course,” Platell continued. “But… this emphasis on her queenly qualities is a slap in the face for the present Queen.”
This is amplified when Camilla's reputation is taken into account. As Platell observes, the Queen is the patron of over 100 charities, taking up the cause of concerns which rarely have a high-profile constituent, such as domestic violence groups, literacy, the welfare of ex-servicemen, and animal welfare. It is in this kind of background that claims about Middleton's future as a listener, as a "Queen who really listens," seem so awkward. Platell then said, "Of all the things her detractors may throw at Queen Camilla, not listening just isn't fair."
Despite the criticism, Platell also recognizes that the article includes meaningful research than just speculations. Middleton's work in the Centre for Early Childhood in the Royal Foundation is hailed as 'her lifelong work.' However, Platell wonders whether such commendations, such as likenesses between William and Middleton and “dear old David and Victoria Beckham,” are in the best interest of the pair. Although such remarks are intended to commend the pair for their relationship and popularity, it seems that celebrity comparisons are not the type of image a king and queen should project.