Where's Kate? There she is! Oh, wait....
March 11, 2024 8:31 PM Subscribe
Kate Middleton, Duchess of Cambridge/Princess of Wales, hasn't been seen since Christmas. Kate was announced as having "planned" abdominal surgery in January, with a two week period of time in the hospital and resuming her royal duties has so far been postponed to at least Easter (a notice saying she'd be at an event in June was forcibly recalled). Kate has not wanted her medical issues disclosed (fair, since the most likely medical issues that take that long might be TMI), but after over two months of her not being seen in public, people started to get concerned. Kensington Palace refused to say much of anything on the topic and nobody seems to know anything. Finally, "proof of life" photographs were produced, BUT....
Notable other issues at this time (check first link for full timeline): King Charles announcing he has unidentified cancer around the same time, but he's been photographed in public and is still doing some duties, Queen Camilla has been doing a lot of events for her but supposedly recently jaunted off for some sun and fun and spa time, Prince William was going to take some time off but was obviously forced back into doing some gigs, and his behavior has supposedly been a bit erratic/possibly drunk at some, and he recently bailed out of going to his godfather's funeral at the last minute for unidentified personal reasons, the latter of which seems to have really set off the "Where's Kate?" alarms. The Middleton family, normally close, hasn't been seen much (except for awful Uncle Gary doing a brief reality TV stint), nor have the children been seen at all.
Within the last week and including today, some paparazzi-staged photographs of "Kate" in a car have happened, except they were deliberately grainy or "her" turning away from the camera, and suspected to be fake, or her sister Pippa, or Fake Melania. However, the huge controversy now is that "Kate" posted a family portrait of herself and the kids for UK Mother's Day, "supposedly" taken by Prince William, within the last week. Within 24 hours of release, five major photo agencies issued a VERY RARE "kill" order saying, "it appears that the source had manipulated the image in a way that did not meet AP's photo standards." Clearly the photo is still being printed literally everywhere anyway.
Today "Kate" claimed on Instagram that she'd just done a bit of Photoshopping, but somehow nobody at Kensington Palace can produce the original non-altered photo, presumably because it's a Frankenphoto and seems to be an altered/combined photograph based on a previous family trip to a baby bank. 'An intern doing that wouldn't get a job'
WaPo: How a doctored photo of the Princess of Wales triggered a media crisis
Notable other issues at this time (check first link for full timeline): King Charles announcing he has unidentified cancer around the same time, but he's been photographed in public and is still doing some duties, Queen Camilla has been doing a lot of events for her but supposedly recently jaunted off for some sun and fun and spa time, Prince William was going to take some time off but was obviously forced back into doing some gigs, and his behavior has supposedly been a bit erratic/possibly drunk at some, and he recently bailed out of going to his godfather's funeral at the last minute for unidentified personal reasons, the latter of which seems to have really set off the "Where's Kate?" alarms. The Middleton family, normally close, hasn't been seen much (except for awful Uncle Gary doing a brief reality TV stint), nor have the children been seen at all.
Within the last week and including today, some paparazzi-staged photographs of "Kate" in a car have happened, except they were deliberately grainy or "her" turning away from the camera, and suspected to be fake, or her sister Pippa, or Fake Melania. However, the huge controversy now is that "Kate" posted a family portrait of herself and the kids for UK Mother's Day, "supposedly" taken by Prince William, within the last week. Within 24 hours of release, five major photo agencies issued a VERY RARE "kill" order saying, "it appears that the source had manipulated the image in a way that did not meet AP's photo standards." Clearly the photo is still being printed literally everywhere anyway.
Today "Kate" claimed on Instagram that she'd just done a bit of Photoshopping, but somehow nobody at Kensington Palace can produce the original non-altered photo, presumably because it's a Frankenphoto and seems to be an altered/combined photograph based on a previous family trip to a baby bank. 'An intern doing that wouldn't get a job'
WaPo: How a doctored photo of the Princess of Wales triggered a media crisis
"Celebrities aspire to look perfect. Journalism aspires to tell the truth. Those two standards clashed with the release of a much-anticipated photo that may have exacerbated a royal PR crisis.WaPo: Royal photo fiasco shows why no one believes what they see anymore
The princess famously managed to look flawless for a hospital photo shoot with the next heir to the throne, Prince George, only hours after giving birth to him. There’s no question that any photos of Catherine looking less than immaculate after her abdominal surgery this winter would have triggered as much speculation and chatter as the utter absence of images has."
"Look at Kate’s absent wedding ring. Look at Prince Louis’s warped fingers. Look at the misaligned sleeve of Princess Charlotte’s sweater (sorry, jumper). The conspiracy theorists, already asserting everything from plastic surgery to divorce to death, suddenly had fodder on Sunday for a whole new round of theorizing. Was the lost princess’s face added to the image after the fact, perhaps culled from an old Vogue cover? Was the photo an old one, recolored and furnished with a fresh background to fool viewers? Most tantalizing, was the whole thing a work of artificial intelligence — capable these days of dreaming up all sorts of imagined scenes, many of them notoriously adorned with anatomically dubious appendages?"The Atlantic: Kate Middleton and the End of Shared Reality: Nothing is true and everything is possible.
“I am struggling to believe that the most famous royal family in the world—and the woman who would be queen—fiddled around with photoshop and put out a family pic (designed to quash rumours about her whereabouts) without anyone in the ranks inspecting it. Nah. Not buying it.”It seems reasonable to assume that under the major surgical circumstances, Kate might not be looking/feeling her best and thus not wanting to pose for photographs like she's usually done, and we all know she'll be judged up the wazoo for not being perfect looking the second she's out in public again as is. But the sheer blockade on information, especially compared to King Charles, and then Kensington Palace clearly feeling forced to produce some kind of "proof of life" photos when they can't actually do any, is reminding people of say, Shelly Miscavige, or making them wonder if Kate is in a coma. Conspiracy theories abound, and the worse Kensington Palace PR is about it, the more those theories look ... sorta reasonable?
For years, researchers and journalists have warned that deepfakes and generative-AI tools may destroy any remaining shreds of shared reality. Experts have reasoned that technology might become so good at conjuring synthetic media that it becomes difficult for anyone to believe anything they didn’t witness themselves. The royal-portrait debacle illustrates that this era isn’t forthcoming. We’re living in it."
If the yawning gulf that separates British press hostility toward Meghan and its mysteriously meek deference toward Kate hasn't convinced the public that the monarchy and its hangers-on are racist as fuck and corrupt to their core, I don't know what will.
posted by tclark at 8:51 PM on March 11 [68 favorites]
posted by tclark at 8:51 PM on March 11 [68 favorites]
I've had major abdominal surgery a week before Kate. Fairly routine, non-oncological, not involving physio apart from the too-cheerful guy who came over to help me get up and walk the next day. Shorter hospital stay but medical personnel noted I was healing well ahead of schedule plus they needed the bed. Six weeks to full mobility with no pain. And I still wouldn't be back in the office if not for WFH. I've dragged myself a few times and paid for it each time. I'm catching every cold going around. It's unpredictable too - some days I'm back to yoga, others it's a win to get my own food.
I don't blame Kate for taking the time, especially if there were complications.
posted by I claim sanctuary at 8:56 PM on March 11 [56 favorites]
I don't blame Kate for taking the time, especially if there were complications.
posted by I claim sanctuary at 8:56 PM on March 11 [56 favorites]
It’s such a BAD photoshop, is what gets me. Nefarious reasons or not, can’t they afford a damn professional?
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:58 PM on March 11 [20 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:58 PM on March 11 [20 favorites]
Consider the characteristics of the Royal Family. They're they're to talk about, and for people to tell tall stories about, they're very famous but essentially local symbols (to the UK, and to England more specifically), they straddle the line between being objects of mysticism and mystery of monarchy and being prosaic ordinary human beings like you and me, they have an extraordinarily large variety of different formal names, roles, and titles, and nicknames, and so on, and people will spend gigantic amounts of money and energy to get photographs of them. Do these things remind you of any other beings?
The Royal Family of the UK, as I've observed before, are cryptids.
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 9:14 PM on March 11 [66 favorites]
The Royal Family of the UK, as I've observed before, are cryptids.
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 9:14 PM on March 11 [66 favorites]
I know that sense of humor is not what they're known for, but i regret the missed opportunity for them to provide, without further comment, a starkly-lit black and white photo of a makeup-free princess holding a paper copy of a current issue of a major British newspaper in a traditional "proof-of-life" photo tableau.
posted by Nerd of the North at 9:31 PM on March 11 [66 favorites]
posted by Nerd of the North at 9:31 PM on March 11 [66 favorites]
The least bananas suggestion I have seen is that she has an ostomy bag, which is incompatible with being a global fashion plate.
posted by Countess Elena at 9:32 PM on March 11 [36 favorites]
posted by Countess Elena at 9:32 PM on March 11 [36 favorites]
I hear that if you play Taylor Swift’s latest album backwards it says “Kate is dead.”
posted by doubtfulpalace at 9:40 PM on March 11 [51 favorites]
posted by doubtfulpalace at 9:40 PM on March 11 [51 favorites]
I had abdominal surgery in my 30s as neither a rich person nor a mother with children to harass me and I still spent eight days (I believe) in the hospital and two months off work. My work did not require looking beautiful or acting gracious, either. I didn't have cancer, and the surgery was completely curative. People are showing their ignorance.
The photo thing is weird. I'm surprised no one else has fixated on freakishly long Kate's pinky finger appears to be on her left hand, but perhaps this is a known royal weirdness. I don't pay a ton of attention.
posted by praemunire at 9:49 PM on March 11 [15 favorites]
The photo thing is weird. I'm surprised no one else has fixated on freakishly long Kate's pinky finger appears to be on her left hand, but perhaps this is a known royal weirdness. I don't pay a ton of attention.
posted by praemunire at 9:49 PM on March 11 [15 favorites]
I think people are more focused on Kate's missing wedding ring and her children losing fingers in Photoshop. The kids do have weird hands in a lot of photos.
Ostomy bag is the most suggested cause of why Kate doesn't wanna be photographed + recovery issues from that would take a long time in the hospital + maybe her face is swollen from meds, but I didn't find any particularly good links discussing that topic (it mostly comes up in comment sections) so I didn't mention it in the original post. I've suspected she probably has an eating disorder a la Diana that might have caused intestinal distress and it'd be a bigger scandal if that came out, probably. I doubt she can afford the amount of honesty that King Charles has so far disclosed if that's the case. I'm also concerned about William possibly being...well, if you remember the dog bowl incident from Spare. I really shudder if that's the cause of any of this.
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:57 PM on March 11 [9 favorites]
Ostomy bag is the most suggested cause of why Kate doesn't wanna be photographed + recovery issues from that would take a long time in the hospital + maybe her face is swollen from meds, but I didn't find any particularly good links discussing that topic (it mostly comes up in comment sections) so I didn't mention it in the original post. I've suspected she probably has an eating disorder a la Diana that might have caused intestinal distress and it'd be a bigger scandal if that came out, probably. I doubt she can afford the amount of honesty that King Charles has so far disclosed if that's the case. I'm also concerned about William possibly being...well, if you remember the dog bowl incident from Spare. I really shudder if that's the cause of any of this.
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:57 PM on March 11 [9 favorites]
Imagine if the Trump family were treated the same way. If they were equally entertaining and yet irrelevant.
posted by Nelson at 10:01 PM on March 11 [9 favorites]
posted by Nelson at 10:01 PM on March 11 [9 favorites]
CNN is now reviewing all handout photos previously provided by Kensington Palace.
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:08 PM on March 11 [1 favorite]
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:08 PM on March 11 [1 favorite]
Lainey Gossip had a piece about the photo screwup today. It's mostly about how terrible their press people are.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 10:08 PM on March 11 [3 favorites]
posted by gentlyepigrams at 10:08 PM on March 11 [3 favorites]
I have no idea what’s really going on, and this all adds up to something weird, but I have two key thoughts:
1. Being in the law biz, there’s a basic piece of legal advice saying “If you haven’t done anything wrong, don’t act as if you have”; and,
2. I tried to be objective about Prince Harry’s allegations about the symbiotic relationship about the royals and the press, but the evidence is kinda adding up here.
A bit of honesty would go a lot further towards holding the monarchy in any fond esteem than by being manipulated. Kate’s issues (whatever they are) could make for a point of connection, but instead the royals seem to have chosen a façade.
posted by Capt. Renault at 10:13 PM on March 11 [13 favorites]
1. Being in the law biz, there’s a basic piece of legal advice saying “If you haven’t done anything wrong, don’t act as if you have”; and,
2. I tried to be objective about Prince Harry’s allegations about the symbiotic relationship about the royals and the press, but the evidence is kinda adding up here.
A bit of honesty would go a lot further towards holding the monarchy in any fond esteem than by being manipulated. Kate’s issues (whatever they are) could make for a point of connection, but instead the royals seem to have chosen a façade.
posted by Capt. Renault at 10:13 PM on March 11 [13 favorites]
Aha, I knew I'd seen another good piece on this today: NiemanLab has a timeline and analysis from the reporter who used to do the royal beat for Buzzfeed.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 10:14 PM on March 11 [15 favorites]
posted by gentlyepigrams at 10:14 PM on March 11 [15 favorites]
I hear that if you play Taylor Swift’s latest album backwards
"Noisrev S'rolyat"
posted by credulous at 10:22 PM on March 11 [9 favorites]
"Noisrev S'rolyat"
posted by credulous at 10:22 PM on March 11 [9 favorites]
KateGate
posted by blue shadows at 10:30 PM on March 11 [3 favorites]
posted by blue shadows at 10:30 PM on March 11 [3 favorites]
can’t they afford a damn professional?
I wish all the best to anybody having to deal with nosy people while making a prolonged recovery from surgery. I'm disinterested in Kate to the point of not caring remotely about her issuing a photo and not recalling which of her kids is which. But - like others I suspect - I'm suddenly deeply interested in an image that Kate comes on record as saying is manipulated. Particularly when yes: the royals could hire any portrait photographer (or painter) they wished to stage, shoot and edit it.
What looks strange to me, is that it comes across as a very skillfully posed shot for narrative purposes - put the older kid at the top in the paternal role (since William seems occupied elsewhere) and use the arrangement of hands and arms to depict mutual support and love. Put the recovering mother at the centre and have everybody smile joyfully. Any photographer skilled enough in portraiture to know all that - would surely know the rules of how to edit a picture - and why not to do so. No?
posted by rongorongo at 10:44 PM on March 11 [14 favorites]
I wish all the best to anybody having to deal with nosy people while making a prolonged recovery from surgery. I'm disinterested in Kate to the point of not caring remotely about her issuing a photo and not recalling which of her kids is which. But - like others I suspect - I'm suddenly deeply interested in an image that Kate comes on record as saying is manipulated. Particularly when yes: the royals could hire any portrait photographer (or painter) they wished to stage, shoot and edit it.
What looks strange to me, is that it comes across as a very skillfully posed shot for narrative purposes - put the older kid at the top in the paternal role (since William seems occupied elsewhere) and use the arrangement of hands and arms to depict mutual support and love. Put the recovering mother at the centre and have everybody smile joyfully. Any photographer skilled enough in portraiture to know all that - would surely know the rules of how to edit a picture - and why not to do so. No?
posted by rongorongo at 10:44 PM on March 11 [14 favorites]
I saw someone on Twitter or Bluesky pointing out that there are tons of reporters/photographers very friendly to the royals. It shouldn’t have been hard to find one, swear them to secrecy in exchange for a scoop, have them take a few very carefully posed photos of Kate reading get-well cards or whatever, and be done with it. Instead we get children with monster hands.
posted by skycrashesdown at 10:49 PM on March 11 [12 favorites]
posted by skycrashesdown at 10:49 PM on March 11 [12 favorites]
There's a message conveyed in this story and the State of the Union rebuttal about reactionary politics and it's relationship with truth, spiked with a waft of misogyny. Isn't this the crowd that likes to claim that "facts don't care about your feelings"?
posted by St. Oops at 11:19 PM on March 11 [4 favorites]
posted by St. Oops at 11:19 PM on March 11 [4 favorites]
Particularly when yes: the royals could hire any portrait photographer (or painter) they wished to stage, shoot and edit it.
IIRC, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge like to use "informal" family photos taken by family members for the kids. I think there may be some overthinking going on here.
posted by praemunire at 11:39 PM on March 11 [5 favorites]
IIRC, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge like to use "informal" family photos taken by family members for the kids. I think there may be some overthinking going on here.
posted by praemunire at 11:39 PM on March 11 [5 favorites]
royal beans have their plate in history as well
posted by MonsieurPEB at 11:41 PM on March 11 [15 favorites]
posted by MonsieurPEB at 11:41 PM on March 11 [15 favorites]
I have see only two solutions for this mess.
Option 1- Doctor Who the monarch. Admit this whole Charles series has been poorly written and not popular with the younger fans. They need to dump the cast and do a Doctor Who regeneration on the monarch — I suggest Olivia Colman as the new “Queen.” The advantage of this plan is it sets the stage for future successions and you get a professional actor in there — not some spoiled brat who forgets they are not just playing dress up.
Option 2- Glorious Revolution 2– Harry and Megan go to the Netherlands, raises an army from the Invictus Games and the Dutch. Then at the invitation of Parliament they come in and depose Charles 3, like William and Mary. The advantage of this plan it that the UK can undo Brexit at the same time. It’s win/win.
posted by interogative mood at 11:50 PM on March 11 [102 favorites]
Option 1- Doctor Who the monarch. Admit this whole Charles series has been poorly written and not popular with the younger fans. They need to dump the cast and do a Doctor Who regeneration on the monarch — I suggest Olivia Colman as the new “Queen.” The advantage of this plan is it sets the stage for future successions and you get a professional actor in there — not some spoiled brat who forgets they are not just playing dress up.
Option 2- Glorious Revolution 2– Harry and Megan go to the Netherlands, raises an army from the Invictus Games and the Dutch. Then at the invitation of Parliament they come in and depose Charles 3, like William and Mary. The advantage of this plan it that the UK can undo Brexit at the same time. It’s win/win.
posted by interogative mood at 11:50 PM on March 11 [102 favorites]
have them take a few very carefully posed photos of Kate reading get-well cards or whatever, and be done with it.
That's the odd thing. Even if she wasn't feeling well after abdominal surgery, even if she has an ostomy bag, a few pictures would be easy. I can only conclude that she's either so sick that it shows in her face more than even stage makeup can cover, or she's got some sort of issue with her face, could be serious steroids, or I suppose even the facelift of the more malicious gossip. Even then... a bit surprising there wasn't a text message of the 'thank you for all the kind well wishes' type.
I guess I can understand it even if it's just her face being puffy with steroids -- any photos like that would be dragged out in hit pieces until the end of time. Still, a few social media messages over the last few months seem like they would have made things seem more normal. Do they really have no mediawise PR employees?
posted by tavella at 12:00 AM on March 12 [9 favorites]
That's the odd thing. Even if she wasn't feeling well after abdominal surgery, even if she has an ostomy bag, a few pictures would be easy. I can only conclude that she's either so sick that it shows in her face more than even stage makeup can cover, or she's got some sort of issue with her face, could be serious steroids, or I suppose even the facelift of the more malicious gossip. Even then... a bit surprising there wasn't a text message of the 'thank you for all the kind well wishes' type.
I guess I can understand it even if it's just her face being puffy with steroids -- any photos like that would be dragged out in hit pieces until the end of time. Still, a few social media messages over the last few months seem like they would have made things seem more normal. Do they really have no mediawise PR employees?
posted by tavella at 12:00 AM on March 12 [9 favorites]
I mainly hope everyone isn't okay and there's nothing nefarious going on, but it's crazy how there's such an easy win here for the palace and they are flubbing it. Wherever else happens, it is impressive to see folks fall down like this. Even a quick set of shots of William with the kids. There should be easy peasy right, and shuts down some gossip, but why can't they even do that?
posted by Carillon at 12:31 AM on March 12 [10 favorites]
posted by Carillon at 12:31 AM on March 12 [10 favorites]
I do couldn’t have cared less about Kate’s health until this dust up. I do wish her a full recovery- it must be bad if they can’t get a decent real photo.
That being said I want to raise the glorious revolution talk and say that the House of Orange should just go ahead and take the whole UK. I love the image of King Willem-Alexander flying in a KLM plane full of militia members in Dutch golden aged dress. While Queen Maxima (Argentine by birth) screams “Malvinas Forever”
posted by CostcoCultist at 12:33 AM on March 12 [31 favorites]
That being said I want to raise the glorious revolution talk and say that the House of Orange should just go ahead and take the whole UK. I love the image of King Willem-Alexander flying in a KLM plane full of militia members in Dutch golden aged dress. While Queen Maxima (Argentine by birth) screams “Malvinas Forever”
posted by CostcoCultist at 12:33 AM on March 12 [31 favorites]
If Kate herself insisted on this, I think it would endear her to her public because it shows how dependent she is on their adoration.
There is true mutuality going on there, and I thought it was almost purely contemptuous on her part.
posted by jamjam at 12:46 AM on March 12 [1 favorite]
There is true mutuality going on there, and I thought it was almost purely contemptuous on her part.
posted by jamjam at 12:46 AM on March 12 [1 favorite]
W: "We need to put an end to these conspiracy theories about you being dead."
K: "OK, what should we do?"
W: "Let's send out a new photo showing you alive and well with the kids."
K: "Great. Should we get a professional photographer and our large staff of PR experts involved?"
W: "Nah - we'll just throw something together ourselves. You've been wanting to play around with Photoshop anyway, haven't you?"
K: "Yeah, but I'm not very good."
W: "Never mind that. What could possibly go wrong?"
posted by Paul Slade at 1:09 AM on March 12 [12 favorites]
K: "OK, what should we do?"
W: "Let's send out a new photo showing you alive and well with the kids."
K: "Great. Should we get a professional photographer and our large staff of PR experts involved?"
W: "Nah - we'll just throw something together ourselves. You've been wanting to play around with Photoshop anyway, haven't you?"
K: "Yeah, but I'm not very good."
W: "Never mind that. What could possibly go wrong?"
posted by Paul Slade at 1:09 AM on March 12 [12 favorites]
I thought it was very odd that the The Independent ran this article, absolutely context-free, about Rose Hanbury.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 1:16 AM on March 12 [24 favorites]
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 1:16 AM on March 12 [24 favorites]
I am way out of my element here, but couldn't "Kate had a surgery..." (which was already made public) "...and doesn't want photographs of her recovery while she recovers" just fully have cut this off at the pass?
They've already said she had a surgery that might (apparently often, in these situations) require an ostomy bag.
Seems like the world over would agree (doing my impression of a British middle-class) "oh, yeah, high class gal like that might not want photos of the situation".
posted by revmitcz at 1:31 AM on March 12 [9 favorites]
They've already said she had a surgery that might (apparently often, in these situations) require an ostomy bag.
Seems like the world over would agree (doing my impression of a British middle-class) "oh, yeah, high class gal like that might not want photos of the situation".
posted by revmitcz at 1:31 AM on March 12 [9 favorites]
I'd have more sympathy for the "Give her privacy and space" argument if the justification of their entire obscene wealth and status wasn't "We are public symbols of the Kingdom" combined with recent media pushes declaring that they ostensibly work really hard at it. They are not even like other celebrities who get there by some combination of abilities and charisma. Their existence is entirely based on the completely terrible notion of good breeding.
She could easily hide an ostemy bag by doing what ordinary people do and wearing something loose fitting.
So I think the real question is "How much sick leave is a massively compensated public symbol of the United Kingdom entitled to?" Should it be 5X what an ordinary person gets? 20X? UK law says they can take 7 days before offering up a reason/doctor's note to their employer.
posted by srboisvert at 2:12 AM on March 12 [28 favorites]
She could easily hide an ostemy bag by doing what ordinary people do and wearing something loose fitting.
So I think the real question is "How much sick leave is a massively compensated public symbol of the United Kingdom entitled to?" Should it be 5X what an ordinary person gets? 20X? UK law says they can take 7 days before offering up a reason/doctor's note to their employer.
posted by srboisvert at 2:12 AM on March 12 [28 favorites]
🎶Princess in a coma, oh no, I know, it’s serious🎶
With apologies to Mojo Nixon (RIP)
posted by apathy at 2:14 AM on March 12 [12 favorites]
With apologies to Mojo Nixon (RIP)
posted by apathy at 2:14 AM on March 12 [12 favorites]
Tried to ignore this until Sunday night. Now I'm in full the plane's sitting on a runway in Kazakstan mode. Twitter is nuts for this. Spent an hour reading the hell-site before bed last night and couldn't get to sleep because my brain was churning out insane counter-factuals: the Russians have obliterated the line of succession with Harry soon to be heir. (Off to check the last event Princess of Wales and King attended together.)
posted by run"monty at 2:24 AM on March 12 [6 favorites]
posted by run"monty at 2:24 AM on March 12 [6 favorites]
Seems like the world over would agree (doing my impression of a British middle-class) "oh, yeah, high class gal like that might not want photos of the situation".
This is indeed true, but a significant segment of the British press Do Not Like being cut out, so have been stoking this idea that the Royals are hiding something about our future queen and it's our (their) right to know everything about what's going on and maybe she's DEAD or - even worse - ugly, and then the royals stick their foot right in it with this dodgy photoshop composite to try and fob them off a bit longer, and just feeds into this 'they're lying to us' narrative that the rest of the press are now digging into sensing a Story.
Certainly the relationship between the Royals and the press is an unhealthy one; both hate each other, but also badly need each other in a weird co-dependent parasitical relationship where William and Kate are the 'respectable' ones that must always be polished and perfect at all times, and release carefully staged perfect photos to the press to keep them at bay and somewhat off their kids, while certain bits of the press go all gushing over them and how perfect they are to sell papers while equally monstering Meghan and bad-boy Harry to also sell papers, while being weirdly quiet about Andrew-the-sex-offender, and the whole thing is just urrrrggggghhhg.
Having Kate go incommunicado for a couple of months is basically a red flag to a bull. Kate presumably is not in a state to take a shiny, perfect photo; but anything looking remotely post-surgery-human would be like pitbulls on a piece of steak.
posted by Absolutely No You-Know-What at 2:24 AM on March 12 [21 favorites]
This is indeed true, but a significant segment of the British press Do Not Like being cut out, so have been stoking this idea that the Royals are hiding something about our future queen and it's our (their) right to know everything about what's going on and maybe she's DEAD or - even worse - ugly, and then the royals stick their foot right in it with this dodgy photoshop composite to try and fob them off a bit longer, and just feeds into this 'they're lying to us' narrative that the rest of the press are now digging into sensing a Story.
Certainly the relationship between the Royals and the press is an unhealthy one; both hate each other, but also badly need each other in a weird co-dependent parasitical relationship where William and Kate are the 'respectable' ones that must always be polished and perfect at all times, and release carefully staged perfect photos to the press to keep them at bay and somewhat off their kids, while certain bits of the press go all gushing over them and how perfect they are to sell papers while equally monstering Meghan and bad-boy Harry to also sell papers, while being weirdly quiet about Andrew-the-sex-offender, and the whole thing is just urrrrggggghhhg.
Having Kate go incommunicado for a couple of months is basically a red flag to a bull. Kate presumably is not in a state to take a shiny, perfect photo; but anything looking remotely post-surgery-human would be like pitbulls on a piece of steak.
posted by Absolutely No You-Know-What at 2:24 AM on March 12 [21 favorites]
Abdominal surgery + royal family = Goa'uld
posted by biffa at 2:26 AM on March 12 [21 favorites]
posted by biffa at 2:26 AM on March 12 [21 favorites]
"The Princess of Wales is missing and the spare Prince is in exile and the King is treating his cancer with herbs. If this were the 1300s France would be looking to invade." from
also
"The King of England lies dying and one of his sons has been exiled. A princess has vanished. Plague stalks the land and the Treasury has been plundered.
NOW is the time for strange women lying in ponds to distribute swords to form the basis of government." from
posted by mbo at 2:57 AM on March 12 [100 favorites]
also
"The King of England lies dying and one of his sons has been exiled. A princess has vanished. Plague stalks the land and the Treasury has been plundered.
NOW is the time for strange women lying in ponds to distribute swords to form the basis of government." from
posted by mbo at 2:57 AM on March 12 [100 favorites]
I don’t know whether Britain has a king or queen right now, but if my attention over the years to fashion report blogs has told me one thing about Mrs. Middleton, it’s that everything she wears in public is fitted to much tighter tolerances that I prefer in my own clothing. Putting her on display in loose clothing to hide something would be a clear deviation from baseline and further promote conspiracy theories.
posted by Callisto Prime at 2:58 AM on March 12 [20 favorites]
posted by Callisto Prime at 2:58 AM on March 12 [20 favorites]
Do they really have no mediawise PR employees?
I think it's the old camel definition: a greyhound designed by committee.
That is, they have too many PR employees.
That photo is a camel.
posted by chavenet at 3:02 AM on March 12 [5 favorites]
I think it's the old camel definition: a greyhound designed by committee.
That is, they have too many PR employees.
That photo is a camel.
posted by chavenet at 3:02 AM on March 12 [5 favorites]
I long for a Thick of It style mockumentary about the royals' PR team.
posted by unicorn chaser at 3:24 AM on March 12 [26 favorites]
posted by unicorn chaser at 3:24 AM on March 12 [26 favorites]
My best friend texted me a week or so ago with: "Do Canadians have any good conspiracy theories about the Royals right now? What have you heard?"
My text back: "This is gonna disappoint you but I don't care if there are"
posted by Kitteh at 4:46 AM on March 12 [4 favorites]
My text back: "This is gonna disappoint you but I don't care if there are"
posted by Kitteh at 4:46 AM on March 12 [4 favorites]
The Royal House of Simulacra
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 5:08 AM on March 12 [1 favorite]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 5:08 AM on March 12 [1 favorite]
Countess Elena: The least bananas suggestion I have seen is that she has an ostomy bag, which is incompatible with being a global fashion plate.
If high fashion does anything well, it’s bags. I will eat my hat if Balenciaga doesn’t have a $30,000 shitcatcher on its way to her publicist right now.
posted by dr_dank at 5:12 AM on March 12 [17 favorites]
If high fashion does anything well, it’s bags. I will eat my hat if Balenciaga doesn’t have a $30,000 shitcatcher on its way to her publicist right now.
posted by dr_dank at 5:12 AM on March 12 [17 favorites]
One other royal incident of note that I believe wasn't mentioned on the original post. Thomas Kingston, 45yo husband of Lady Gabriella Kingston took his own life on 25 Feb
posted by el_presidente at 5:17 AM on March 12 [3 favorites]
posted by el_presidente at 5:17 AM on March 12 [3 favorites]
Mod note: One comment removed. It's totally fine to not care about the subject of a post, but please avoid injecting superfluous comments expressing your dislike. Feel free to avoid the thread or make a post about something you do like!
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 5:18 AM on March 12 [27 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 5:18 AM on March 12 [27 favorites]
I've been trying to make myself not pay attention, as much as I love low-stakes conspiracy theories (she's Banksy she's Banksy I know it). But the photo was irresistible for me. So weird! So poorly done!
And so now I'm reading this and feeling guilty, because there is in fact a real human being in the middle of it. And then feeling not guilty, because, come on, royalty. But then back to feeling guilty for being entertained by someone else's unpleasant situation.
posted by The corpse in the library at 5:19 AM on March 12 [15 favorites]
And so now I'm reading this and feeling guilty, because there is in fact a real human being in the middle of it. And then feeling not guilty, because, come on, royalty. But then back to feeling guilty for being entertained by someone else's unpleasant situation.
posted by The corpse in the library at 5:19 AM on March 12 [15 favorites]
My (Londoner) usual state is not caring about the royals except when they block up traffic.
But if there's something Kate needs to get away from, I hope she is able to get away from it, as far as she needs to, permanently if need be.
My gut tells me something is coming down the pipeline about William. Something they'd much rather people not know about the future king.
posted by Pallas Athena at 5:20 AM on March 12 [17 favorites]
But if there's something Kate needs to get away from, I hope she is able to get away from it, as far as she needs to, permanently if need be.
My gut tells me something is coming down the pipeline about William. Something they'd much rather people not know about the future king.
posted by Pallas Athena at 5:20 AM on March 12 [17 favorites]
Such overweening subjects! Can't we let her fake her own death in peace with the proper deference?
posted by rhizome at 5:21 AM on March 12 [7 favorites]
posted by rhizome at 5:21 AM on March 12 [7 favorites]
and we all know she'll be judged up the wazoo for not being perfect looking the second she's out in public again as is.
This. Occam's razor is that she's on some time of medical steroid, she's retaining water like crazy, and the palace isn't letting anyone near her with a camera while she looks like she has a moon face.
God forbid she look like a normal person.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 5:24 AM on March 12 [8 favorites]
This. Occam's razor is that she's on some time of medical steroid, she's retaining water like crazy, and the palace isn't letting anyone near her with a camera while she looks like she has a moon face.
God forbid she look like a normal person.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 5:24 AM on March 12 [8 favorites]
I didn't look too closely at the photo, but I think I can see daises in her footsteps? Dandelions? Butterflies?
posted by terrapin at 5:49 AM on March 12 [7 favorites]
posted by terrapin at 5:49 AM on March 12 [7 favorites]
Absolutely zero percent of my sudden interest in this whole affair has to do with thinking Kate doesn’t deserve privacy. It’s not about her at all, it’s about the stunningly incoherent palace PR response. It’s about the fact that they didn’t just say “she deserves privacy” and instead have been clearly and blatantly dishonest about her condition to the point where it’s created a massive own-goal. That photo they released is the kind of thing you see in a true crime documentary where it turns out the woman’s been dead for a year - which to be clear I do not think is true, but in that case WHY did they fucking do it? Why not just say “we will not be releasing photos”? It’s so bizarre.
posted by showbiz_liz at 5:50 AM on March 12 [45 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 5:50 AM on March 12 [45 favorites]
IIRC, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge like to use "informal" family photos taken by family members
Some articles have pointed out that by taking them photos themselves, William and Kate have copyright.
posted by Hypatia at 5:55 AM on March 12 [4 favorites]
Some articles have pointed out that by taking them photos themselves, William and Kate have copyright.
posted by Hypatia at 5:55 AM on March 12 [4 favorites]
Royals are boring, but a bad fake photo is spicy.
Is this part of the schtick? Am I being successfully trolled?? 🤔
posted by eirias at 5:56 AM on March 12 [7 favorites]
Is this part of the schtick? Am I being successfully trolled?? 🤔
posted by eirias at 5:56 AM on March 12 [7 favorites]
It's the idea that you can put conspiracy theories to rest by issuing a poorly doctored photo which amazes me. Surely it was entirely predictable that experts in the press agencies would spot the changes and the tabloids fall on this story with glee? Then, just to make matters worse, the Royals refuse to release the raw photo(s) behind this image, and thus create a whole new round of ridiculous rumours about what they're trying to hide.
I mean, even if if Kate isn't looking her best just now, so what? Releasing a photo like that would produce a lot of public sympathy, I think, and might even help beleaguered young women to see that filtered Instagram perfection is a dangerous and impossible standard to aspire to. That way her whole situation could have actually done some good in the world.
posted by Paul Slade at 5:58 AM on March 12 [5 favorites]
I mean, even if if Kate isn't looking her best just now, so what? Releasing a photo like that would produce a lot of public sympathy, I think, and might even help beleaguered young women to see that filtered Instagram perfection is a dangerous and impossible standard to aspire to. That way her whole situation could have actually done some good in the world.
posted by Paul Slade at 5:58 AM on March 12 [5 favorites]
I think this is all probably boring and benign but a girl can dream and in my dream Kate’s been on an extended “Roman Holiday” situation with various companions of various genders and is currently semi-unrecognizable, having recently returned from touring with one of her new partner’s queer heavy metal bands and is teaching herself metalwork and writing a treatise on fashion and anarchy from an undisclosed location in Mexico.
posted by thivaia at 6:08 AM on March 12 [25 favorites]
posted by thivaia at 6:08 AM on March 12 [25 favorites]
🎶Princess in a coma, oh no, I know, it’s serious🎶
With apologies to Mojo Nixon (RIP)
Or we would have also accepted:
🎶Kate Middleton's pregnant, with my two headed love child🎶
With apologies to Morrissey.
posted by Naberius at 6:08 AM on March 12 [17 favorites]
With apologies to Mojo Nixon (RIP)
Or we would have also accepted:
🎶Kate Middleton's pregnant, with my two headed love child🎶
With apologies to Morrissey.
posted by Naberius at 6:08 AM on March 12 [17 favorites]
I've been sort of vaguely ... not following this, exactly, but ... aware of this, because it comes up on Threads a lot, and I just want to say thanks to jenfullmoon for a comprehensive roundup that tells the story, such as it is, so clearly.
posted by jacquilynne at 6:23 AM on March 12 [16 favorites]
posted by jacquilynne at 6:23 AM on March 12 [16 favorites]
Everyone is talking about Kate because the British press is misogynist. Charles is dying of cancer that his royal homeopath is not going to cure and yet it's Kate that the media is obsessing and demanding proof of life over. The King, the actual monarch, gets privacy from the press. But his daughter-in-law, someone who is not part of the line of succession, has surgery and needs to recover and it's suddenly a conspiracy.
posted by thecjm at 6:24 AM on March 12 [12 favorites]
posted by thecjm at 6:24 AM on March 12 [12 favorites]
they're very famous but essentially local symbols (to the UK, and to England more specifically)
Plenty of Americans have a persistent love for the British monarchs.
posted by doctornemo at 6:27 AM on March 12 [2 favorites]
Plenty of Americans have a persistent love for the British monarchs.
posted by doctornemo at 6:27 AM on March 12 [2 favorites]
"Do Canadians have any good conspiracy theories about the Royals right now? What have you heard?"
There is one: that Canada knows Charles is going to die soon so they're delaying issuing currency with his face on it.
posted by thecjm at 6:29 AM on March 12 [45 favorites]
There is one: that Canada knows Charles is going to die soon so they're delaying issuing currency with his face on it.
posted by thecjm at 6:29 AM on March 12 [45 favorites]
The UK Royals are in a state of complete chaos and disarray and somehow remain more coherent than the Tories in Parliament.
posted by delfin at 6:31 AM on March 12 [9 favorites]
posted by delfin at 6:31 AM on March 12 [9 favorites]
They should either put the royal family on hiatus and get a midseason replacement or do some stunt casting and bring in a character from a related, more popular series. I hear Margrethe II is available.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:34 AM on March 12 [5 favorites]
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:34 AM on March 12 [5 favorites]
First, they should have run a filter on it to look like an oil painting, because Monarchy.
Second, leave this poor woman alone. I had merely an appendectomy and was miserable & weak for like eight weeks. If her procedure was anything more serious than that, let her take a mulligan for Q1 & Q2 and we'll see her in July.
Yes, she is a Royal, but she probably has purple scars and maybe those gross drain bags and just... Leave her be.
posted by wenestvedt at 6:36 AM on March 12 [5 favorites]
Second, leave this poor woman alone. I had merely an appendectomy and was miserable & weak for like eight weeks. If her procedure was anything more serious than that, let her take a mulligan for Q1 & Q2 and we'll see her in July.
Yes, she is a Royal, but she probably has purple scars and maybe those gross drain bags and just... Leave her be.
posted by wenestvedt at 6:36 AM on March 12 [5 favorites]
Everyone is talking about Kate because the British press is misogynist. Charles is dying of cancer that his royal homeopath is not going to cure and yet it's Kate that the media is obsessing and demanding proof of life over. The King, the actual monarch, gets privacy from the press. But his daughter-in-law, someone who is not part of the line of succession, has surgery and needs to recover and it's suddenly a conspiracy.
To me this is not an accurate reading of events. Just for starters, we know what’s wrong with Charles and he has been seen in public since it happened. Of course the press isn’t demanding proof of life from him, because that proof has not been withheld.
This is not about some general concept of privacy. The reason people are concerned is because they are suddenly NOT following the same old “we deserve privacy” playbook. If I ever disappear from public view and then someone releases an astonishingly doctored photo claiming I took it just the other day, please feel free to find that concerning.
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:37 AM on March 12 [38 favorites]
To me this is not an accurate reading of events. Just for starters, we know what’s wrong with Charles and he has been seen in public since it happened. Of course the press isn’t demanding proof of life from him, because that proof has not been withheld.
This is not about some general concept of privacy. The reason people are concerned is because they are suddenly NOT following the same old “we deserve privacy” playbook. If I ever disappear from public view and then someone releases an astonishingly doctored photo claiming I took it just the other day, please feel free to find that concerning.
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:37 AM on March 12 [38 favorites]
I mean, even if if Kate isn't looking her best just now, so what? Releasing a photo like that would produce a lot of public sympathy, I think,
Oof, that is...I mean it's adorable that you think that's what would happen, but unless something massive has shifted in both the internet commentariat and the tabloid news world over the past couple of years I think "sympathy" is outlawed in both. If she were to post a photo with a big sweater or steroid water retention she would get 30 to 40 years of one bad photo resurfacing again and again with headlines like "ROTUND ROYAL" or such.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 6:52 AM on March 12 [21 favorites]
Oof, that is...I mean it's adorable that you think that's what would happen, but unless something massive has shifted in both the internet commentariat and the tabloid news world over the past couple of years I think "sympathy" is outlawed in both. If she were to post a photo with a big sweater or steroid water retention she would get 30 to 40 years of one bad photo resurfacing again and again with headlines like "ROTUND ROYAL" or such.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 6:52 AM on March 12 [21 favorites]
I mean, even if if Kate isn't looking her best just now, so what? Releasing a photo like that would produce a lot of public sympathy, I thinkThere may be public sympathy but the tabloid response would be spectacularly vile
posted by fullerine at 6:54 AM on March 12 [24 favorites]
I also hadn't been following Kate's medical drama, but the botched photo/cover up certainly got my attention. I'm curious if Buckingham's apparent support of the mistreatment of Megan by the press has led to them being gun shy of showing Kate as anything less than perfectly composed.
posted by Spike Glee at 7:10 AM on March 12 [1 favorite]
posted by Spike Glee at 7:10 AM on March 12 [1 favorite]
There may be public sympathy but the tabloid response would be spectacularly vile
You may be right, but ... Last night I only posted because I couldn't sleep (thanks, time change) and then I felt bad because I hadn't added that I don't think an ostomy bag is a bad thing, or rather, a shameful one. It just wouldn't fit in her dresses.
If she really had a condition that made her less "attractive," it would be an enormous publicity coup to come out publicly and raise awareness for whatever it is she's got. I think the tabloids, which are (as you say) vile, would jump at the chance to put her on the moral high ground (as opposed to Meghan in their idiot game) and praise her bravery.
But I don't suppose royalty, or those who marry into them, are known for their imagination and innovation in the public sphere. When they are, it tends to go badly.
posted by Countess Elena at 7:10 AM on March 12 [4 favorites]
You may be right, but ... Last night I only posted because I couldn't sleep (thanks, time change) and then I felt bad because I hadn't added that I don't think an ostomy bag is a bad thing, or rather, a shameful one. It just wouldn't fit in her dresses.
If she really had a condition that made her less "attractive," it would be an enormous publicity coup to come out publicly and raise awareness for whatever it is she's got. I think the tabloids, which are (as you say) vile, would jump at the chance to put her on the moral high ground (as opposed to Meghan in their idiot game) and praise her bravery.
But I don't suppose royalty, or those who marry into them, are known for their imagination and innovation in the public sphere. When they are, it tends to go badly.
posted by Countess Elena at 7:10 AM on March 12 [4 favorites]
This is one of those niche interest stories that has broken wide and doesn't make a lot of sense to people who aren't into all the details. Of course she probably just looks different and doesn't feel great after having surgery, but it's the way that their communications office has handled it that has made it so strange to people who are more familiar with how their communications office usually handles things. It initially took off because of the difference between how Kate and Meghan have been treated in the press, which has gotten a lot of attention in recent years because of a popular Buzzfeed article, the Harry and Meghan Netflix documentary, Spare, etc. but it's stuck around and gained momentum because they just keep making things worse and more strange. That's the real story and why people are interested. It's not that it just hasn't occurred to people who have been following this story closely that she probably just doesn't look great after having surgery, they know that. It's everything else about it that seems out of character and strange.
posted by notheotherone at 7:11 AM on March 12 [22 favorites]
posted by notheotherone at 7:11 AM on March 12 [22 favorites]
It's not that it just hasn't occurred to people who have been following this story closely that she probably just doesn't look great after having surgery, they know that. It's everything else about it that seems out of character and strange.
Yes, thank you for saying this! We’re talking about a family whose entire public strategy has been laser-focused on maintaining a certain level of privacy and polished artifice for generations. It’s not some novel observation to say they “want privacy,” of course they do. But they have very well-established methods for maintaining that privacy, and the striking thing about this story is that they aren’t doing those things.
It’s really worth reading the Neiman Lab article if you haven’t.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:37 AM on March 12 [10 favorites]
Yes, thank you for saying this! We’re talking about a family whose entire public strategy has been laser-focused on maintaining a certain level of privacy and polished artifice for generations. It’s not some novel observation to say they “want privacy,” of course they do. But they have very well-established methods for maintaining that privacy, and the striking thing about this story is that they aren’t doing those things.
It’s really worth reading the Neiman Lab article if you haven’t.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:37 AM on March 12 [10 favorites]
I also hadn't been following Kate's medical drama, but the botched photo/cover up certainly got my attention. I'm curious if Buckingham's apparent support of the mistreatment of Megan by the press has led to them being gun shy of showing Kate as anything less than perfectly composed.One of the things the Neiman Lab article posted above points out is how there is an implied "authorized" paparazzi, which means a lot of the awfulness to which Meghan was subjected was allowed to happen or even ordered to happen. If they're treating Kate differently, it might not mean "new rules, we learned from the past" but "it was open season on Meghan but not open season on Kate."
posted by Lord Chancellor at 7:40 AM on March 12 [28 favorites]
If she really had a condition that made her less "attractive," it would be an enormous publicity coup to come out publicly and raise awareness for whatever it is she's got. I think the tabloids, which are (as you say) vile, would jump at the chance to put her on the moral high ground (as opposed to Meghan in their idiot game) and praise her bravery.
That's the tabloids; consider what the Average Twitter Yutz response would be, though.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:55 AM on March 12
That's the tabloids; consider what the Average Twitter Yutz response would be, though.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:55 AM on March 12
What is it about the UK that makes their media so vicious?? Where did this culture of keeping a stiff upper lip and never acknowledging feelings or imperfections come from? I know it's much more deeply rooted than the past few decades of royal family drama, but just...does it have to be this way?
We have laws in the US that make paparazzi and tabloid culture a bit more tame, right? Is there just no collective will for them to do that in the UK?
It's just a shame that one individual is probably (correctly) living in fear that one unflattering image of her will go down in history and seal her legacy as looking like a normal flawed human. And after all that work she's put into her appearance over the years!! The monarchy may be a grift, but those women really do work hard to maintain an impossible standard of appearances.
And it doesn't have to be this way. I don't get the sense that a culture shift is coming any time soon there, but it would be nice.
posted by knotty knots at 8:10 AM on March 12 [4 favorites]
We have laws in the US that make paparazzi and tabloid culture a bit more tame, right? Is there just no collective will for them to do that in the UK?
It's just a shame that one individual is probably (correctly) living in fear that one unflattering image of her will go down in history and seal her legacy as looking like a normal flawed human. And after all that work she's put into her appearance over the years!! The monarchy may be a grift, but those women really do work hard to maintain an impossible standard of appearances.
And it doesn't have to be this way. I don't get the sense that a culture shift is coming any time soon there, but it would be nice.
posted by knotty knots at 8:10 AM on March 12 [4 favorites]
consider what the Average Twitter Yutz response would be
I invite everyone to not consider what the Average Twitter Yutz response would be. for anything.
posted by elkevelvet at 8:16 AM on March 12 [15 favorites]
I invite everyone to not consider what the Average Twitter Yutz response would be. for anything.
posted by elkevelvet at 8:16 AM on March 12 [15 favorites]
I knew absolutely zero about this until now, and am now completely fascinated. If I'm writing the story, Kate used "surgery" as an excuse to duck out a window and flee her captors and is now working as a waitress in a cocktail bar somewhere in small-town USA, kind of missing the kids but not enough to want to go back to that eleventh circle of hell. There's a guy named Jed who thinks her accent is cute and who cannot find Britain on a map. The Fugitive Princess, coming to Hulu in July 2024.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 8:19 AM on March 12 [57 favorites]
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 8:19 AM on March 12 [57 favorites]
British press won’t change because the Royal Family needs them as they are.
The general consensus is that the different houses/palaces are in direct competition with each other and routinely leak unflattering stories about their family members to make themselves look better. According to Harry, every morning all the day’s tabloids and papers would be strewn across the breakfast table for everyone to read and discuss. Diana read every story about herself. So, they want the publicity, they don’t want the press to be truly objective because the mania and chaos help to justify their existence.
posted by girlmightlive at 8:25 AM on March 12 [7 favorites]
The general consensus is that the different houses/palaces are in direct competition with each other and routinely leak unflattering stories about their family members to make themselves look better. According to Harry, every morning all the day’s tabloids and papers would be strewn across the breakfast table for everyone to read and discuss. Diana read every story about herself. So, they want the publicity, they don’t want the press to be truly objective because the mania and chaos help to justify their existence.
posted by girlmightlive at 8:25 AM on March 12 [7 favorites]
Thinking of paparazzi, can anyone square paparazzi culture with British legal culture around defamation? That’s a puzzle I’ve not spent time thinking about before and now I’m scratching my head a bit. It must have something to do with this tawdry symbiosis between the press and the royal family mentioned above.
posted by eirias at 8:25 AM on March 12 [7 favorites]
posted by eirias at 8:25 AM on March 12 [7 favorites]
As Douglas Adams once said of the Presidency of the Galaxy, the royals' role is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it.
They are very good at doing so.
posted by delfin at 8:33 AM on March 12 [29 favorites]
They are very good at doing so.
posted by delfin at 8:33 AM on March 12 [29 favorites]
working as a waitress in a cocktail bar
that much is true
posted by chavenet at 8:45 AM on March 12 [96 favorites]
that much is true
posted by chavenet at 8:45 AM on March 12 [96 favorites]
The real answer: stop paying for the (feckless, pointless, distracting) monarchy.
posted by fncll at 8:52 AM on March 12 [4 favorites]
posted by fncll at 8:52 AM on March 12 [4 favorites]
I invite everyone to not consider what the Average Twitter Yutz response would be. for anything.
My point was that Kate might be avoiding any kind of current photo precisely because she was trying to avoid the Average Twitter Yutz.
Sure, the tabloids might be able to accept a Tastefully Posed Photo Op designed to raise awareness for whatever's happening to her, but the tabloids wouldn't be the only people commenting on that Tastefully Posed Photo Op, and that response probably wouldn't be worth the "awareness" payoff.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:52 AM on March 12
My point was that Kate might be avoiding any kind of current photo precisely because she was trying to avoid the Average Twitter Yutz.
Sure, the tabloids might be able to accept a Tastefully Posed Photo Op designed to raise awareness for whatever's happening to her, but the tabloids wouldn't be the only people commenting on that Tastefully Posed Photo Op, and that response probably wouldn't be worth the "awareness" payoff.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:52 AM on March 12
The real answer: stop paying for the (feckless, pointless, distracting) monarchy.
The alternative is Nigel Farage.
posted by run"monty at 8:54 AM on March 12 [6 favorites]
The alternative is Nigel Farage.
posted by run"monty at 8:54 AM on March 12 [6 favorites]
My pet theory on this is that a disgruntled staffer within the palace has been asked to do a bunch of increasingly outlandish PhotoShop edits and having had enough with all the deceit they decided to make a deliberately bad job of this one.
posted by Lanark at 9:00 AM on March 12 [2 favorites]
posted by Lanark at 9:00 AM on March 12 [2 favorites]
The "she won't be seen until at least Easter" thing was announced in January at the same time that her surgery was announced. I feel like that might be getting lost in the spiral?
So my theory as to why no pictures is that she told everyone no pictures until Easter and she's sticking with that, not that something has changed that made her less inclined to provide pictures. That after giving up her entire life and body to these people, she's taking what was promised to her, these few months, and not backing down on that.
The comms team is floundering because they're used to simply strongarming both the royals and the press. But their total incompetence, to me, signals that it's unlikely they've managed to hide any kind of big secret for these months.
The weird stuff with William not showing up to things and so on can be explained by the fact that William sucks. Shitty husbands have a tendency to get even shittier when their wives have serious health issues.
posted by lampoil at 9:26 AM on March 12 [12 favorites]
So my theory as to why no pictures is that she told everyone no pictures until Easter and she's sticking with that, not that something has changed that made her less inclined to provide pictures. That after giving up her entire life and body to these people, she's taking what was promised to her, these few months, and not backing down on that.
The comms team is floundering because they're used to simply strongarming both the royals and the press. But their total incompetence, to me, signals that it's unlikely they've managed to hide any kind of big secret for these months.
The weird stuff with William not showing up to things and so on can be explained by the fact that William sucks. Shitty husbands have a tendency to get even shittier when their wives have serious health issues.
posted by lampoil at 9:26 AM on March 12 [12 favorites]
Do they really have no mediawise PR employees?
I think it's the old camel definition: a greyhound designed by committee.
That is, they have too many PR employees.
Or it’s scumbag Oxbridge media grads who could spin the situation running up against scumbag Oxbridge monarchists who will not let anything untraditional through. I wonder if the latter group allowed the doctored photo through to make the former look bad.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 9:36 AM on March 12 [2 favorites]
I think it's the old camel definition: a greyhound designed by committee.
That is, they have too many PR employees.
Or it’s scumbag Oxbridge media grads who could spin the situation running up against scumbag Oxbridge monarchists who will not let anything untraditional through. I wonder if the latter group allowed the doctored photo through to make the former look bad.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 9:36 AM on March 12 [2 favorites]
There may be public sympathy but the tabloid response would be spectacularly vile.
Maybe not. Today's Sun has a massive front-page headline reading LAY OFF KATE with a supportive "Sun Says" editorial right next to it. The tabloids are quite venal and hypocritical enough to U-turn on this stuff whenever they sense public opinion might not be with them.
posted by Paul Slade at 9:36 AM on March 12 [4 favorites]
Maybe not. Today's Sun has a massive front-page headline reading LAY OFF KATE with a supportive "Sun Says" editorial right next to it. The tabloids are quite venal and hypocritical enough to U-turn on this stuff whenever they sense public opinion might not be with them.
posted by Paul Slade at 9:36 AM on March 12 [4 favorites]
I'm sure the Tabloids know from experience that blasting 'STOP DISCUSSING THIS THING!!' on their front pages will make everybody stop discussing that thing.
posted by vacapinta at 9:40 AM on March 12 [15 favorites]
posted by vacapinta at 9:40 AM on March 12 [15 favorites]
a classic UK tabloid flex is "WE ARE HORRIFIED BY THE INEXCUSABLE PUBLICATION OF REVEALING PHOTOS OF THIS INTENSELY PRIVATE PERSON" and here are some examples of what we are talking about so you can understand the full depravity of this situation
posted by chavenet at 9:53 AM on March 12 [34 favorites]
posted by chavenet at 9:53 AM on March 12 [34 favorites]
I read a theory that someone very high up at each British newspaper (owner/publisher/editor) was quietly informed by the palace of Kate’s actual illness with the understand that the rumor reporting didn’t get out of hand which is why there wasn’t an (even bigger) effort to bribe phone hack staff. Similar to something I once heard that General Eisenhower did with reporters in the lead up to D Day when news reports were getting too close to the truth. Admittedly I haven’t been reading the UK tabloids so I don’t know if this is a viable theory. It seems like a lot of the energy is coming from social media.
posted by TWinbrook8 at 9:59 AM on March 12 [1 favorite]
posted by TWinbrook8 at 9:59 AM on March 12 [1 favorite]
nor have the children been seen at all
Did you check the Tower? Maybe back under the stairs?
posted by kjs3 at 10:05 AM on March 12 [25 favorites]
Did you check the Tower? Maybe back under the stairs?
posted by kjs3 at 10:05 AM on March 12 [25 favorites]
It’s been over 500 years, stop with this Tudor slander!
posted by TWinbrook8 at 10:15 AM on March 12 [20 favorites]
posted by TWinbrook8 at 10:15 AM on March 12 [20 favorites]
This is a job that has killed one extremely privileged woman in my lifetime and was coming so close to killing another that she and her husband had to leave the country. It's a job that shouldn't exist, mind you, but it is, in fact, a hard job. I don't find Kate a terribly sympathetic figure overall, but that first night after my surgery was the first time I ever thought, "Holy shit, I could actually die." Post-abdominal surgery (if that's what it is), you're in pain and a lot of normal movements (including those involved in going to the bathroom) hurt like fuck and your digestive system basically goes on strike and...I can't even imagine climbing into high heels and stuffing myself into shapewear at that point.
You guys know that one somewhat unflattering shot of Taylor Swift that that weirdo attached to his tweet about how dating her was somehow so unimaginable that Travis Kelce was probably gay? A shot of her grimacing or, God forbid, wearing an uncharacteristically loose-cut shirt, would be that shot, forever.
posted by praemunire at 10:15 AM on March 12 [25 favorites]
You guys know that one somewhat unflattering shot of Taylor Swift that that weirdo attached to his tweet about how dating her was somehow so unimaginable that Travis Kelce was probably gay? A shot of her grimacing or, God forbid, wearing an uncharacteristically loose-cut shirt, would be that shot, forever.
posted by praemunire at 10:15 AM on March 12 [25 favorites]
This is 100% William’s mess.
The Prince of Wales’ current private secretary was only hired last month, as was Kate’s (she had gone for over a year without her own private secretary until then). Will announced about a year ago that he was looking to hire a Kensington Palace “CEO” to offload more of the work he already hasn’t been doing, but apparently no one wants that job.
Being born an heir has to be damaging to one’s emotional development, and William would seem to be no exception. He craves positive attention, and is jealous when anyone else in the family gets it, all while not doing anything to merit it. When it was announced that Kate would not return to work until after Easter, Wills announced that he also would not be working until Easter, even as the king has been in cancer treatment. He’s continued to brief about how he has to do the kids’ school runs every day, so can’t possibly be expected to also do any appearances, which is just insulting to all the people who somehow do school runs with full-time jobs and without household staff and security teams.
Kensington Palace no longer knows what Harry & Meghan are up to on a daily basis since they moved away and no longer share a press team, so whenever they get any positive press there are corresponding articles about how many bathrooms their Montecito home has, or about how much Will can’t stand his brother. It’s ridiculous. But leaking contentless stories about the Sussexes is starting to fail as a strategy to distract from Will’s foibles.
Wills is known to be shouty and sometimes violent. That, combined with the squirrely way the British media has been trying to approach the situation at Kensington Palace, unable to say something as simple as “Kate is doing well and appreciates the concern” for months, has become increasingly alarming over the past several weeks. Some people just want to be assured that she’s safe at this point. And now Kate’s getting the blame for all of this, even though the photo was posted as having been taken by William. He’ll always take the credit, but never the blame.
It’s also seemed like the rest of the Royal Family has been done with Will’s nonsense since the king fell ill, and they have now left him to attempt to save himself from his own messes. This does not appear to be working well for him.
Anyway, God Save any young woman who marries into this family.
posted by obloquy at 10:38 AM on March 12 [50 favorites]
The Prince of Wales’ current private secretary was only hired last month, as was Kate’s (she had gone for over a year without her own private secretary until then). Will announced about a year ago that he was looking to hire a Kensington Palace “CEO” to offload more of the work he already hasn’t been doing, but apparently no one wants that job.
Being born an heir has to be damaging to one’s emotional development, and William would seem to be no exception. He craves positive attention, and is jealous when anyone else in the family gets it, all while not doing anything to merit it. When it was announced that Kate would not return to work until after Easter, Wills announced that he also would not be working until Easter, even as the king has been in cancer treatment. He’s continued to brief about how he has to do the kids’ school runs every day, so can’t possibly be expected to also do any appearances, which is just insulting to all the people who somehow do school runs with full-time jobs and without household staff and security teams.
Kensington Palace no longer knows what Harry & Meghan are up to on a daily basis since they moved away and no longer share a press team, so whenever they get any positive press there are corresponding articles about how many bathrooms their Montecito home has, or about how much Will can’t stand his brother. It’s ridiculous. But leaking contentless stories about the Sussexes is starting to fail as a strategy to distract from Will’s foibles.
Wills is known to be shouty and sometimes violent. That, combined with the squirrely way the British media has been trying to approach the situation at Kensington Palace, unable to say something as simple as “Kate is doing well and appreciates the concern” for months, has become increasingly alarming over the past several weeks. Some people just want to be assured that she’s safe at this point. And now Kate’s getting the blame for all of this, even though the photo was posted as having been taken by William. He’ll always take the credit, but never the blame.
It’s also seemed like the rest of the Royal Family has been done with Will’s nonsense since the king fell ill, and they have now left him to attempt to save himself from his own messes. This does not appear to be working well for him.
Anyway, God Save any young woman who marries into this family.
posted by obloquy at 10:38 AM on March 12 [50 favorites]
"Just when it looked like things had quieted down on the “Where is Kate Middleton?” front, Kensington Palace dutifully went outside, laid down a small battalion of rakes, and proceeded to step on every single one of them plus a land mine just to be safe."
So, I was pointlessly up in the middle of the night thinking about the possibilities:
(a) Kate is dead and in no shape to Weekend at Bernie's it....probably not?
(b) Kate is in a coma. The more this goes on, the more you seriously kinda wonder.
(c) Kate is so ill she's physically unavailable to the royal family, like in a clinic somewhere.
(d) Kate has somehow managed to do a runner while having had major surgery, she's somehow hiding somewhere where the tabloids haven't found her (how?!), and the reason why they can't get a photo out of her is they literally don't know where she is. I'd love to root for this one, but is it even possible for her to hide on that level? Probably not.
(e) Kate's face is messed up. Puffed up, maybe she had a stroke, maybe she got Bell's palsy, maybe there was another dog bowl incident. Whatever it was, her face is such a mess and may well continue to be a mess for a few months' worth of time, and she literally cannot/should not be photographed in this condition. That's probably it.
If they could prop her up in bed for a photo, I'm sure they would have done that by now. If she was in the shape to do any reasonable photo, I presume they would have done one.
As the Lainey Gossip story said, "The fact that they keep going out of their way to avoid doing the thing that would shut down any and all speculation and conspiracy is what keeps fueling the speculation and conspiracy." Which is why it proves they literally cannot do so. This is the best they can come up with.
Was Prince William & Kate’s Monday car photo a manipulated image too? Apparently so, if you check the bricks behind the car.
Mail: What if Kensington Palace is lying about everything around Princess Kate?
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:46 AM on March 12 [16 favorites]
So, I was pointlessly up in the middle of the night thinking about the possibilities:
(a) Kate is dead and in no shape to Weekend at Bernie's it....probably not?
(b) Kate is in a coma. The more this goes on, the more you seriously kinda wonder.
(c) Kate is so ill she's physically unavailable to the royal family, like in a clinic somewhere.
(d) Kate has somehow managed to do a runner while having had major surgery, she's somehow hiding somewhere where the tabloids haven't found her (how?!), and the reason why they can't get a photo out of her is they literally don't know where she is. I'd love to root for this one, but is it even possible for her to hide on that level? Probably not.
(e) Kate's face is messed up. Puffed up, maybe she had a stroke, maybe she got Bell's palsy, maybe there was another dog bowl incident. Whatever it was, her face is such a mess and may well continue to be a mess for a few months' worth of time, and she literally cannot/should not be photographed in this condition. That's probably it.
If they could prop her up in bed for a photo, I'm sure they would have done that by now. If she was in the shape to do any reasonable photo, I presume they would have done one.
As the Lainey Gossip story said, "The fact that they keep going out of their way to avoid doing the thing that would shut down any and all speculation and conspiracy is what keeps fueling the speculation and conspiracy." Which is why it proves they literally cannot do so. This is the best they can come up with.
Was Prince William & Kate’s Monday car photo a manipulated image too? Apparently so, if you check the bricks behind the car.
Mail: What if Kensington Palace is lying about everything around Princess Kate?
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:46 AM on March 12 [16 favorites]
When it was announced that Kate would not return to work until after Easter, Wills announced that he also would not be working until Easter, even as the king has been in cancer treatment.
His only surviving parent has cancer and his wife has had some kind of serious surgery. He has three young children. What sane person wouldn't cut back on work if they could at that point?
posted by praemunire at 10:46 AM on March 12 [6 favorites]
His only surviving parent has cancer and his wife has had some kind of serious surgery. He has three young children. What sane person wouldn't cut back on work if they could at that point?
posted by praemunire at 10:46 AM on March 12 [6 favorites]
What sane person wouldn't cut back on work if they could at that point?
The context is that Will and Kate have already been criticized for their number of engagements over the past few years.
I looked this up recently, in 2022 Kate did 90 engagements and last year she did 125. They are compared to Anne who regularly does over 300 per year. So this is a complaint that goes back from before there were known family illnesses, especially when used to justify that their royal duties are a job.
posted by girlmightlive at 10:53 AM on March 12 [6 favorites]
The context is that Will and Kate have already been criticized for their number of engagements over the past few years.
I looked this up recently, in 2022 Kate did 90 engagements and last year she did 125. They are compared to Anne who regularly does over 300 per year. So this is a complaint that goes back from before there were known family illnesses, especially when used to justify that their royal duties are a job.
posted by girlmightlive at 10:53 AM on March 12 [6 favorites]
The kind with a household staff of 50 people?
posted by bgrebs at 10:54 AM on March 12 [11 favorites]
posted by bgrebs at 10:54 AM on March 12 [11 favorites]
I’m surprised that AP and others released it in the first place. Louis’s broken fingers just scream AI or Photoshop (and are much more obvious than Charlotte’s sleeve that everyone seems to be focusing on).
posted by Melismata at 10:56 AM on March 12 [1 favorite]
posted by Melismata at 10:56 AM on March 12 [1 favorite]
My favorite theory on the gossip sites is that Kate is growing out bangs.
I think she is fighting with William, and did photoshop the photo to remove her ring.
posted by frecklefaerie at 11:04 AM on March 12 [9 favorites]
I think she is fighting with William, and did photoshop the photo to remove her ring.
posted by frecklefaerie at 11:04 AM on March 12 [9 favorites]
Unless I've really missed something, aren't Anne's kids practically middle-aged now?
I don't even think that the monarchy should exist anymore, but making a scandal out of people being sick and/or people reducing their professional commitments to focus on looking after their family shows that what's going on here is not primarily republicanism. The Epstein connection of Andrew, Charles and Kate maybe being the ones expressing, uh, concern about Archie's potential skin color, these are genuine scandals. (And there are more, I'm just picking the obvious recent examples.) The rest is voyeurism, or frustrated voyeurism, and kind of tacky.
posted by praemunire at 11:09 AM on March 12 [6 favorites]
I don't even think that the monarchy should exist anymore, but making a scandal out of people being sick and/or people reducing their professional commitments to focus on looking after their family shows that what's going on here is not primarily republicanism. The Epstein connection of Andrew, Charles and Kate maybe being the ones expressing, uh, concern about Archie's potential skin color, these are genuine scandals. (And there are more, I'm just picking the obvious recent examples.) The rest is voyeurism, or frustrated voyeurism, and kind of tacky.
posted by praemunire at 11:09 AM on March 12 [6 favorites]
"I think she is fighting with William, and did photoshop the photo to remove her ring."
Removing the ring would be some Princess Di level signaling.
posted by Capt. Renault at 11:11 AM on March 12 [4 favorites]
Removing the ring would be some Princess Di level signaling.
posted by Capt. Renault at 11:11 AM on March 12 [4 favorites]
He is the future monarch and has to keep calm and carry on, this is his one job.
Parents, kids, wife… sorry buddy. Life lottery picked you to carry out the institution and you don’t really have the option of noping out, and your brother is no longer here to throw under the bus. Your humanity comes second. Especially when the role you’ve ostensibly been preparing for *your entire life* is soft falling on your shoulders due to your dad’s illness. This was your time to shine and you’re showing your hand miserably.
We know the palace lies like crazy and we’re watching them lie themselves into smaller and smaller circles until there’s no room to hide. So from a PR perspective it is 1) vindication of Harry 2) popcorn for the rest of us.
The main idea is that his love child with mistress is the same age as Charlotte and Kate found out and karmas a bitch.
posted by St. Peepsburg at 11:14 AM on March 12 [15 favorites]
Parents, kids, wife… sorry buddy. Life lottery picked you to carry out the institution and you don’t really have the option of noping out, and your brother is no longer here to throw under the bus. Your humanity comes second. Especially when the role you’ve ostensibly been preparing for *your entire life* is soft falling on your shoulders due to your dad’s illness. This was your time to shine and you’re showing your hand miserably.
We know the palace lies like crazy and we’re watching them lie themselves into smaller and smaller circles until there’s no room to hide. So from a PR perspective it is 1) vindication of Harry 2) popcorn for the rest of us.
The main idea is that his love child with mistress is the same age as Charlotte and Kate found out and karmas a bitch.
posted by St. Peepsburg at 11:14 AM on March 12 [15 favorites]
Part of the problem is Charles's "slimmed down royal family." Yonks ago Charles decided that he was going to cut out various hangers-on, cousins, whatever out of the "working royals" fund and only have his nearest and dearest (i.e. his favorite kids/siblings) get paid to attend events. I note this isn't any kind of money saving for the taxpayers thing, it's more like "instead of paying 15 people out of the same pot, we cut them down to seven and the remaining seven get more money."
Andrew and Harry were included in the total, but both have now been fired. "Slimmed down" now boils down to Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, Anne, Edward and Sophie now. Period. No kids of theirs even if the kids are adults, and presumably the elder royal cousins who do gigs here and there should be on their way out. If two of those seven literally can't do events, and Prince Edward's looking suspiciously ill, and Anne's feeling run down, and even before this the Waleses were known for being work-shy... it's a big deal when they are really low on royals to pass around to go to ribbon cuttings or whatever. William was pretty much forced to go back to work once his dad announced the cancer.
As for kid fingers and the like: 5 photos of the royal family that people have said look edited and Kate Middleton's photo-editing confession sparks fresh accusations that a Christmas card was similarly manipulated
posted by jenfullmoon at 11:17 AM on March 12 [10 favorites]
Andrew and Harry were included in the total, but both have now been fired. "Slimmed down" now boils down to Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, Anne, Edward and Sophie now. Period. No kids of theirs even if the kids are adults, and presumably the elder royal cousins who do gigs here and there should be on their way out. If two of those seven literally can't do events, and Prince Edward's looking suspiciously ill, and Anne's feeling run down, and even before this the Waleses were known for being work-shy... it's a big deal when they are really low on royals to pass around to go to ribbon cuttings or whatever. William was pretty much forced to go back to work once his dad announced the cancer.
As for kid fingers and the like: 5 photos of the royal family that people have said look edited and Kate Middleton's photo-editing confession sparks fresh accusations that a Christmas card was similarly manipulated
posted by jenfullmoon at 11:17 AM on March 12 [10 favorites]
some spoiled brat who forgets they are not just playing dress up.
Are they not?
posted by flabdablet at 11:19 AM on March 12 [6 favorites]
Are they not?
posted by flabdablet at 11:19 AM on March 12 [6 favorites]
it's a big deal when they are really low on royals to pass around to go to ribbon cuttings or whatever.
Mr. Blobby is sitting by the phone, ready as always to represent Britain.
posted by delfin at 11:21 AM on March 12 [6 favorites]
Mr. Blobby is sitting by the phone, ready as always to represent Britain.
posted by delfin at 11:21 AM on March 12 [6 favorites]
interogative mood: I suggest Olivia Colman as the new “Queen.”
Favourited.
posted by k3ninho at 11:24 AM on March 12 [7 favorites]
Favourited.
posted by k3ninho at 11:24 AM on March 12 [7 favorites]
Also popcorn aside, I think people are legitimately worried for Kate’s safety.
It was funny for a minute but it’s gone past that now, with all the lies and, as wonderfully written above by jenfullmoon, KP’s resistance to just do the thing that would put our minds at ease. Like, at what point do we call in a wellness check?
So it gets you thinking (not unlike the rumors of the Princess of Monaco) about heads of state, and power, and how us plebes live in general safety but if it was really necessary, that people will disappear you if the power structures demand it. That’s legitimately horrifying.
posted by St. Peepsburg at 11:25 AM on March 12 [9 favorites]
It was funny for a minute but it’s gone past that now, with all the lies and, as wonderfully written above by jenfullmoon, KP’s resistance to just do the thing that would put our minds at ease. Like, at what point do we call in a wellness check?
So it gets you thinking (not unlike the rumors of the Princess of Monaco) about heads of state, and power, and how us plebes live in general safety but if it was really necessary, that people will disappear you if the power structures demand it. That’s legitimately horrifying.
posted by St. Peepsburg at 11:25 AM on March 12 [9 favorites]
This season of The Crown has really gone off the rails.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:28 AM on March 12 [13 favorites]
posted by kirkaracha at 11:28 AM on March 12 [13 favorites]
Life lottery picked you to carry out the institution and you don’t really have the option of noping out, and your brother is no longer here to throw under the bus. Your humanity comes second.
So...is this comment in the service of promoting of a better, more decent, more equal English society? It's a little hard to tell.
Maybe you could go tell his kids that even though Mom is sick and they're afraid, the life lottery says he has to go cut a ribbon in uniform in Banbury or something four days a week instead of spending time with them?
(It's precisely because English royal duties are so very stupid and merely decorative that arguing that humanity should come second to them sounds...well...the way it does.)
posted by praemunire at 11:29 AM on March 12 [6 favorites]
So...is this comment in the service of promoting of a better, more decent, more equal English society? It's a little hard to tell.
Maybe you could go tell his kids that even though Mom is sick and they're afraid, the life lottery says he has to go cut a ribbon in uniform in Banbury or something four days a week instead of spending time with them?
(It's precisely because English royal duties are so very stupid and merely decorative that arguing that humanity should come second to them sounds...well...the way it does.)
posted by praemunire at 11:29 AM on March 12 [6 favorites]
On the other hand, people with sick partners and kids in school often can and do engage in their jobs during the school day.
posted by janell at 11:44 AM on March 12 [17 favorites]
posted by janell at 11:44 AM on March 12 [17 favorites]
I think calling British police for a wellness check on a royal would go about as well as the Shelly Miscavige wellness check did, i.e. "We're telling you she's fine!"
I always think of the British Royal Family as being entertainment/reality television and I follow their dramas with popcorn and wine, but for all intents and purpose their jobs are really just like, publicity and marketing. For all the "abolish the monarchy" stuff (which I would agree with since genetically we have no way to prevent Good King Wenceslas's oldest son, Drunk King Dennis, from being a shitty leader, or skipping him for Sane Princess Alison, born two years later and with a vagina), as far as I can tell the king/queen don't seem to do all THAT much running of the country, that seems to be on the prime minister and the trainwreck of their people in government. I don't mind the monarchy if they're primarily there for publicity, marketing, and entertainment value. I'd have more concerns if I thought Prince William could someday have his finger on the nuclear button, and I think things will severely go downhill once he is king anyway, but he probably can't trash shit more than the chain of prime ministers have.
I was trying to find this link for my previous post, gave up, then just found it. I don't agree with all of it, but the snark was kinda priceless:
Anyhoo, they really can't afford to be any men/women down at this point, and people are now starting to drop like flies for various reasons too. They probably shouldn't be shitting on Kate this openly if they need her around in the future, unless William's decided to divorce her, which...maybe.
posted by jenfullmoon at 11:48 AM on March 12 [7 favorites]
I always think of the British Royal Family as being entertainment/reality television and I follow their dramas with popcorn and wine, but for all intents and purpose their jobs are really just like, publicity and marketing. For all the "abolish the monarchy" stuff (which I would agree with since genetically we have no way to prevent Good King Wenceslas's oldest son, Drunk King Dennis, from being a shitty leader, or skipping him for Sane Princess Alison, born two years later and with a vagina), as far as I can tell the king/queen don't seem to do all THAT much running of the country, that seems to be on the prime minister and the trainwreck of their people in government. I don't mind the monarchy if they're primarily there for publicity, marketing, and entertainment value. I'd have more concerns if I thought Prince William could someday have his finger on the nuclear button, and I think things will severely go downhill once he is king anyway, but he probably can't trash shit more than the chain of prime ministers have.
I was trying to find this link for my previous post, gave up, then just found it. I don't agree with all of it, but the snark was kinda priceless:
At the heart of this mess are four words that His Majesty must now dread having ever uttered – Slimmed Down Royal Family.I did laugh at this article's pot shots at spares, though, saying that the palace has no idea how to contain or manage the Sussexes (how could you? They are Broken Up, they have no motivation to do what you say and they live elsewhere) or Andrew...which is legit.
Come the aughties, the advent of flip phones, hipster jeans and Shakira, at some point god’s gift to hedgerow preservation decided that the royal family was in danger of starting to look like it a bloated gaggle of spongers, many of whom enjoyed gratis grace-and-favour homes and never doing a lick of public duties.
For example, in 2019, the last time that the full complement appeared on the balcony for Trooping the Colour, there were 39 people.
The fundamental flaw in this SDRF plan was that it was predicated on those senior members working with all the zeal of Princess Anne amped up on Red Bull.
It did not take into account how greatly the loss of Her late Majesty would be felt, sickness, self-immolation via Newsnight interview or a duke deciding one day that he was better off doing this thing called ‘Job’ than having to play obedient second fiddle.
Charles’ grand scheme did not factor in ego, resentment, self-regarding plonkerism, and the inevitable ravages of time.
The end result is where we are today: After nearly two months of rolling crises, the royal family looks threadbare, depleted and wan.
The consequences of what now looks like the King’s short-sightedness are currently on full display, with Prince Edward and Sophie the Duchess of Edinburgh, two immensely well-meaning triers who make vanilla look too vanilla, and Anne left to carry the whole show.
Anyhoo, they really can't afford to be any men/women down at this point, and people are now starting to drop like flies for various reasons too. They probably shouldn't be shitting on Kate this openly if they need her around in the future, unless William's decided to divorce her, which...maybe.
posted by jenfullmoon at 11:48 AM on March 12 [7 favorites]
Oy, Newsweek: "The pattern on the right shoulder of Prince Louis' knitted jumper does not properly line up." Which I guess is just IMPOSSIBLE TO IMAGINE because he's an itty bitty teeny weeny prince and thus all seams in his life will be perfectly aligned so that patterns meet just right? It's not possible the Royal Scottish Knittresses by Appointment to His Majesty the King could've knitted the kid a sweater with a pattern not matched exactly on one seam and nobody noticed because who gives a damn? I feel like imperfectly matched patterns are pretty common. Also, why would Kate Middleton or KP or the Guild of AI Craftsbots by Appointment to His Majesty the King even be messing with that part of the photo? It's nowhere near any part of Kate Middleton.
Newsweek is also wailing that the mullion lines in one part of one window don't line up perfectly, but all of the mullions are all over the place and it's very clearly not an edit but the sought-after patina of irreplaceably ancient caulking falling out of the kajillionyearold windows of castle snootbridge or whatever.
The middle finger crossed over the ring finger thing the kid is doing is I think on purpose. It's completely possible to do that if you brace your hand the way he's doing; I just tried it. I have no theory as to why he'd do it except that it's somewhat difficult and maybe he just mastered it. Or maybe it's a coping mechanism he resorts to whenever they put him in that hellishly badly patternmatched sweater.
Some of the other edits are really weird. Why'd they do that strange thing to the tiny princess's knee...? That freakishly obvious straight line across the middle of the image where Kate Middleton's zipper doesn't connect: why?
posted by Don Pepino at 11:58 AM on March 12 [3 favorites]
Newsweek is also wailing that the mullion lines in one part of one window don't line up perfectly, but all of the mullions are all over the place and it's very clearly not an edit but the sought-after patina of irreplaceably ancient caulking falling out of the kajillionyearold windows of castle snootbridge or whatever.
The middle finger crossed over the ring finger thing the kid is doing is I think on purpose. It's completely possible to do that if you brace your hand the way he's doing; I just tried it. I have no theory as to why he'd do it except that it's somewhat difficult and maybe he just mastered it. Or maybe it's a coping mechanism he resorts to whenever they put him in that hellishly badly patternmatched sweater.
Some of the other edits are really weird. Why'd they do that strange thing to the tiny princess's knee...? That freakishly obvious straight line across the middle of the image where Kate Middleton's zipper doesn't connect: why?
posted by Don Pepino at 11:58 AM on March 12 [3 favorites]
Life lottery picked you to carry out the institution and you don’t really have the option of noping out, and your brother is no longer here to throw under the bus. Your humanity comes second.
So...is this comment in the service of promoting of a better, more decent, more equal English society? It's a little hard to tell.
Maybe you could go tell his kids that even though Mom is sick and they're afraid, the life lottery says he has to go cut a ribbon in uniform in Banbury or something four days a week instead of spending time with them?
Up front: I think the monarchy / succession is ridiculous but I enjoy the popcorn of watching family shenanigans + power + history. (sorry Harry) but also I’m not British! So even more so than usual my opinion on the internet matters as much as a fart in the wind.
For my previous comment: yes he can do his job and still have time to comfort the kids. So far in the past month he’s had to pitch-hit for 2 investitures and a couple other engagements (and also weirdly pulled out at the last minute for a funeral; does not inspire Elizabethan confidence.) That’s a handful of days in 30. The kids even in trying times do not need a parent to hold their hand every hour. And if they do, engagements can be rescheduled (not at the last minute!) except for the most pressing. For the most pressing engagements, yes William is expected to show up and perform. Like any of us. I mean he has to demonstrate that he is worthy of public’s continued support. That’s the entirety of the deal. He was randomly chosen by fate to show up for the country as a symbol, and the country allows him to do this provided the symbol is one they want. The fact that he’s blundered so poorly the first test of his grace under fire is disappointing.
posted by St. Peepsburg at 12:19 PM on March 12 [9 favorites]
So...is this comment in the service of promoting of a better, more decent, more equal English society? It's a little hard to tell.
Maybe you could go tell his kids that even though Mom is sick and they're afraid, the life lottery says he has to go cut a ribbon in uniform in Banbury or something four days a week instead of spending time with them?
Up front: I think the monarchy / succession is ridiculous but I enjoy the popcorn of watching family shenanigans + power + history. (sorry Harry) but also I’m not British! So even more so than usual my opinion on the internet matters as much as a fart in the wind.
For my previous comment: yes he can do his job and still have time to comfort the kids. So far in the past month he’s had to pitch-hit for 2 investitures and a couple other engagements (and also weirdly pulled out at the last minute for a funeral; does not inspire Elizabethan confidence.) That’s a handful of days in 30. The kids even in trying times do not need a parent to hold their hand every hour. And if they do, engagements can be rescheduled (not at the last minute!) except for the most pressing. For the most pressing engagements, yes William is expected to show up and perform. Like any of us. I mean he has to demonstrate that he is worthy of public’s continued support. That’s the entirety of the deal. He was randomly chosen by fate to show up for the country as a symbol, and the country allows him to do this provided the symbol is one they want. The fact that he’s blundered so poorly the first test of his grace under fire is disappointing.
posted by St. Peepsburg at 12:19 PM on March 12 [9 favorites]
On the other hand, people with sick partners and kids in school often can and do engage in their jobs during the school day.
No kidding. But, in a better society, they wouldn't have to.
In the world where William was just an ordinary rich heir to a very rich man--which, being realistic, is the world in which the monarchy was abolished when Elizabeth died--he wouldn't do it, either.
My work doesn't have infinite public value, but I think in the end it probably contributes more to society than the Prince of Wales's does (in other words, a low bar). If my elderly mom had cancer and I was lucky enough to be able to wangle some time off of work to better help look after her and you sneered at me, "well, that's your job, your humanity comes second, other people keep working while their family member is sick," I'd punch you in the face, or verbal equivalent thereof.
Let's be blunt about this: some of this criticism expressed here is being angry that a man (and, by extension, his wife) are being too attentive to their family in need. That is messed up. Especially when what's being sacrificed is, you know, ribbon-cuttings and the opportunity for the public to gawp at and judge a doll dressed to some weird sartorial/physical ideal. Is it so unimaginable that William cares about Kate and would rather be with her or the kids or handling actual domestic business than drinking cheap champagne in a ceremonial uniform? Is it so unimaginable that Kate is recovering from surgery and doesn't want to be out not looking her best when she knows the entire freaking country will see her?
posted by praemunire at 12:22 PM on March 12 [7 favorites]
No kidding. But, in a better society, they wouldn't have to.
In the world where William was just an ordinary rich heir to a very rich man--which, being realistic, is the world in which the monarchy was abolished when Elizabeth died--he wouldn't do it, either.
My work doesn't have infinite public value, but I think in the end it probably contributes more to society than the Prince of Wales's does (in other words, a low bar). If my elderly mom had cancer and I was lucky enough to be able to wangle some time off of work to better help look after her and you sneered at me, "well, that's your job, your humanity comes second, other people keep working while their family member is sick," I'd punch you in the face, or verbal equivalent thereof.
Let's be blunt about this: some of this criticism expressed here is being angry that a man (and, by extension, his wife) are being too attentive to their family in need. That is messed up. Especially when what's being sacrificed is, you know, ribbon-cuttings and the opportunity for the public to gawp at and judge a doll dressed to some weird sartorial/physical ideal. Is it so unimaginable that William cares about Kate and would rather be with her or the kids or handling actual domestic business than drinking cheap champagne in a ceremonial uniform? Is it so unimaginable that Kate is recovering from surgery and doesn't want to be out not looking her best when she knows the entire freaking country will see her?
posted by praemunire at 12:22 PM on March 12 [7 favorites]
I really don't get the furor. Kate is burnt out, William is burnt out. Kate is teetering on the dangerous edge of looking middle aged instead of perfect, so the media vultures are circling. Meanwhile she's got some health problem, probably an embarrassing and disgusting one, like a prolapse and she wants to turtle for awhile.
What are the odds that this isn't a perfectly ordinary ailment for a 42 year old - or possibly just some plastic surgery to keep the vultures at bay? The odds that she has also got a terminal illness like King Charles, or has been disfigured in an acid attack, or has secretly been substituted with an identical doppelganger Russian spy, or whatever it is that they think is behind the photo shopped picture are not exactly high.
On the other hand the odds that she had abdominal surgery and it left her too uncomfortable and flatulent to be acceptable to the public are reasonably high. Maybe she's just so tired that she couldn't stop crying off and on for four days after the surgery and her face is so puffy make up can't hide it? Maybe she's off her game right now, and she knows it, and her approving the not so good photoshop is a sign of that? Maybe she got dizzy getting out of her hospital bed to use the bathroom and took a fall and has a black eye? Maybe something perfectly ordinary has happen?
What are the odds that whatever is going on with the Princess of Wales is something that we would glaze over hearing about it, if it happened to one of our coworkers? Oh, so your surgery got postponed twice and you spent forty-eight hours in waiting for it and you had nothing to do but read the same Danielle Steele book two times and they wouldn't let you eat the whole time? And then you had post surgical nausea and puked so hard your tore a couple of your stitches?
Honestly, one of my feelings about the whole thing is that it would be nice if she has managed to actually get enough time off from her royal duties to have been able to learn to use image editing software and really is the person who did the photo-editing. From all accounts her life has been so over scheduled that she's badly overdue for a crash, mentally, physically and emotionally.
I wish her well, but I don't admire her life choices. It sucks trying to survive on a pedestal.
posted by Jane the Brown at 12:23 PM on March 12 [8 favorites]
What are the odds that this isn't a perfectly ordinary ailment for a 42 year old - or possibly just some plastic surgery to keep the vultures at bay? The odds that she has also got a terminal illness like King Charles, or has been disfigured in an acid attack, or has secretly been substituted with an identical doppelganger Russian spy, or whatever it is that they think is behind the photo shopped picture are not exactly high.
On the other hand the odds that she had abdominal surgery and it left her too uncomfortable and flatulent to be acceptable to the public are reasonably high. Maybe she's just so tired that she couldn't stop crying off and on for four days after the surgery and her face is so puffy make up can't hide it? Maybe she's off her game right now, and she knows it, and her approving the not so good photoshop is a sign of that? Maybe she got dizzy getting out of her hospital bed to use the bathroom and took a fall and has a black eye? Maybe something perfectly ordinary has happen?
What are the odds that whatever is going on with the Princess of Wales is something that we would glaze over hearing about it, if it happened to one of our coworkers? Oh, so your surgery got postponed twice and you spent forty-eight hours in waiting for it and you had nothing to do but read the same Danielle Steele book two times and they wouldn't let you eat the whole time? And then you had post surgical nausea and puked so hard your tore a couple of your stitches?
Honestly, one of my feelings about the whole thing is that it would be nice if she has managed to actually get enough time off from her royal duties to have been able to learn to use image editing software and really is the person who did the photo-editing. From all accounts her life has been so over scheduled that she's badly overdue for a crash, mentally, physically and emotionally.
I wish her well, but I don't admire her life choices. It sucks trying to survive on a pedestal.
posted by Jane the Brown at 12:23 PM on March 12 [8 favorites]
Yeah, I should perhaps clarify that I don’t begrudge William looking after his family. I just don’t believe he is. Kensington Palace’s constant lies over the past few years have led me to distrust anything they say. I don’t believe William is doing any school runs. I don’t believe he visited Kate in the hospital more than once. I don’t even believe that W&K live in the same house most of the time, as they don’t appear to like each other much (IYKYK).
But I do believe that the king’s illness, the extent of which we do not know, has been frightening for the heir. He’s subsequently flailing, and the infamous palace–UK press relationship is again coming to the foreground.
As a narrative, this is all of a piece with the lack of coverage of Prince Andrew’s … issues, Meghan’s vicious tabloid treatment (as well as the recent reveal of the “royal racists”) and the underlying reasons for Harry’s eventual departure. they’re all a Royal mess—with the notable and ironic exception of Queen Consort Camilla (who has her own personal set of press contacts)!
posted by obloquy at 12:26 PM on March 12 [14 favorites]
But I do believe that the king’s illness, the extent of which we do not know, has been frightening for the heir. He’s subsequently flailing, and the infamous palace–UK press relationship is again coming to the foreground.
As a narrative, this is all of a piece with the lack of coverage of Prince Andrew’s … issues, Meghan’s vicious tabloid treatment (as well as the recent reveal of the “royal racists”) and the underlying reasons for Harry’s eventual departure. they’re all a Royal mess—with the notable and ironic exception of Queen Consort Camilla (who has her own personal set of press contacts)!
posted by obloquy at 12:26 PM on March 12 [14 favorites]
Please keep in mind when mocking the royal family’s relationship with the press: 1) the prevailing narrative about William’s mothers death is that she died fleeing the paparazzi and 2) the British tabloids interfered with the search for a missing (later found murdered) teenager. When I lived in Italy in the late 80s and early 90s there were regularly upskirt photographs of members of the royal family getting out of cars. I don’t know what European tabloids are like now but when William and Kate were growing up it was brutal. If they’ve found an arrangement that allows them to prevent that then I applaud it.
posted by bq at 12:31 PM on March 12 [5 favorites]
posted by bq at 12:31 PM on March 12 [5 favorites]
If they’ve found an arrangement that allows them to prevent that then I applaud it.
It seems like a big part of the arrangement early on was feeding the tabloids stories about Harry and (especially) Meghan instead. Now, they no longer have that escape valve.
posted by lizard2590 at 12:40 PM on March 12 [17 favorites]
It seems like a big part of the arrangement early on was feeding the tabloids stories about Harry and (especially) Meghan instead. Now, they no longer have that escape valve.
posted by lizard2590 at 12:40 PM on March 12 [17 favorites]
If they’ve found an arrangement that allows them to prevent that then I applaud it.
I think they did find an arrangement. Feed Harry and Meghan to the sharks. Looks like so far the British press is holding up to the deal.
posted by tclark at 12:40 PM on March 12 [11 favorites]
I think they did find an arrangement. Feed Harry and Meghan to the sharks. Looks like so far the British press is holding up to the deal.
posted by tclark at 12:40 PM on March 12 [11 favorites]
as they don’t appear to like each other much (IYKYK).
I don't know, I thought part of their whole deal was that they were a solid couple, is that not the case?
posted by Carillon at 12:44 PM on March 12
I don't know, I thought part of their whole deal was that they were a solid couple, is that not the case?
posted by Carillon at 12:44 PM on March 12
There have been rumours for years that he's cheating on her and that Rose Hanbury's daughter is his. Will not coming off the best at all in The Spare really fired them up. I've yet to see any proof at all beyond "everyone knows".
posted by I claim sanctuary at 1:02 PM on March 12 [3 favorites]
posted by I claim sanctuary at 1:02 PM on March 12 [3 favorites]
Hmm....W&K's relationship seems to have kinda eroded over the last few years, at least. I've read rumors that Will and Kate's brief breakup pre-marriage was that he wanted to marry someone more aristocratic (someone named "Jecca Craig" keeps coming up, but I know nothing more there) and he couldn't get anyone else to, so he went back to Kate. As far as we know, he hasn't had any regular girlfriends OTHER than Kate, which I thought was sweet at the time that it worked out so easily for him. I don't know on the validity of him chasing other women, but William has gotten surly/"incandescent with rage" as time has gone on, there's sometimes been weird dynamics with him and Kate in public (why she was grabbing his ass in public at events--come on, that's just Tacky), and a fair number of people theorize that he's not actually living in Adelaide Cottage. Where he is, I dunno.
As for the Rose Hanbury thing, several years ago apparently Kate tried to freeze Rose out socially among the Anmer Hall crowd and that was a no-go, which led to people suspecting Rose and William had an affair, especially since her husband is rumored to be gay. Nobody seems to have found any actual evidence of this, per Omid Scobie and why he didn't get into it much in Endgame, but Omid did note that Prince William had those rumors in the media shut down right quick.
posted by jenfullmoon at 1:08 PM on March 12 [6 favorites]
As for the Rose Hanbury thing, several years ago apparently Kate tried to freeze Rose out socially among the Anmer Hall crowd and that was a no-go, which led to people suspecting Rose and William had an affair, especially since her husband is rumored to be gay. Nobody seems to have found any actual evidence of this, per Omid Scobie and why he didn't get into it much in Endgame, but Omid did note that Prince William had those rumors in the media shut down right quick.
posted by jenfullmoon at 1:08 PM on March 12 [6 favorites]
MetaFilter: too uncomfortable and flatulent to be acceptable to the public
posted by elkevelvet at 1:20 PM on March 12 [7 favorites]
posted by elkevelvet at 1:20 PM on March 12 [7 favorites]
hippybear: too uncomfortable and flatulent to be acceptable to the public
posted by hippybear at 1:23 PM on March 12 [22 favorites]
posted by hippybear at 1:23 PM on March 12 [22 favorites]
Re-upping: Hilary Mantel, Royal Bodies (LRB): "Presumably Kate was designed to breed in some manners. She looks like a nicely brought up young lady, with ‘please’ and ‘thank you’ part of her vocabulary. But in her first official portrait by Paul Emsley, unveiled in January, her eyes are dead and she wears the strained smile of a woman who really wants to tell the painter to bugger off. One critic said perceptively that she appeared ‘weary of being looked at’. Another that the portrait might pass muster as the cover of a Catherine Cookson novel: an opinion I find thought-provoking, as Cookson’s simple tales of poor women extricating themselves from adverse circumstances were for twenty years, according to the Public Lending Right statistics, the nation’s favourite reading."
posted by MonkeyToes at 2:10 PM on March 12 [33 favorites]
posted by MonkeyToes at 2:10 PM on March 12 [33 favorites]
Thank you, MonkeyToes. God damn, I am so sad Mantel is no longer with us.
posted by Kat Allison at 2:32 PM on March 12 [12 favorites]
posted by Kat Allison at 2:32 PM on March 12 [12 favorites]
It’s such a BAD photoshop, is what gets me. Nefarious reasons or not, can’t they afford a damn professional?
Kate's face was pretty much lifted off a 2016 Vogue magazine cover. No Photoshop expert was going to be able to hide the existence of the original image.
My favorite comment so far: "Her hed is pastede on yay"
posted by fuse theorem at 2:37 PM on March 12 [18 favorites]
Kate's face was pretty much lifted off a 2016 Vogue magazine cover. No Photoshop expert was going to be able to hide the existence of the original image.
My favorite comment so far: "Her hed is pastede on yay"
posted by fuse theorem at 2:37 PM on March 12 [18 favorites]
that Mantel article is fantastic!
posted by supermedusa at 2:38 PM on March 12 [5 favorites]
posted by supermedusa at 2:38 PM on March 12 [5 favorites]
Ever since I saw it pointed out, I've wondered if the one kids crossed fingers planted on the table isn't a, well, fingers crossed to protect against telling a lie.
Also, why are the kids so utterly weirdly jubilant in the photo while Kate's face is kind of mid?
posted by hippybear at 2:44 PM on March 12
Also, why are the kids so utterly weirdly jubilant in the photo while Kate's face is kind of mid?
posted by hippybear at 2:44 PM on March 12
I dunno, hippybear, if this truly represents e.g. Mummy’s first day in the sun in two months, that is PLENTY of reason for kids to be off their head with joy. If she really has been sicker than advertised I would expect that to be quite hard on her kids.
The speculation about it being a face job from an eight year old photo shoot seems totally crazy to me (not least because why would that require any of the edits in places we know are funky?). I don’t know what the explanation is here but I don’t think it’s that.
posted by eirias at 3:21 PM on March 12
The speculation about it being a face job from an eight year old photo shoot seems totally crazy to me (not least because why would that require any of the edits in places we know are funky?). I don’t know what the explanation is here but I don’t think it’s that.
posted by eirias at 3:21 PM on March 12
if this truly represents e.g. Mummy’s first day in the sun in two months, that is PLENTY of reason for kids to be off their head with joy
But why?
Have the kids not seen their mother for two months? I feel like they probably have, but maybe not? Like we don't know anything about this, but if this is a family photo of people who have been around each other across the "silence" then the expressions on the kids' faces is weirdly incongruous unless there's something else going on. And maybe it's as simple as the photographer or an assistant giving a prompt or making a joke that has them all doing the thing. That's entirely allowed.
But if the kids were regularly in contact with their mother. and this were somehow just "we're on the patio today instead of indoors", this isn't the kind of photo one would expect to see.
posted by hippybear at 3:34 PM on March 12 [2 favorites]
But why?
Have the kids not seen their mother for two months? I feel like they probably have, but maybe not? Like we don't know anything about this, but if this is a family photo of people who have been around each other across the "silence" then the expressions on the kids' faces is weirdly incongruous unless there's something else going on. And maybe it's as simple as the photographer or an assistant giving a prompt or making a joke that has them all doing the thing. That's entirely allowed.
But if the kids were regularly in contact with their mother. and this were somehow just "we're on the patio today instead of indoors", this isn't the kind of photo one would expect to see.
posted by hippybear at 3:34 PM on March 12 [2 favorites]
‘Cause no one’s kids were ever randomly happy about something random or a joke that was just told or anything like that while their mother was just tired or didn’t find poop or knock knock jokes to be funny or something.
posted by eviemath at 4:18 PM on March 12 [8 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 4:18 PM on March 12 [8 favorites]
I don’t think it’s necessary to speculate about the expressions in the photo when the photo is clearly manipulated anyway, tbh (and it 100% is, if anyone’s still skeptical about that - I have merely kinda-skilled-amateur photoshop skills and a moment’s glance makes it obvious.)
posted by showbiz_liz at 4:19 PM on March 12 [6 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 4:19 PM on March 12 [6 favorites]
~ Wills is known to be shouty and sometimes violent.
~ (e) Kate's face is messed up. Puffed up, maybe…
Sooooo…
posted by Thorzdad at 4:22 PM on March 12 [4 favorites]
~ (e) Kate's face is messed up. Puffed up, maybe…
Sooooo…
posted by Thorzdad at 4:22 PM on March 12 [4 favorites]
What is shocking to me is that Republic - the cats with the yellow Not My King signs - aren’t making more hay out of this. The monarchy isn’t keeping its part of the deal.
I mean. I have no idea who Republic are, but from the perspective of this non-monarchist, the whole point is that I don’t, and don’t want to have to, care about any royal family. I’m reading because the way lots of my fellow citizens of democratic countries are so invested in this is bizarre and a little concerning, but I have no complaints about the monarchy just sort of slouching into obscurity, provided their hereditary wealth eventually gets taxed and redistributed.
posted by eviemath at 4:23 PM on March 12 [4 favorites]
I mean. I have no idea who Republic are, but from the perspective of this non-monarchist, the whole point is that I don’t, and don’t want to have to, care about any royal family. I’m reading because the way lots of my fellow citizens of democratic countries are so invested in this is bizarre and a little concerning, but I have no complaints about the monarchy just sort of slouching into obscurity, provided their hereditary wealth eventually gets taxed and redistributed.
posted by eviemath at 4:23 PM on March 12 [4 favorites]
Broadly, I think it’s missing the point to say stuff like “Kate deserves time to rest and recover without being photographed” because that’s not actually what this whole scandal/mystery/whatever is about. It really has nothing to do with Kate as an individual at all. It’s the fact that they are treating whatever’s going on with her as an absolute secret in notable contrast to the way they have handled previous medical events in the royal family. This has made people speculate about WHY they are handling it this way, because it gives the strong impression that the answer is something beyond “the recovery sucks and she doesn’t want photos.” I’m not even convinced there IS more to it than that! But if there isn’t, this whole incident will literally appear in PR textbooks as a platonic example of how not to handle a public figure’s illness.
posted by showbiz_liz at 4:30 PM on March 12 [20 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 4:30 PM on March 12 [20 favorites]
I feel a lot better now about having wasted most of the day on this because now I know about Hilary Mantel.
posted by Don Pepino at 4:33 PM on March 12 [18 favorites]
posted by Don Pepino at 4:33 PM on March 12 [18 favorites]
Which I guess is just IMPOSSIBLE TO IMAGINE because he's an itty bitty teeny weeny prince and thus all seams in his life will be perfectly aligned so that patterns meet just right? It's not possible the Royal Scottish Knittresses by Appointment to His Majesty the King could've knitted the kid a sweater with a pattern not matched exactly on one seam and nobody noticed because who gives a damn?
So so so extremely not important but the section of the motif that’s off is NOT on a seam — in fact the motif IS aligned across the seam which makes the section that’s off all the more suspicious. The section where it’s off is the outer right of the sleeve and it’s off in way that isn’t exactly impossible to do but would be such a glaringly obvious and easy to fix way to mess up. Extremely implausible that it’s an error in the knitting.
posted by shesdeadimalive at 4:42 PM on March 12 [11 favorites]
So so so extremely not important but the section of the motif that’s off is NOT on a seam — in fact the motif IS aligned across the seam which makes the section that’s off all the more suspicious. The section where it’s off is the outer right of the sleeve and it’s off in way that isn’t exactly impossible to do but would be such a glaringly obvious and easy to fix way to mess up. Extremely implausible that it’s an error in the knitting.
posted by shesdeadimalive at 4:42 PM on March 12 [11 favorites]
Oh, Don Pepino, if you haven't encountered her before, please please please read the Wolf Hall trilogy! When it was urged on me I was very dubious at first because I don't read much fiction and much less historical fiction, but -- just so amazing. I'm on a slow, gradual reread of the third book, really trying not to get to the end and having it be over.
posted by Kat Allison at 4:46 PM on March 12 [13 favorites]
posted by Kat Allison at 4:46 PM on March 12 [13 favorites]
Linda Holmes, What the royal family doesn't understand about PR in 2024
What's more relevant to this story is something I would call recreational conjecture.posted by jenfullmoon at 4:48 PM on March 12 [15 favorites]
"She's dead," "She's missing," "She's in a coma" and "She's planning to get a divorce" are the kinds of things that don't even qualify as rumors, exactly; they are flights of fancy done for entertainment and social interaction.
It is impossible to stop recreational conjecture in its tracks. It is possible, however, not to spur it on. The release of the Mother's Day photo is the most obvious misstep in this entire debacle. In retrospect, it's just a mom and her kids — they didn't say it was a photo from right now. They didn't say it was meant as some kind of proof of life. But it should have been clear to any clever PR person that it would be taken that way and closely scrutinized.
But if the reason people are so curious is that they haven't seen her recently, and if you aren't going to change that fact, the best you can do is deprive the cycle of oxygen — at least oxygen that comes from you.
The more you are already being questioned about hiding the truth, the more definitively anything you release must clarify what the truth is, or else it's not worth putting it out at all.
However, will a photo of the back of someone's head slow all this down at this point? Absolutely not!
But the more weird stuff happens, the more some people start to wonder what on earth is going on. When you have shaken people's faith in anything you say, just stop talking.
It really has nothing to do with Kate as an individual at all.
Yup -- I keep thinking that Kate is really, like, a McGuffin here, or at least her existence as an actual individual human person is secondary; this is about the Royal Family and its bizarre traditions and norms, its (self-perceived) role in British identity, and the way those things are steamrollered over the identity and at times existence of actual human beings who are enmeshed in it (especially women). And of course the risible ineptitude with which it's all being done in this case.
posted by Kat Allison at 4:54 PM on March 12 [9 favorites]
Yup -- I keep thinking that Kate is really, like, a McGuffin here, or at least her existence as an actual individual human person is secondary; this is about the Royal Family and its bizarre traditions and norms, its (self-perceived) role in British identity, and the way those things are steamrollered over the identity and at times existence of actual human beings who are enmeshed in it (especially women). And of course the risible ineptitude with which it's all being done in this case.
posted by Kat Allison at 4:54 PM on March 12 [9 favorites]
(And hipppybear, you said a thing that was unkind and insulting to a fellow MeFite, which was very correctly removed.)
posted by Kat Allison at 4:58 PM on March 12 [3 favorites]
posted by Kat Allison at 4:58 PM on March 12 [3 favorites]
Oh, shesdeadimalive, I see it! Yes, the sweater did get an edit. The pattern has defects that are definitely not a knitting error. But... whyyyyyyyyiyiyi...
The more of these I see, the more I'm convinced it's not human error but... the AI. Note the young princess's boots: one is a flat, one is, apparently, a high heel?! What I think is, I think some beleaguered staffer handed a bunch of images from various shoots to the borg and said, "replace all frowns with huge psychotic smiles and make it look natural: go!" and then they flung the resulting hash at the tabloids and booked a flight to Australia.
posted by Don Pepino at 5:13 PM on March 12 [5 favorites]
The more of these I see, the more I'm convinced it's not human error but... the AI. Note the young princess's boots: one is a flat, one is, apparently, a high heel?! What I think is, I think some beleaguered staffer handed a bunch of images from various shoots to the borg and said, "replace all frowns with huge psychotic smiles and make it look natural: go!" and then they flung the resulting hash at the tabloids and booked a flight to Australia.
posted by Don Pepino at 5:13 PM on March 12 [5 favorites]
This "bad photoshop" is a lie, plain and simple. It's such a bad lie that it's disconnected the official narrative from the truth like a high pressure hose popping off and flailing around until someone else can catch it. But what they will catch is the narrative, not the truth. The truth was the gas running through the hose at the time, and that has already escaped.
The fuel to this fire (not to mix metaphors), is the behaviour of the British tabloids. Make no mistake, these are some of the most vile "press" in the world, who think nothing of ruining lives, over and over, for money, and have previously done so with royals. Yet, at this time, they're being respectful? It's as if everyone else just expected the tabloids to grab the loose narrative first, like usual. When they declined, everyone was a bit stunned, leaving room for people like Concha Calleja to have a go.
posted by krisjohn at 5:16 PM on March 12 [2 favorites]
The fuel to this fire (not to mix metaphors), is the behaviour of the British tabloids. Make no mistake, these are some of the most vile "press" in the world, who think nothing of ruining lives, over and over, for money, and have previously done so with royals. Yet, at this time, they're being respectful? It's as if everyone else just expected the tabloids to grab the loose narrative first, like usual. When they declined, everyone was a bit stunned, leaving room for people like Concha Calleja to have a go.
"I think people are legitimately worried for Kate’s safety." -- St. PeepsburgI think, I hope, of the people worried about Kate, the majority are worried for her health. Worries for her safety dance precariously close to conspiracy.
posted by krisjohn at 5:16 PM on March 12 [2 favorites]
It seems Kate’s parents have, likewise, not been regularly seen for some time. I hope they’re continually supporting Kate in a safe location now.
Common things being common, intimate partner violence - especially the known statistical risk of violence to women/femme/transfolk particularly at the hands of their cohabiting partner - needs to be talked about so much more. Thank you to jenfullmoon for the Spare thread on Fanfare - definitely a lot of food for thought there regarding the “dog bowl” domestic violence incident directed at Harry by Will referenced upthread. We know Will already has a documented history of physical violence towards family members. Infidelity is also increasingly seen as part and parcel of coercive control and intimate partner violence - we know the Hanbury child parentage rumors.
Anyway, I hope Kate and her parents have gotten to safety, whatever that looks and feels like for them personally.
posted by edithkeeler at 5:16 PM on March 12 [9 favorites]
Common things being common, intimate partner violence - especially the known statistical risk of violence to women/femme/transfolk particularly at the hands of their cohabiting partner - needs to be talked about so much more. Thank you to jenfullmoon for the Spare thread on Fanfare - definitely a lot of food for thought there regarding the “dog bowl” domestic violence incident directed at Harry by Will referenced upthread. We know Will already has a documented history of physical violence towards family members. Infidelity is also increasingly seen as part and parcel of coercive control and intimate partner violence - we know the Hanbury child parentage rumors.
Anyway, I hope Kate and her parents have gotten to safety, whatever that looks and feels like for them personally.
posted by edithkeeler at 5:16 PM on March 12 [9 favorites]
Re: Hilary Mantel—the Wolf Hall trilogy is great but A Place of Greater Safety will absolutely knock your socks off. That it hasn’t been adapted into a prestige series is practically criminal.
posted by orrnyereg at 6:00 PM on March 12 [19 favorites]
posted by orrnyereg at 6:00 PM on March 12 [19 favorites]
I think people are legitimately worried for Kate’s safety." -- St. Peepsburg
I think, I hope, of the people worried about Kate, the majority are worried for her health. Worries for her safety dance precariously close to conspiracy.
Fair point. This one is a blurred line; we have seen the firm for KP lie to and pull the strings of their journalist contacts to get whatever story they want out there (or to mute a story!). So, in that sense they do conspire but not capital-C conspire tinfoil hat wise. Conspiracy-lite maybe? Like she can’t be dead and they’re playing weekend at Bernie’s, or locked up in a tower against her will.
But ya let’s say “health and wellbeing” would have been a better phrase, sorry.
posted by St. Peepsburg at 6:36 PM on March 12
I think, I hope, of the people worried about Kate, the majority are worried for her health. Worries for her safety dance precariously close to conspiracy.
Fair point. This one is a blurred line; we have seen the firm for KP lie to and pull the strings of their journalist contacts to get whatever story they want out there (or to mute a story!). So, in that sense they do conspire but not capital-C conspire tinfoil hat wise. Conspiracy-lite maybe? Like she can’t be dead and they’re playing weekend at Bernie’s, or locked up in a tower against her will.
But ya let’s say “health and wellbeing” would have been a better phrase, sorry.
posted by St. Peepsburg at 6:36 PM on March 12
Prince Edward's looking suspiciously ill
I'm not sure where this is coming from. He looks fine.
posted by srboisvert at 6:45 PM on March 12
I'm not sure where this is coming from. He looks fine.
posted by srboisvert at 6:45 PM on March 12
He has apparently lost a lot of weight of late.
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:05 PM on March 12
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:05 PM on March 12
I feel a lot better now about having wasted most of the day on this because now I know about Hilary Mantel.
OK, one good thing has come out of this. Get yourself to Wolf Hall tout suite.
It’s the fact that they are treating whatever’s going on with her as an absolute secret in notable contrast to the way they have handled previous medical events in the royal family.
Well...so what? Unless people think she was straight-up murdered or has been locked in the Tower or both, still at a loss as to how this demands attention. (And, actually, Charles admitting he has cancer is the historical outlier.)
posted by praemunire at 7:41 PM on March 12 [1 favorite]
OK, one good thing has come out of this. Get yourself to Wolf Hall tout suite.
It’s the fact that they are treating whatever’s going on with her as an absolute secret in notable contrast to the way they have handled previous medical events in the royal family.
Well...so what? Unless people think she was straight-up murdered or has been locked in the Tower or both, still at a loss as to how this demands attention. (And, actually, Charles admitting he has cancer is the historical outlier.)
posted by praemunire at 7:41 PM on March 12 [1 favorite]
with ‘please’ and ‘thank you’ part of her vocabulary
Heavens, what is the world coming to?!?
posted by fairmettle at 11:22 PM on March 12
Heavens, what is the world coming to?!?
posted by fairmettle at 11:22 PM on March 12
Was Prince William & Kate’s Monday car photo a manipulated image too? Apparently so, if you check the bricks behind the car.
Not just the bricks — per a helpful celebitchy commenter on that article, sleuths at Lipstick Alley tracked down the 2016 photo of Kate used for the car photo. Same angle, hairstyle, & hat, but her earring was photoshopped out? Must be a new hire.
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:48 PM on March 12 [5 favorites]
Not just the bricks — per a helpful celebitchy commenter on that article, sleuths at Lipstick Alley tracked down the 2016 photo of Kate used for the car photo. Same angle, hairstyle, & hat, but her earring was photoshopped out? Must be a new hire.
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:48 PM on March 12 [5 favorites]
Not just the bricks — per a helpful celebitchy commenter on that article, sleuths at Lipstick Alley tracked down the 2016 photo of Kate used for the car photo. Same angle, hairstyle, & hat, but her earring was photoshopped out? Must be a new hire.
We're heading to Nutsville now. This is just trawling through the data until they find the proof they need. She's a very-photographed-lady. The chance of finding a photograph of her taken from similar angles is high. Nothing odd about the bricks either -- especially when you consider some post-processing might have been applied to the image to make the subjects clearer.
Nothing odd about an amateur photographer wanting to make a nice photo for mothers' day either. "Come on kids, cross your fingers this is the last shot… oh never mind, I'll stick all the best ones together in Photoshop."
posted by run"monty at 2:26 AM on March 13 [7 favorites]
We're heading to Nutsville now. This is just trawling through the data until they find the proof they need. She's a very-photographed-lady. The chance of finding a photograph of her taken from similar angles is high. Nothing odd about the bricks either -- especially when you consider some post-processing might have been applied to the image to make the subjects clearer.
Nothing odd about an amateur photographer wanting to make a nice photo for mothers' day either. "Come on kids, cross your fingers this is the last shot… oh never mind, I'll stick all the best ones together in Photoshop."
posted by run"monty at 2:26 AM on March 13 [7 favorites]
Note the young princess's boots: one is a flat, one is, apparently, a high heel?!
Folks have plausibly suggested the unmatched bit on the princess's left shoe is a hanging tassel not visible on the right shoe due to the angle. There are more than enough examples of bad manipulation in the photo, but one does like to keep one's facts straight in matters royal.
She's a very-photographed-lady. The chance of finding a photograph of her taken from similar angles is high.
I don't offer this as definitive proof, but you should at least look at this video overlay [twitter link] of the old Kate profile photo onto the car photo, if you want to understand why some folks are convinced the new one is an edit job.
posted by mediareport at 4:32 AM on March 13 [4 favorites]
Folks have plausibly suggested the unmatched bit on the princess's left shoe is a hanging tassel not visible on the right shoe due to the angle. There are more than enough examples of bad manipulation in the photo, but one does like to keep one's facts straight in matters royal.
She's a very-photographed-lady. The chance of finding a photograph of her taken from similar angles is high.
I don't offer this as definitive proof, but you should at least look at this video overlay [twitter link] of the old Kate profile photo onto the car photo, if you want to understand why some folks are convinced the new one is an edit job.
posted by mediareport at 4:32 AM on March 13 [4 favorites]
Anne Helen Petersen: The Unraveling of a Royal Fairy Tale.
posted by 1970s Antihero at 5:37 AM on March 13 [4 favorites]
posted by 1970s Antihero at 5:37 AM on March 13 [4 favorites]
Yes, concur: hanging tassel. I got the "bootheel is different" notion from the same Newsweek feverdream that had the wonky mullions theory. Right after I commented, I went back to stare at the poor child's boot again and concluded that the patch of pixels I had been marveling at looked more like trim than heel. I was going to comment with that conclusion last night but I thought making several comments in quick succession in a thread about a royals conspiracy theory might make me look unhinged.
So instead I'm commenting about it today.
This is reminiscent of the blue vs gold dress controversy, which also infected my brain for a solid week. What. Is wrong. With me.
posted by Don Pepino at 5:58 AM on March 13 [10 favorites]
So instead I'm commenting about it today.
This is reminiscent of the blue vs gold dress controversy, which also infected my brain for a solid week. What. Is wrong. With me.
posted by Don Pepino at 5:58 AM on March 13 [10 favorites]
To answer some of the "why" questions about some photo editing weirdness, there are different ways to edit an image, and one is by cutting, pasting, and blending things, or selecting and changing color, overlaying your own pattern, etc., and these are human interventions, but you can also select an area, and give the AI editing program some guidance for "generative fill," and in this situation it's the AI that tries to fill in what it thinks you want, based on its understanding of what things of that sort look like -- to the AI. But the AI is better at understanding the way things generally look than why they look that way. So for example, it knows what a jacket with a zipper looks like, mostly. But it doesn't understand the function; it doesn't really understand how a zipper works, and why. So you might get a result that has both sides of the jacket with the pull tab and bottom stop, or similarly, you might get a coat with buttons on both sides, or buttons but no buttonholes, etc. In this case it might understand how sweaters/jumpers look, and that they have seams, but not how seams work, what they are actually doing.
If you ever wonder if an image is real or AI, look at all the minute details of how things actually operate. Kitchen images are great, because you might see some beautiful, apparently high-end stove, but if you look closely you see all sorts of crazy knobs and things, and you're like, wait, why does this stove have four burners and an oven, but like 25 knobs? AI gets that there are burners and knobs, but not necessarily their relation to each other. Of course this improves daily and the better programs are presumably better at avoiding these sorts of mistakes, but the free(ish) AI I sometimes use for image editing is often actually hilarious. I think I have more fun with the mistakes than with whatever project I'm playing with.
Anyway, in the mother's day pic, I'm seeing what look like errors of both types -- human manipulation, and AI generative oddness.
posted by taz at 6:48 AM on March 13 [14 favorites]
If you ever wonder if an image is real or AI, look at all the minute details of how things actually operate. Kitchen images are great, because you might see some beautiful, apparently high-end stove, but if you look closely you see all sorts of crazy knobs and things, and you're like, wait, why does this stove have four burners and an oven, but like 25 knobs? AI gets that there are burners and knobs, but not necessarily their relation to each other. Of course this improves daily and the better programs are presumably better at avoiding these sorts of mistakes, but the free(ish) AI I sometimes use for image editing is often actually hilarious. I think I have more fun with the mistakes than with whatever project I'm playing with.
Anyway, in the mother's day pic, I'm seeing what look like errors of both types -- human manipulation, and AI generative oddness.
posted by taz at 6:48 AM on March 13 [14 favorites]
> I've wondered if the one kids crossed fingers planted on the table isn't a, well, fingers crossed to protect against telling a lie
Eh, it's unlikely that a little kid has the context to think "this photo is going to be used to tell a lie, I don't want to lie, I'll cross my fingers so I don't get in trouble later for it" like an American POW being forced to pose for propaganda photos.
posted by The corpse in the library at 6:57 AM on March 13 [10 favorites]
Eh, it's unlikely that a little kid has the context to think "this photo is going to be used to tell a lie, I don't want to lie, I'll cross my fingers so I don't get in trouble later for it" like an American POW being forced to pose for propaganda photos.
posted by The corpse in the library at 6:57 AM on March 13 [10 favorites]
Anyway, in the mother's day pic, I'm seeing what look like errors of both types -- human manipulation, and AI generative oddness.
I think the latest Photoshop has an AI powered context fill. Doesn't preclude an innocent attempt at producing a nice picture of the kids for Mother's Day.
posted by run"monty at 6:57 AM on March 13 [2 favorites]
I think the latest Photoshop has an AI powered context fill. Doesn't preclude an innocent attempt at producing a nice picture of the kids for Mother's Day.
posted by run"monty at 6:57 AM on March 13 [2 favorites]
That car photo with the mismatched bricks in the background, however... that's egregious to the point of malpractice.
posted by hippybear at 6:57 AM on March 13
posted by hippybear at 6:57 AM on March 13
That car photo with the mismatched bricks in the background, however... that's egregious to the point of malpractice.
We have plenty of buildings with mis-matched bricks in this country. Also, when your subject is behind tinted windows, you'll need to up the gain in that portion of the image. (Or have I failed to get the joke?)
posted by run"monty at 7:04 AM on March 13 [3 favorites]
We have plenty of buildings with mis-matched bricks in this country. Also, when your subject is behind tinted windows, you'll need to up the gain in that portion of the image. (Or have I failed to get the joke?)
posted by run"monty at 7:04 AM on March 13 [3 favorites]
I think you've failed to look at the actual image.
I can't find it right now, but it's not a case of simply needing to up the gain to see inside the car. it's the building they are driving by is solid red bricks and the building through the windows of the car are multicolored with a lot more mortar between the bricks.
It's way more clumsy than the photo with the kida.
posted by hippybear at 7:15 AM on March 13
I can't find it right now, but it's not a case of simply needing to up the gain to see inside the car. it's the building they are driving by is solid red bricks and the building through the windows of the car are multicolored with a lot more mortar between the bricks.
It's way more clumsy than the photo with the kida.
posted by hippybear at 7:15 AM on March 13
I've seen the image. There are a lot of buildings like that in London the UK.
posted by run"monty at 7:18 AM on March 13 [1 favorite]
posted by run"monty at 7:18 AM on March 13 [1 favorite]
BTW, I think there are a few versions floating around on Xitter. The background on some does look dubious -- alterations made for the likes I expect. This one looks like a perfectly ordinary photograph.
posted by run"monty at 7:28 AM on March 13
posted by run"monty at 7:28 AM on March 13
Mainly I want to know how many others noticed the guy dressed as a gorilla.
posted by flabdablet at 7:31 AM on March 13 [31 favorites]
posted by flabdablet at 7:31 AM on March 13 [31 favorites]
Most of the errors are in the clothes. If you were using photoshop to replace frowns with smiles, why would there be weird glitches far away from the faces? It kind of lends credence to the thinking that the clothes, rather than the faces, got most of the editing.
If that's true, then maybe the November baby bank theory actually holds water.
(To recap for people who have more sense than to devote their entire selves to reading twitter and tiktok slaverings about this, here is the baby bank theory:
The people in the image appear to be wearing the same clothes they wore during a much-photographed trip to a baby bank back in November 2023 with differences that could have been fabricated; we can therefore conclude that the mother's day photo is in fact a doctored photo from this day back in November.)
The baby bank theory sounds completely mad, as the Brits might put it. But maybe it's not. There's a huge, panic-inducing Kate-must-be-dead scandal; they need but cannot get a current family photo of everyone looking hale, someone yells, "Check the database! Maybe there's something that will work!" So they go digging and find the November photo, which is perfect, with the single tiny exception being that it's not from today and the day that it is from is well documented. So, under massive time pressure they slap the dook out of the image in Photoshop to try to time-machine it into March 2024. This fails in predictable ways.
Contributing to this notion, most of the mistakes are in the AI-hallucinated clothes they would have added to obscure the lightly edited (just color-changed) November clothes. They put a cardigan on Charlotte to draw attention away from the sweater she's wearing underneath, which is the same pullover she had on in November. All the Charlotte edit errors are in the cardi. They cardiganized Kate with a jacket to obscure the fact that she's wearing the November turtleneck, and the very most obvious error of all is that crisp clear line across the middle of the photo that skews the jacket zipper. In an apparent fit of hubris, the AI replaced whatever Louis was wearing in November with that complicated Greek-key/fair isle patterned sweater, and of course the pattern glitched.
So, sounds mad but in fact explains anomalies. Frowns-to-smiles edits are easy to understand--it makes sense why you'd want to do that. Outfit change edits are difficult to understand--it doesn't make sense why you'd want to do that.
(Brick theory makes zero sense to me. You've never seen a building with trim brick different from field brick?)
posted by Don Pepino at 7:57 AM on March 13 [6 favorites]
If that's true, then maybe the November baby bank theory actually holds water.
(To recap for people who have more sense than to devote their entire selves to reading twitter and tiktok slaverings about this, here is the baby bank theory:
The people in the image appear to be wearing the same clothes they wore during a much-photographed trip to a baby bank back in November 2023 with differences that could have been fabricated; we can therefore conclude that the mother's day photo is in fact a doctored photo from this day back in November.)
The baby bank theory sounds completely mad, as the Brits might put it. But maybe it's not. There's a huge, panic-inducing Kate-must-be-dead scandal; they need but cannot get a current family photo of everyone looking hale, someone yells, "Check the database! Maybe there's something that will work!" So they go digging and find the November photo, which is perfect, with the single tiny exception being that it's not from today and the day that it is from is well documented. So, under massive time pressure they slap the dook out of the image in Photoshop to try to time-machine it into March 2024. This fails in predictable ways.
Contributing to this notion, most of the mistakes are in the AI-hallucinated clothes they would have added to obscure the lightly edited (just color-changed) November clothes. They put a cardigan on Charlotte to draw attention away from the sweater she's wearing underneath, which is the same pullover she had on in November. All the Charlotte edit errors are in the cardi. They cardiganized Kate with a jacket to obscure the fact that she's wearing the November turtleneck, and the very most obvious error of all is that crisp clear line across the middle of the photo that skews the jacket zipper. In an apparent fit of hubris, the AI replaced whatever Louis was wearing in November with that complicated Greek-key/fair isle patterned sweater, and of course the pattern glitched.
So, sounds mad but in fact explains anomalies. Frowns-to-smiles edits are easy to understand--it makes sense why you'd want to do that. Outfit change edits are difficult to understand--it doesn't make sense why you'd want to do that.
(Brick theory makes zero sense to me. You've never seen a building with trim brick different from field brick?)
posted by Don Pepino at 7:57 AM on March 13 [6 favorites]
One of the many things I don't understand is the interest in photographs of celebrities doing nothing in particular. Buying groceries, walking with a coffee, driving a car, sitting with their kids, whatever. Who is clamoring for this stuff, and why? The only thing that makes sense is the public just wanting a reason, any reason, to tear them down, especially if they're a woman and/or a POC, and oh I think I just figured it out.
posted by The Card Cheat at 8:06 AM on March 13 [3 favorites]
posted by The Card Cheat at 8:06 AM on March 13 [3 favorites]
I guess I don’t understand the difference when TIME magazine or People photoshops a full head of hair and enhances the color of a thinning pate on their covers but (gasp!) we were bamboozled!!! in this case? It’s not like they inform their readers. AFAIK, the only time Time was seriously criticized was the OJ mugshot photo cover.
posted by TWinbrook8 at 8:41 AM on March 13 [1 favorite]
posted by TWinbrook8 at 8:41 AM on March 13 [1 favorite]
The people in the image appear to be wearing the same clothes they wore during a much-photographed trip to a baby bank
I know plenty of people who wear the same clothes more than once.
posted by run"monty at 9:08 AM on March 13 [1 favorite]
I know plenty of people who wear the same clothes more than once.
posted by run"monty at 9:08 AM on March 13 [1 favorite]
I just had a thought on the "tassel," there's not TWO tassels, one on each shoe, and if that "tassel" heel is real, it looks way too long to walk on. The kid would snag on it and trip for sure, it's longer than the boot bottom.
Royals/famous people mostly don't rewear clothes a whole lot, because there are people keeping track of their wardrobes online (Kate Middleton Style blog, anyone?) and judging on that. It's a big deal if a rewearing is spotted. Also, if all four people wore the same outfit twice at the same time, people are gonna notice that. I still think it's a spare photo from Baby Bank Day that wasn't released at the time to the public.
Photographer claims the Monday photo of Prince William & Kate is legit
Colbert talked about Rose Hanbury last night and there's a John Oliver interview in the comments.
Tina Brown on American telly.
Kate Middleton’s edited Mother’s Day photo, explained by an expert
Royals/famous people mostly don't rewear clothes a whole lot, because there are people keeping track of their wardrobes online (Kate Middleton Style blog, anyone?) and judging on that. It's a big deal if a rewearing is spotted. Also, if all four people wore the same outfit twice at the same time, people are gonna notice that. I still think it's a spare photo from Baby Bank Day that wasn't released at the time to the public.
Photographer claims the Monday photo of Prince William & Kate is legit
Colbert talked about Rose Hanbury last night and there's a John Oliver interview in the comments.
Tina Brown on American telly.
Kate Middleton’s edited Mother’s Day photo, explained by an expert
The only reason I could think of that would back up what Kate was saying in that statement — that she’s the one who was messing around and editing it herself — is if they didn’t want to risk the chance of somebody else having access to the original photo and they didn’t want to go through the labor of an NDA and then possibly having it be leaked anyway because of all of the brouhaha with her being “missing.”posted by jenfullmoon at 9:13 AM on March 13 [2 favorites]
Just to spell it out, a possible absurd reason why these people didn’t use their loads of money, their photographers, and their endless amount of resources is that they didn’t want to risk an original photo of Kate getting leaked.
Royals/famous people mostly don't rewear clothes a whole lot, because there are people keeping track of their wardrobes
You'd better tell the tax-payer. I seriously doubt the Royals are the fast-fashion types. They're upper-class and can afford good clothes. A new dress for a big event is a different thing from clothes you wear at home.
posted by run"monty at 9:29 AM on March 13 [1 favorite]
You'd better tell the tax-payer. I seriously doubt the Royals are the fast-fashion types. They're upper-class and can afford good clothes. A new dress for a big event is a different thing from clothes you wear at home.
posted by run"monty at 9:29 AM on March 13 [1 favorite]
…besides, they look like good clothes. The Mini Boden hand-me-downs we've had from friends go a lot further than cheaper clothes from the supermarket.
posted by run"monty at 9:32 AM on March 13
posted by run"monty at 9:32 AM on March 13
> One of the many things I don't understand is the interest in photographs of celebrities doing nothing in particular. Buying groceries, walking with a coffee, driving a car, sitting with their kids, whatever. Who is clamoring for this stuff, and why?
some people have parasocial relationships with the members of the windsor family, i believe largely as an extension of the intense parasocial relationships people had with the late diana spencer and the late elizabeth windsor. it's a little bit like how people have parasocial relationships with their favorite baseball players or whatever
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 9:47 AM on March 13 [2 favorites]
some people have parasocial relationships with the members of the windsor family, i believe largely as an extension of the intense parasocial relationships people had with the late diana spencer and the late elizabeth windsor. it's a little bit like how people have parasocial relationships with their favorite baseball players or whatever
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 9:47 AM on March 13 [2 favorites]
The woman in that Monday photo doesn’t look happy to be there. TMZ’s paparazzi got a photo of her with her being driven by her mother on March 3rd.
posted by interogative mood at 9:47 AM on March 13
posted by interogative mood at 9:47 AM on March 13
One of the many things I don't understand is the interest in photographs of celebrities doing nothing in particular. Buying groceries, walking with a coffee, driving a car, sitting with their kids, whatever. Who is clamoring for this stuff, and why? The only thing that makes sense is the public just wanting a reason, any reason, to tear them down, especially if they're a woman and/or a POC, and oh I think I just figured it out.
I don't know, I think photos like this are always interesting because it's a chance to see someone looking like a real person doing real errands (iirc one of the US tabloid mags has had a long-running feature called "Stars: They're Just Like Us!") and it lets fans further develop that parasocial aspect of a fandom. Like you "know" them a little better. And it's reassuring how much everyone just looks like a person when they're not dressed up.
Also interesting from a trend-watching point of view--what did everyone decide is the thing to wear at the airport now? And where are they getting their drinks, etc.? And seeing relationships out in the world. Who's walking with who, who's having lunch with who? There's the memeability of these moments, too. Kristen Dunst eating salad with a famous boyfriend. Glenn Danzig's cat litter. It's eminently entertaining.
Even more fascinating is when you can tell that the celebrity called the paparazzi on themselves--like hm, what a coincidence that all these yacht photos of someone are shot at pretty close range and at extremely flattering angles!!
tl;dr there are a lot of decently benign reasons to be interested in these types of things. I hang out in pretty mainstream corners of the internet and I've never seen women and/or POC particularly called out and torn down over these photos (if anything, cis men get harsher comments). People are really just interested in outfits.
posted by knotty knots at 9:53 AM on March 13 [1 favorite]
I don't know, I think photos like this are always interesting because it's a chance to see someone looking like a real person doing real errands (iirc one of the US tabloid mags has had a long-running feature called "Stars: They're Just Like Us!") and it lets fans further develop that parasocial aspect of a fandom. Like you "know" them a little better. And it's reassuring how much everyone just looks like a person when they're not dressed up.
Also interesting from a trend-watching point of view--what did everyone decide is the thing to wear at the airport now? And where are they getting their drinks, etc.? And seeing relationships out in the world. Who's walking with who, who's having lunch with who? There's the memeability of these moments, too. Kristen Dunst eating salad with a famous boyfriend. Glenn Danzig's cat litter. It's eminently entertaining.
Even more fascinating is when you can tell that the celebrity called the paparazzi on themselves--like hm, what a coincidence that all these yacht photos of someone are shot at pretty close range and at extremely flattering angles!!
tl;dr there are a lot of decently benign reasons to be interested in these types of things. I hang out in pretty mainstream corners of the internet and I've never seen women and/or POC particularly called out and torn down over these photos (if anything, cis men get harsher comments). People are really just interested in outfits.
posted by knotty knots at 9:53 AM on March 13 [1 favorite]
I guess I don’t understand the difference when TIME magazine or People photoshops a full head of hair and enhances the color of a thinning pate on their covers but (gasp!) we were bamboozled!!! in this case? It’s not like they inform their readers. AFAIK, the only time Time was seriously criticized was the OJ mugshot photo cover.
For journalistic outlets, the acceptable photo adjustments are cropping, adjusting the color balance, and slightly lightening or darkening parts of a photo to fix exposure issues. The OJ mugshot situation was indeed sketchy — IIRC, Newsweek published it as-is on its cover, while Time darkened it (maybe to make it seem more ominous, crossing ethical lines). When they were compared, the difference was obvious. But the photo's actual content didn't seem substantially changed.
Posed portraits for news magazines get slightly more leeway (with loose threads and stray hairs minimized) than straight news photos, but they're still supposed to present a real scene. (Once you get into fashion or fluffy entertainment publications, realism standards get looser, with some expectation that readers know that.)
The Mother's Day photo of Kate and her three kids is a different beast — maybe a composite image of different shots, or an older photo where the clothes (and background foliage) were changed to make it seem recent, but leaving some telltale glitches. Of course it's not a news photo, nor presented as the work of a pro photographer. But the fact that it went out to the wire services set it up for scrutiny. And really, the current discussion isn't so much "What an unethical photo manipulation!" but "What is happening with Kate's health and autonomy?"
posted by lisa g at 9:53 AM on March 13 [9 favorites]
For journalistic outlets, the acceptable photo adjustments are cropping, adjusting the color balance, and slightly lightening or darkening parts of a photo to fix exposure issues. The OJ mugshot situation was indeed sketchy — IIRC, Newsweek published it as-is on its cover, while Time darkened it (maybe to make it seem more ominous, crossing ethical lines). When they were compared, the difference was obvious. But the photo's actual content didn't seem substantially changed.
Posed portraits for news magazines get slightly more leeway (with loose threads and stray hairs minimized) than straight news photos, but they're still supposed to present a real scene. (Once you get into fashion or fluffy entertainment publications, realism standards get looser, with some expectation that readers know that.)
The Mother's Day photo of Kate and her three kids is a different beast — maybe a composite image of different shots, or an older photo where the clothes (and background foliage) were changed to make it seem recent, but leaving some telltale glitches. Of course it's not a news photo, nor presented as the work of a pro photographer. But the fact that it went out to the wire services set it up for scrutiny. And really, the current discussion isn't so much "What an unethical photo manipulation!" but "What is happening with Kate's health and autonomy?"
posted by lisa g at 9:53 AM on March 13 [9 favorites]
> jenfullmoon: "Photographer claims the Monday photo of Prince William & Kate is legit"
In that article, the photographer gives a location for the photograph as nearby to 39 High Street in Datchet. A quick look around on Google Street View indicates what might have happened here: the bricks visible through the car window seem to be from a nearby brick wall, while the bricks above the car seem to be from the building a little further back behind the wall, thus explaining why the bricks don't look the same.
posted by mhum at 10:29 AM on March 13 [9 favorites]
In that article, the photographer gives a location for the photograph as nearby to 39 High Street in Datchet. A quick look around on Google Street View indicates what might have happened here: the bricks visible through the car window seem to be from a nearby brick wall, while the bricks above the car seem to be from the building a little further back behind the wall, thus explaining why the bricks don't look the same.
posted by mhum at 10:29 AM on March 13 [9 favorites]
So run"monty, you're saying that the same clothes part of babybank theory is true, the photo doctoring part of babybank theory is true, but that part about its having been an old photo that was doctored is false?
So 1. four people exactly repeated their clothing choices on two days several months apart and 2. someone subsequently used photoshop to alter the March image of them wearing the same outfits to make it appear that they're wearing different outfits?
So that means that on a day in November of last year Kate and Charlotte wore the same turtleneck and pullover, same pants and skirt, and same boots that they wore on a day in March of this year? And the boys wore the same sweaters and shirts? Without planning to do that deliberately, how does that happen? And why would they plan to do that? That's just the only "informal going out/kickin' it at home" clothes they have, maybe?
Harder still to explain, having apparently collaborated to each wear for mother's day the same clothes they wore that day in November, why would someone then painstakingly change the colors and patterns on all those same elements and add entire garments in photoshop?
Either all of babybankgate is false or all of it is true. I can absolutely support the idea that babybank theory is entirely false because it's very easy to imagine that Charlotte wore that cute ruffleneck pullover more than once, the second time with a matching cardigan sweater, that Kate Middleton owns both a black turtleneck sweater and a white turtleneck sweater and a couple drawers full of skinny jeans in various colors, that Charlotte's plaid skirt in the March photo is is not a clumsy plastering over of her solid-colored skirt from November but just a plaid skirt that's pouffing up clumsily in the annoying manner of clothes when you're being photographed, that the two of them might wear their boots more than once in a calendar year, and that the boys have probably hundreds of indistinguishable collared shirts and pullover sweaters.
The theory that they doppelgangered their November selves and then papered over with new colors and patterns to make the clothes look different, though? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
posted by Don Pepino at 10:31 AM on March 13 [4 favorites]
So 1. four people exactly repeated their clothing choices on two days several months apart and 2. someone subsequently used photoshop to alter the March image of them wearing the same outfits to make it appear that they're wearing different outfits?
So that means that on a day in November of last year Kate and Charlotte wore the same turtleneck and pullover, same pants and skirt, and same boots that they wore on a day in March of this year? And the boys wore the same sweaters and shirts? Without planning to do that deliberately, how does that happen? And why would they plan to do that? That's just the only "informal going out/kickin' it at home" clothes they have, maybe?
Harder still to explain, having apparently collaborated to each wear for mother's day the same clothes they wore that day in November, why would someone then painstakingly change the colors and patterns on all those same elements and add entire garments in photoshop?
Either all of babybankgate is false or all of it is true. I can absolutely support the idea that babybank theory is entirely false because it's very easy to imagine that Charlotte wore that cute ruffleneck pullover more than once, the second time with a matching cardigan sweater, that Kate Middleton owns both a black turtleneck sweater and a white turtleneck sweater and a couple drawers full of skinny jeans in various colors, that Charlotte's plaid skirt in the March photo is is not a clumsy plastering over of her solid-colored skirt from November but just a plaid skirt that's pouffing up clumsily in the annoying manner of clothes when you're being photographed, that the two of them might wear their boots more than once in a calendar year, and that the boys have probably hundreds of indistinguishable collared shirts and pullover sweaters.
The theory that they doppelgangered their November selves and then papered over with new colors and patterns to make the clothes look different, though? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
posted by Don Pepino at 10:31 AM on March 13 [4 favorites]
four people exactly repeated their clothing choices on two days several months apart
People have outfits. Mum decided to take a photo of the kids and so got them dressed in their best. (Or, asked servant to put out the kids' best clothes.) I'm not sure I follow the batshit alternative. If you go looking for coincidences, you'll find them. It's a nice image ham-fisted by a well meaning amateur. That's all (and all we know). It's not an official state image. Nothing shady, just sloppy.
posted by run"monty at 10:47 AM on March 13
People have outfits. Mum decided to take a photo of the kids and so got them dressed in their best. (Or, asked servant to put out the kids' best clothes.) I'm not sure I follow the batshit alternative. If you go looking for coincidences, you'll find them. It's a nice image ham-fisted by a well meaning amateur. That's all (and all we know). It's not an official state image. Nothing shady, just sloppy.
posted by run"monty at 10:47 AM on March 13
Kristen Dunst eating salad with a famous boyfriend. Glenn Danzig's cat litter
and Christmas on other planets...
posted by flabdablet at 11:07 AM on March 13 [1 favorite]
and Christmas on other planets...
posted by flabdablet at 11:07 AM on March 13 [1 favorite]
Actually someone who was obsessive about this could probably take a look at casual photos of the children in general and see to what degree they repeat outfits. If they all repeat outfits all the time, that makes a stronger case for "this is just another outfit repetition and by coincidence they are all the same"; if they don't repeat outfits much for photo opportunities, that makes it less likely that they're all repeating the same outfits on two occasions. I don't know much about royal family stuff, so I don't know if the messaging in re the kids is "new stuff for the public!!!!" or "frugally reusing our Harrods garments!!!"
My feeling is that Kate had a hysterectomy or something else demoralizing and fatiguing, didn't want to have that conversation in the media and this whole thing just went off the rails because everyone is worried about Charles. I don't really have much sympathy for the very rich in general, but the whole point of marrying this woman was to breed her like a prize pony, so having an "I'm really in middle age now also it's reproductive" surgery in public probably wouldn't be very fun.
Also, "planned surgery" just means "not emergent - we have enough time to plan it rather than racing you in from the ER" - it doesn't mean "we scheduled this at least several months in advance". It's quite possible that this surgery was planned on an "as soon as possible".
posted by Frowner at 11:11 AM on March 13 [10 favorites]
My feeling is that Kate had a hysterectomy or something else demoralizing and fatiguing, didn't want to have that conversation in the media and this whole thing just went off the rails because everyone is worried about Charles. I don't really have much sympathy for the very rich in general, but the whole point of marrying this woman was to breed her like a prize pony, so having an "I'm really in middle age now also it's reproductive" surgery in public probably wouldn't be very fun.
Also, "planned surgery" just means "not emergent - we have enough time to plan it rather than racing you in from the ER" - it doesn't mean "we scheduled this at least several months in advance". It's quite possible that this surgery was planned on an "as soon as possible".
posted by Frowner at 11:11 AM on March 13 [10 favorites]
and so got them dressed in their best.
This is kind of where your theory falls apart, run”monty. We have an extensive record of the clothes they’ve worn, and this kind of coincidence is both statistically unlikely and massively off-brand. Positing that you’re reaching for the reasonable, non-conspiratorial interpretation of events is sort of approaching spherical-cow territory.
posted by not just everyday big moggies at 11:18 AM on March 13 [6 favorites]
This is kind of where your theory falls apart, run”monty. We have an extensive record of the clothes they’ve worn, and this kind of coincidence is both statistically unlikely and massively off-brand. Positing that you’re reaching for the reasonable, non-conspiratorial interpretation of events is sort of approaching spherical-cow territory.
posted by not just everyday big moggies at 11:18 AM on March 13 [6 favorites]
It's getting very Q-Anon-ish.
posted by run"monty at 11:26 AM on March 13 [5 favorites]
posted by run"monty at 11:26 AM on March 13 [5 favorites]
I feel like I'm not even looking at the same photos as other people. The baby bank photos include different sweater on Louis, different skirt (or are those pants?) on Charlotte, different shirts under at least George's sweater which also might well be different because it's a completely generic round neck sweater. Kate's top is pretty hard to see in the recent photo, so hard to say if it might be a colour-edit on the turtleneck, but also, that's like so generically Kate-casual that I don't think you can draw any conclusions from it at all. About the only clear commonalities that aren't completely generic items are Kate's shoes and Charlotte's shirt/sweater under her cardigan.
posted by jacquilynne at 11:36 AM on March 13 [3 favorites]
posted by jacquilynne at 11:36 AM on March 13 [3 favorites]
It's getting very Q-Anon-ish.
Have you any idea how much focus and concentration it takes to delete every last lizard scale on every. single. photo! of this family?
So maybe I do screw up the occasional sleeve or hemline. Sue me. Gettin too old for this shit.
posted by flabdablet at 11:39 AM on March 13 [16 favorites]
Have you any idea how much focus and concentration it takes to delete every last lizard scale on every. single. photo! of this family?
So maybe I do screw up the occasional sleeve or hemline. Sue me. Gettin too old for this shit.
posted by flabdablet at 11:39 AM on March 13 [16 favorites]
And, of course, right out of the "if you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail" playbook, we've got the usual suspects (Daily Mail, Sun, Telegraph, probably others) putting up articles insinuating that Harry and Meghan photoshopped their pregnancy announcement picture. Of course, this is almost certainly bogus, as the photographer himself has come out with a denial (and the original color version of the photo). Yet another canny move by the Kensington PR team /s.
posted by mhum at 11:46 AM on March 13 [3 favorites]
posted by mhum at 11:46 AM on March 13 [3 favorites]
The Cambridges do usually dress the kids in similar, if not repeat outfits. See here. The kids are wearing similar things to what they've worn in the past.
Also, if we're going Occam's Razor: what's more likely, the kids sat for a posed photo with their mom after a random outing in November...just cause??? Or, this was a planned shoot for Mother's Day, with Kate in her "casual Mom" uniform (sweater, skinny jeans, boots; it's a style she wears a lot) and the kids in theirs, with some sloppy editing to get everyone looking nice in the same photo?
(I've seen others point out the kids also look noticeably older- they're young, four months is a big difference!- and Louis is also missing a tooth.)
posted by damayanti at 11:52 AM on March 13 [2 favorites]
Also, if we're going Occam's Razor: what's more likely, the kids sat for a posed photo with their mom after a random outing in November...just cause??? Or, this was a planned shoot for Mother's Day, with Kate in her "casual Mom" uniform (sweater, skinny jeans, boots; it's a style she wears a lot) and the kids in theirs, with some sloppy editing to get everyone looking nice in the same photo?
(I've seen others point out the kids also look noticeably older- they're young, four months is a big difference!- and Louis is also missing a tooth.)
posted by damayanti at 11:52 AM on March 13 [2 favorites]
(Just wondering, does the Tooth Fairy come around in the UK?)
posted by TWinbrook8 at 11:55 AM on March 13
posted by TWinbrook8 at 11:55 AM on March 13
Yes
posted by ellieBOA at 11:57 AM on March 13 [2 favorites]
posted by ellieBOA at 11:57 AM on March 13 [2 favorites]
Furniture retailer bludot capitalizes on the opportunity. (Instagram)
posted by emelenjr at 12:00 PM on March 13 [2 favorites]
posted by emelenjr at 12:00 PM on March 13 [2 favorites]
I have photoshopped
the picture
you were hoping
would prove I was alive
forgive me
graphic design
is my passion
(Twitter)
posted by ellieBOA at 12:32 PM on March 13 [24 favorites]
the picture
you were hoping
would prove I was alive
forgive me
graphic design
is my passion
(Twitter)
posted by ellieBOA at 12:32 PM on March 13 [24 favorites]
Louis is also missing a tooth.
Oh, come on, that's childsplay! I bet I could remove or replace a tooth in photoshop!
The baby bank photos include different sweater on Louis, different skirt (or are those pants?) on Charlotte, different shirts under at least George's sweater which also might well be different because it's a completely generic round neck sweater.
The baby bank theory, though, is that every one of those differences is a fiction created in Photoshop. Lightening George's sweater and changing his shirt collar from tattersall to a more springtimey mixed blue plaid. Replacing Charlotte's denim skirt with a plaid skirt. (If you look at her hand against the skirt looking completely natural, this notion seems impossible to at least really unlikely.) Darkening Kate's turtleneck and lightening her jeans. Switching out Louis's high-contrast navy, red, green, and white Christmassy fair isle pullover with a lighter-colored one with button detail on the shoulder--for spring! And adding the cardigan and the jacket.
This theory is, frankly, pretty dumb. It's a grand-canyon-scale stretch when the most reasonable conclusion is: Kate Middleton has more than one pair of jeans and more than one oversized turtleneck sweater. They are wearing different clothes from the clothes they wore on the baby bank excursion. It's filling a need at the moment because there's no reasonable explanation for all the weird edits to people's clothes.
About the only clear commonalities that aren't completely generic items are Kate's shoes and Charlotte's shirt/sweater under her cardigan.
And Charlotte's boots might be the same. But while we're on shoes, Louis's shoes in the baby bank are sneakers; he seems to have on loafers or something more formal than that in the March photo. The baby bank theorist claims she couldn't get any shots of his shoes, but there's video and he's clearly in sneakers. (The video is very sweet and makes me properly ashamed of all the time I've spent gazing at these poor kids' clothes trying to solve Internet Mystery Du Jour when the family is clearly going through some species of travail.)
posted by Don Pepino at 12:57 PM on March 13 [6 favorites]
Oh, come on, that's childsplay! I bet I could remove or replace a tooth in photoshop!
The baby bank photos include different sweater on Louis, different skirt (or are those pants?) on Charlotte, different shirts under at least George's sweater which also might well be different because it's a completely generic round neck sweater.
The baby bank theory, though, is that every one of those differences is a fiction created in Photoshop. Lightening George's sweater and changing his shirt collar from tattersall to a more springtimey mixed blue plaid. Replacing Charlotte's denim skirt with a plaid skirt. (If you look at her hand against the skirt looking completely natural, this notion seems impossible to at least really unlikely.) Darkening Kate's turtleneck and lightening her jeans. Switching out Louis's high-contrast navy, red, green, and white Christmassy fair isle pullover with a lighter-colored one with button detail on the shoulder--for spring! And adding the cardigan and the jacket.
This theory is, frankly, pretty dumb. It's a grand-canyon-scale stretch when the most reasonable conclusion is: Kate Middleton has more than one pair of jeans and more than one oversized turtleneck sweater. They are wearing different clothes from the clothes they wore on the baby bank excursion. It's filling a need at the moment because there's no reasonable explanation for all the weird edits to people's clothes.
About the only clear commonalities that aren't completely generic items are Kate's shoes and Charlotte's shirt/sweater under her cardigan.
And Charlotte's boots might be the same. But while we're on shoes, Louis's shoes in the baby bank are sneakers; he seems to have on loafers or something more formal than that in the March photo. The baby bank theorist claims she couldn't get any shots of his shoes, but there's video and he's clearly in sneakers. (The video is very sweet and makes me properly ashamed of all the time I've spent gazing at these poor kids' clothes trying to solve Internet Mystery Du Jour when the family is clearly going through some species of travail.)
posted by Don Pepino at 12:57 PM on March 13 [6 favorites]
It's filling a need at the moment because there's no reasonable explanation for all the weird edits to people's clothes.
Honestly, having known and loved enthusiastic amateur photoshoppers, "I'm an enthusiastic amateur photoshopper with not the greatest eye and I don't know when to stop and isn't this technology so cool and professional?!" seems all too plausible as an explanation. After all, that's been the story behind any number of oddly, unnecessarily edited photos I've gotten from family, friends, and family friends over the years.
After that, all you need is a none-too-competent staff, or none-too-professional family-to-social-media publishing process, that fails to notice and reject lousy photoshopping.
posted by trig at 1:30 PM on March 13 [1 favorite]
Honestly, having known and loved enthusiastic amateur photoshoppers, "I'm an enthusiastic amateur photoshopper with not the greatest eye and I don't know when to stop and isn't this technology so cool and professional?!" seems all too plausible as an explanation. After all, that's been the story behind any number of oddly, unnecessarily edited photos I've gotten from family, friends, and family friends over the years.
After that, all you need is a none-too-competent staff, or none-too-professional family-to-social-media publishing process, that fails to notice and reject lousy photoshopping.
posted by trig at 1:30 PM on March 13 [1 favorite]
After seeing some quibbling about the grass and the shrub in the Mother's Day photo, I looked up March 8th local weather details (as metadata showed the first saved photo edit on that day).
Weather forecast for Reading & Berkshire, Friday 8th March 2024:
Fairly mixed weather. Not a washout – but no early spring warmth either. Today looks sunny, once any early mist/fog patches clear. Some high cloud at times, especially this afternoon. 10’C, maybe 11’C but the south-easterly wind will make it feel cool. Cloud thickening overnight as a weather front pushes up from the south – the odd splash of rain in the latter half, down to around 5’C.
Thanks to Kate for the photograph.
posted by Iris Gambol at 2:14 PM on March 13
Weather forecast for Reading & Berkshire, Friday 8th March 2024:
Fairly mixed weather. Not a washout – but no early spring warmth either. Today looks sunny, once any early mist/fog patches clear. Some high cloud at times, especially this afternoon. 10’C, maybe 11’C but the south-easterly wind will make it feel cool. Cloud thickening overnight as a weather front pushes up from the south – the odd splash of rain in the latter half, down to around 5’C.
Thanks to Kate for the photograph.
posted by Iris Gambol at 2:14 PM on March 13
so one of the weird things in this whole weird thing is how the u.k. press is, like, subtweeting about stuff that is totally opaque to an american who enjoys calling them [firstname] windsor by analogy to the french revolution using the name louis capet for that one dude they beheaded but which is apparently clear as day for people who are into the whole monarchy thing.
specifically it was super odd as an outsider to see the independent apropos of seemingly nothing run a story with the headline "who is the marquess of cholmondeley?" like wow i did not expect that to be a question that a person would ever ask. it kind of gives "where are the snowdens of yesteryear".
okay but really the reason i'm making this comment is that it made me remember that time i annoyed the other people in a tabletop rpg/story game by giving my character the name "st. john featherstonhaugh-chomondeley" and then insisting on the correct pronunciation, which i think eventually i gave in and wrote under the character's name on the little card i had propped in front of me
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 2:50 PM on March 13 [9 favorites]
specifically it was super odd as an outsider to see the independent apropos of seemingly nothing run a story with the headline "who is the marquess of cholmondeley?" like wow i did not expect that to be a question that a person would ever ask. it kind of gives "where are the snowdens of yesteryear".
okay but really the reason i'm making this comment is that it made me remember that time i annoyed the other people in a tabletop rpg/story game by giving my character the name "st. john featherstonhaugh-chomondeley" and then insisting on the correct pronunciation, which i think eventually i gave in and wrote under the character's name on the little card i had propped in front of me
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 2:50 PM on March 13 [9 favorites]
BPPA has some thoughts on this.
We would urge everyone involved to make the original images available for inspection so that we can assess what has been done, make sure that it doesn't happen again and allow this story to be the last time that manipulated images are distributed to the media.
posted by ellieBOA at 2:51 PM on March 13 [1 favorite]
We would urge everyone involved to make the original images available for inspection so that we can assess what has been done, make sure that it doesn't happen again and allow this story to be the last time that manipulated images are distributed to the media.
posted by ellieBOA at 2:51 PM on March 13 [1 favorite]
and then insisting on the correct pronunciation
Ok admittedly I’m anti monarchy but I am British, and I didn’t know it’s pronounced chum-lee!
I also checked marquess and you pronounce the qu like mar-kwess
posted by ellieBOA at 2:53 PM on March 13 [1 favorite]
Ok admittedly I’m anti monarchy but I am British, and I didn’t know it’s pronounced chum-lee!
I also checked marquess and you pronounce the qu like mar-kwess
posted by ellieBOA at 2:53 PM on March 13 [1 favorite]
st. john featherstonhaugh-chomondeley had been banished from cambridge through the third generation subsequent to committing certain unnamed transgressions. i wish i had thought to make him (prior to the transgressions) a student at magdalene college and then also insist on the proper pronunciation for that. uh anyway i'll be leaving now
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 3:03 PM on March 13 [7 favorites]
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 3:03 PM on March 13 [7 favorites]
okay but really the reason i'm making this comment is that it made me remember that time i annoyed the other people in a tabletop rpg/story game by giving my character the name "st. john featherstonhaugh-chomondeley" and then insisting on the correct pronunciation, which i think eventually i gave in and wrote under the character's name on the little card i had propped in front of me
You can come to my house for games any time.
posted by eirias at 3:05 PM on March 13 [6 favorites]
You can come to my house for games any time.
posted by eirias at 3:05 PM on March 13 [6 favorites]
uh put the extra 'l' in chomondeley where appropriate
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 3:11 PM on March 13
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 3:11 PM on March 13
"st. john featherstonhaugh-chomondeley" and then insisting on the correct pronunciation,
You are perverse.
posted by jenfullmoon at 3:12 PM on March 13 [7 favorites]
You are perverse.
posted by jenfullmoon at 3:12 PM on March 13 [7 favorites]
From The Vagina Museum on the bird/lettered hellsite: The Cholmondeley Ladies (circa 1600-1610) is a painting raising many questions. Today we're not going to talk about the puzzle in pegging down the identities of the women - we will focus on a different, more mundane puzzle...
posted by jenfullmoon at 3:20 PM on March 13 [4 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 3:20 PM on March 13 [4 favorites]
"And, of course, right out of the "if you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail" playbook, we've got the usual suspects (Daily Mail, Sun, Telegraph, probably others) putting up articles insinuating that Harry and Meghan photoshopped their pregnancy announcement picture. Of course, this is almost certainly bogus, as the photographer himself has come out with a denial (and the original color version of the photo). Yet another canny move by the Kensington PR team /s."-- mhumI find dragging Harry and Meghan into this, by making wild accusations using some attempted gotcha questions in a 2022 BBC podcast interview (of all places), disgraceful. Whether sanctioned, encouraged or just off their own initiative, it's clear that the playbook of the UK media (especially the tabloid media), for some time now, to respond to any embarrassing news about the "in" royals is to throw the "out" royals under a bus, with the highest profile ones being the preferred targets. Attack anyone so relentlessly, and excessively, and it gets to a point where simply listing all the occasions sounds like paranoia. I wonder how many times a reader has said "there's no smoke without fire" about an article wholly manufactured with no - zero - basis in truth. Hundreds of thousands? Millions? To continue this with someone who experienced extreme family tragedy as a result of similar actions during their childhood is monstrous. People who make a living doing this are parasites and the world would, literally, be better off without them.
It's amazing in the most depressing way that earnest worry about the health of an individual is warped into yet another attack on a besieged couple.
posted by krisjohn at 4:16 PM on March 13 [10 favorites]
LaineyGossip 2: On schedule: Kate Waldo and the deflection
Kate has admitted that her photo was doctored – which means that there is an original lying around …and Kensington Palace has emphatically refused to let people see it. Misan has been able to prove his, and Harry and Meghan’s innocence… WITH VISUALS which makes it that much more uncomfortable – and it was already f-cking uncomfortable! – for Kensington Palace!posted by jenfullmoon at 9:09 PM on March 13 [2 favorites]
So the Daily Mail’s strategy here has backfired. They just made a horrible situation even worse.
I go back, then, to the question I’ve been screaming into the void for years: WHYYYYYY does the British royal family continue working with these motherf-ckers, staying in bed with them, when they are in fact more of a liability than they are an asset?! Why, at this point, are they still so resistant to cutting them loose? They are NOT helping. There is NO advantage. Even when the Sun and the Daily Mail resisted jumping on the Where’s Kate, What’s Wrong With Kate storyline, it didn’t prevent social media from running wild ass crazy with the conspiracy theories and the negative narrative. Associating with them, then, is HURTING them.
Stumbling through a week of posts here on dear old Metafilter. Wowzers. I must have missed the “Conspiracy Week” banner on the front page. Put down the Jolt cola and mushrooms, or at least give me some. I kid. I kid. Enjoying the crank energy.
posted by Don.Kinsayder at 11:54 PM on March 13 [8 favorites]
posted by Don.Kinsayder at 11:54 PM on March 13 [8 favorites]
Daily Mash: Who is Lady Rose Hanbury and are they really at it, her and him? A time-saving guide.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 2:53 AM on March 14 [5 favorites]
posted by TheophileEscargot at 2:53 AM on March 14 [5 favorites]
It's getting very Q-Anon-ish.The Atlantic's take on this is literally headlined "Q-Anon for Wine Moms". I keep most of this news at arms reach as it is trivial but observing the meta phenomenon of the news Turning This Into More of a Thing is a bit fascinating, but in the same way that the various memetic twists of the "Biden/Hur/Is He Doddering/Does He Actually Photographic Memory" media mechanics of milking attention through distorted information is also fascinating.
posted by bl1nk at 7:44 AM on March 14 [5 favorites]
I justify my interest in this crazy conspiracy to myself on the grounds that it is a relief to be invested in some news item that on its face matters absolutely not at all. But yeah… then I remember the warnings of Masha Gessen about how corrosive conspiracy thinking is to a democracy and… well, they aren’t wrong.
posted by eirias at 7:48 AM on March 14 [2 favorites]
posted by eirias at 7:48 AM on March 14 [2 favorites]
I stopped reading the news because of Gaza about three months ago and the sheer relief of the Kate story as news that can be analysed and read but is utterly pointless is very, very welcome. A friend was talking about the current popularity of cozy books - when the world is this awful, people want something light and reliable. The Royals deliver that in giant piles.
Also I just finished David Mitchell’s book, Unruly, on British royalty, and highly recommend it alongside the Middleton news because he really goes at the entire farce of it all.
posted by dorothyisunderwood at 8:03 AM on March 14 [17 favorites]
Also I just finished David Mitchell’s book, Unruly, on British royalty, and highly recommend it alongside the Middleton news because he really goes at the entire farce of it all.
posted by dorothyisunderwood at 8:03 AM on March 14 [17 favorites]
Q-Anon for Wine Moms is just so incredibly dismissive and misogynistic, I can't even.
posted by computech_apolloniajames at 8:14 AM on March 14 [27 favorites]
posted by computech_apolloniajames at 8:14 AM on March 14 [27 favorites]
Jenfullmoon, I'm just glad you mentioned Fake Melania - glad I'm not the only person who seems to remember that! Thanks for the write-up and thanks to gentlyepigrams for the timeline article.
posted by Ms. Moonlight at 8:36 AM on March 14 [2 favorites]
posted by Ms. Moonlight at 8:36 AM on March 14 [2 favorites]
I'm just here for the shitposts.
posted by CynicalKnight at 9:42 AM on March 14 [3 favorites]
posted by CynicalKnight at 9:42 AM on March 14 [3 favorites]
Q-Anon for Wine Moms is just so incredibly dismissive and misogynistic, I can't even.
the royal family screwed up so badly that even my heterosexual male friends are *obsessed*
posted by run"monty at 9:46 AM on March 14 [9 favorites]
the royal family screwed up so badly that even my heterosexual male friends are *obsessed*
posted by run"monty at 9:46 AM on March 14 [9 favorites]
Kate and William must really regret throwing Harry and Meghan under the media bus so quickly; if only they'd waited they'd be around for that exact purpose right now. If they were smart, they'd leak something (even more than we've already heard of) horrid about Andrew to the tabloids. But maybe they're saving that for Christmas.
posted by lesbiassparrow at 10:10 AM on March 14 [2 favorites]
posted by lesbiassparrow at 10:10 AM on March 14 [2 favorites]
The rest of you are seeing that sweater in cream or maybe beige as well, right? I've stared and stared at it and I just can't fathom all those people claiming it's blue.
posted by flabdablet at 11:24 AM on March 14 [8 favorites]
posted by flabdablet at 11:24 AM on March 14 [8 favorites]
Q-Anon for Wine Moms is just so incredibly dismissive and misogynistic, I can't even.
I know, right? How the hell it's stayed on the bestseller lists for this long is a complete mystery to me.
posted by flabdablet at 11:27 AM on March 14 [1 favorite]
I know, right? How the hell it's stayed on the bestseller lists for this long is a complete mystery to me.
posted by flabdablet at 11:27 AM on March 14 [1 favorite]
The claim is that she originally had a white sweater on in November in the baby bank photos and it was Photoshopped in the "Mother's Day" photo to be blue now.
posted by jenfullmoon at 11:36 AM on March 14
posted by jenfullmoon at 11:36 AM on March 14
The rest of you are seeing that sweater in cream or maybe beige as well, right? I've stared and stared at it and I just can't fathom all those people claiming it's blue.
Please accept this prize for Best Internet Meme/Outrage callback.
the prize is a dress
posted by cooker girl at 11:40 AM on March 14 [22 favorites]
Please accept this prize for Best Internet Meme/Outrage callback.
the prize is a dress
posted by cooker girl at 11:40 AM on March 14 [22 favorites]
Thank you! It's nice to have won something, but I won't be resting on my yannies.
posted by flabdablet at 12:17 PM on March 14 [21 favorites]
posted by flabdablet at 12:17 PM on March 14 [21 favorites]
WHYYYYYY does the British royal family continue working with these motherf-ckers, staying in bed with them, when they are in fact more of a liability than they are an asset?!
Blackmail? In just recent-ish history, there's a bit about tabloid blackmail in "Spare," involving then-teenaged Harry's drug use. And, published in January: Ms Giuffre also recounted how she burned a “booklet” she wrote detailing her alleged encounters with Andrew to get rid of “painful” memories. The diary was written at the request of journalist Sharon Churcher, and Ms Giuffre said she gave the writer some of the original pages relating to the duke. Churcher's worked for the Daily Mail, The Mirror, The Sun...
posted by Iris Gambol at 12:53 PM on March 14 [1 favorite]
Blackmail? In just recent-ish history, there's a bit about tabloid blackmail in "Spare," involving then-teenaged Harry's drug use. And, published in January: Ms Giuffre also recounted how she burned a “booklet” she wrote detailing her alleged encounters with Andrew to get rid of “painful” memories. The diary was written at the request of journalist Sharon Churcher, and Ms Giuffre said she gave the writer some of the original pages relating to the duke. Churcher's worked for the Daily Mail, The Mirror, The Sun...
posted by Iris Gambol at 12:53 PM on March 14 [1 favorite]
Re: bricks- Kensington Palace has different bricks on different parts of the building. Very obvious here. Hodgepodge of bricks are very clear on the orangery in Street View.
I wouldn't read too much into bricks. There's plenty of other oddness going on.
posted by oneirodynia at 1:25 PM on March 14 [3 favorites]
I wouldn't read too much into bricks. There's plenty of other oddness going on.
posted by oneirodynia at 1:25 PM on March 14 [3 favorites]
I wouldn't read too much into bricks. There's plenty of other oddness going on.
Yes, there’s plenty of very obvious evidence that This Is Weird without that and without stuff like “is that a tassel or a heel on the girl’s shoe” or whatever. It’s worth pointing out that the very comprehensive Neiman Lab article came out BEFORE the first photo was sent to the wire services, and it does a very good job of showing why this blew up - it’s because the entire situation has been remarkably strange even by royal family standards for some time.
posted by showbiz_liz at 1:40 PM on March 14 [2 favorites]
Yes, there’s plenty of very obvious evidence that This Is Weird without that and without stuff like “is that a tassel or a heel on the girl’s shoe” or whatever. It’s worth pointing out that the very comprehensive Neiman Lab article came out BEFORE the first photo was sent to the wire services, and it does a very good job of showing why this blew up - it’s because the entire situation has been remarkably strange even by royal family standards for some time.
posted by showbiz_liz at 1:40 PM on March 14 [2 favorites]
Kate's face was pretty much lifted off a 2016 Vogue magazine cover. No Photoshop expert was going to be able to hide the existence of the original image.
The Vogue cover is not the same photo, and I find it highly unlikely that anyone, even bad Royal photo-shoppers, would not have access to oodles of outtakes from other photo sessions. It would be utterly goofy to use an old Vogue cover if you were trying to pull the wool over someone's eyes.
I saw someone on twitter claiming that the shadow along an edge of chrome trim on a car was proof of bad photoshop even though there was literally be no reason to photoshop that particular detail. I'm not saying that something highly suspicious is not going on, but people need to sort the wheat from the chaff as it were, and not be too credulous in service of opposing theories.
posted by oneirodynia at 1:47 PM on March 14 [7 favorites]
The Vogue cover is not the same photo, and I find it highly unlikely that anyone, even bad Royal photo-shoppers, would not have access to oodles of outtakes from other photo sessions. It would be utterly goofy to use an old Vogue cover if you were trying to pull the wool over someone's eyes.
I saw someone on twitter claiming that the shadow along an edge of chrome trim on a car was proof of bad photoshop even though there was literally be no reason to photoshop that particular detail. I'm not saying that something highly suspicious is not going on, but people need to sort the wheat from the chaff as it were, and not be too credulous in service of opposing theories.
posted by oneirodynia at 1:47 PM on March 14 [7 favorites]
Agreed, showbiz_liz.
posted by oneirodynia at 1:47 PM on March 14
posted by oneirodynia at 1:47 PM on March 14
It's not the crime, it's the cover-up.
posted by Marticus at 1:52 PM on March 14 [7 favorites]
posted by Marticus at 1:52 PM on March 14 [7 favorites]
Ellie Hall, who wrote the Niemans article, has a new one about the photo from the Cut (archive link): Getting to the Bottom of the Kate Middleton “November Photo” Theory: Was the edited Mother’s Day picture actually taken last fall? I tried to find out.
posted by ellieBOA at 2:11 PM on March 14 [1 favorite]
posted by ellieBOA at 2:11 PM on March 14 [1 favorite]
Is it common for "planned in advance surgeries" to require an ambulance with sirens and lights and a full police escort to get the patient to the hospital? Maybe they do things different in England when it pertains to the royals.
posted by Wetterschneider at 2:24 PM on March 14 [1 favorite]
posted by Wetterschneider at 2:24 PM on March 14 [1 favorite]
One thing that is common re surgery is "a crisis happens that precipitates an ER visit, the patient is stabilized and then the surgery is planned for the near or medium future". That's a planned surgery. A non-planned surgery is the "you arrive at the ER and they get you into the operating theater as soon as they can get a doctor on site".
You might go to the ER with appendicitis or serious gynecological pain, receive immediate treatment and then have surgery days or even weeks later when it's not a rush, you're medically stable, you've been able to fast and/or discontinue any meds that cause bleeding, etc.
Most people think "planned surgery" and they think "this is a less-serious issue that can be treated at leisure", and I feel like that's part of the general perception that something is off here.
posted by Frowner at 2:34 PM on March 14 [12 favorites]
You might go to the ER with appendicitis or serious gynecological pain, receive immediate treatment and then have surgery days or even weeks later when it's not a rush, you're medically stable, you've been able to fast and/or discontinue any meds that cause bleeding, etc.
Most people think "planned surgery" and they think "this is a less-serious issue that can be treated at leisure", and I feel like that's part of the general perception that something is off here.
posted by Frowner at 2:34 PM on March 14 [12 favorites]
Thank you Frowner. That helps. I was asking because the timeline as explained in (insert whatever rando internet source suits) had the surgery planned first then the ambulance ride took place. If it had been the other way around, it would make more sense. An emergency happens, the patient is stabilized then the surgery is planned... yeah, that's normal. Just not how it had been explained. What's that worth? Nothing really since this is a crazy storm of half baked unsourced "info".
What you've described seems to be right. I'd retract the original question but will leave it up to not cause confusion.
posted by Wetterschneider at 2:41 PM on March 14
What you've described seems to be right. I'd retract the original question but will leave it up to not cause confusion.
posted by Wetterschneider at 2:41 PM on March 14
It's perfectly reasonable for a Mothers' Day photo to have been taken months before. When I send out Christmas cards with my family on them, I doubt the recipients presume the photo was taken in December. I don't know why people think the leaves are a big deal, unless I'm missing something.
posted by The corpse in the library at 2:49 PM on March 14
posted by The corpse in the library at 2:49 PM on March 14
Have the children been seen since Christmas, aside from the Mother’s Day photo?
posted by mochapickle at 3:04 PM on March 14
posted by mochapickle at 3:04 PM on March 14
Perspective from the Bellingcat expert, in that Cut piece:
It reminds me a lot of other conspiracy theories where they’re clearly building the analysis around a theory rather than building a theory from analysis,” he said. As an example of this faulty reasoning, Higgins pointed to Aston’s incorrect claim that Kate’s sweater comes in only cream and camel: “It’s really poor analysis, but I usually see that stuff about terrible war crimes, so at least it’s not that.”
posted by eponym at 3:26 PM on March 14 [8 favorites]
It reminds me a lot of other conspiracy theories where they’re clearly building the analysis around a theory rather than building a theory from analysis,” he said. As an example of this faulty reasoning, Higgins pointed to Aston’s incorrect claim that Kate’s sweater comes in only cream and camel: “It’s really poor analysis, but I usually see that stuff about terrible war crimes, so at least it’s not that.”
posted by eponym at 3:26 PM on March 14 [8 favorites]
Have the children been seen since Christmas, aside from the Mother’s Day photo?
Ah, let's not go there -- it's one thing to enjoy the weirdness with the photos, another thing to start tracking children.
posted by The corpse in the library at 3:26 PM on March 14 [1 favorite]
Ah, let's not go there -- it's one thing to enjoy the weirdness with the photos, another thing to start tracking children.
posted by The corpse in the library at 3:26 PM on March 14 [1 favorite]
I’m not recommending we track children. I’m not following this very closely and was genuinely curious if anyone knew whether the family’s typical social schedule was otherwise business as usual.
posted by mochapickle at 3:48 PM on March 14 [2 favorites]
posted by mochapickle at 3:48 PM on March 14 [2 favorites]
So far, I've heard nothing. Unless there's some event the kids get taken to, they probably wouldn't be on any regular photo schedule, and the kids weren't allowed to visit in that particular hospital.
posted by jenfullmoon at 3:50 PM on March 14 [1 favorite]
posted by jenfullmoon at 3:50 PM on March 14 [1 favorite]
Kate Middleton Doctored Photo: AFP Says Kensington Palace No Longer A “Trusted Source” & Kill Notices Usually Reserved For North Korea [Deadline]
posted by ellieBOA at 3:56 PM on March 14
posted by ellieBOA at 3:56 PM on March 14
My conspiracy theory is that the photo wasn't altered at all and all the things we perceive as poor attempts at editing are really the first unedited images of these slightly weirdly shaped humans.
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:59 PM on March 14 [10 favorites]
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:59 PM on March 14 [10 favorites]
mochapickle, we haven't seen the kids since Christmastime, but that's not super unusual. And as mentioned in ellieBOA's Cut link above, they tend to take a lot of photos all at once and then dole them out over time.
William and Kate have also released pictures taken on one day across a period of months countless times before. As one of many examples, the family’s 2022 Christmas card, last year’s Mother’s Day photo, and the image released for the couple’s anniversary in April 2023 were clearly all taken during the same photo shoot. The tenth-wedding-anniversary video released in April 2021 was clearly filmed the day their 2020 Christmas card photo was taken.
posted by obloquy at 3:59 PM on March 14 [2 favorites]
William and Kate have also released pictures taken on one day across a period of months countless times before. As one of many examples, the family’s 2022 Christmas card, last year’s Mother’s Day photo, and the image released for the couple’s anniversary in April 2023 were clearly all taken during the same photo shoot. The tenth-wedding-anniversary video released in April 2021 was clearly filmed the day their 2020 Christmas card photo was taken.
posted by obloquy at 3:59 PM on March 14 [2 favorites]
Either they can’t release a new photo/undoctored original or they won’t. The mystery of why they can’t or won’t is the mystery at the center of this.
posted by interogative mood at 4:26 PM on March 14 [4 favorites]
posted by interogative mood at 4:26 PM on March 14 [4 favorites]
everyone: It’s really poor analysis, but I usually see that stuff about terrible war crimes, so at least it’s not that.
posted by bq at 4:44 PM on March 14 [3 favorites]
posted by bq at 4:44 PM on March 14 [3 favorites]
A bunch of celebration photos all being taken at the same time to be spread out through the year explains lots of stuff;
Obviously, though, Kate didn't edit this photo. The Photoshop skills demonstrated are much more akin to "rushed junior professional" than "princess with a hobby". I can only assume that part of the same decision-making process that promoted a social media photo to official release could easily decide that admitting to the photo being taken before xmas was not an option. Instead we have the one-two punch of Kate "owning up to Photoshopping", quickly followed by a hit piece to the tune of "but Harry & Meghan did it too".
Sounds like a horrible environment in which to be trying to recover from a medical procedure.
posted by krisjohn at 5:14 PM on March 14 [2 favorites]
- The recycled looks
- The kids crossing everything ("I know it's not xmas yet, but this is for Mothers' Day")
- The tree not looking right for the season
Obviously, though, Kate didn't edit this photo. The Photoshop skills demonstrated are much more akin to "rushed junior professional" than "princess with a hobby". I can only assume that part of the same decision-making process that promoted a social media photo to official release could easily decide that admitting to the photo being taken before xmas was not an option. Instead we have the one-two punch of Kate "owning up to Photoshopping", quickly followed by a hit piece to the tune of "but Harry & Meghan did it too".
Sounds like a horrible environment in which to be trying to recover from a medical procedure.
posted by krisjohn at 5:14 PM on March 14 [2 favorites]
Either they can’t release a new photo/undoctored original or they won’t. The mystery of why they can’t or won’t is the mystery at the center of this.
Obviously they can't, because if they could just film/shoot Kate's typical face in public right now, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Either she's there and in no shape for photos or she is gone, baby, gone. And I sorta doubt she could disappear enough (especially after surgery) to have not been caught making a break for it out the hospital doors even at 3 a.m.
The mystery of why Kate's face is in such bad shape (for supposedly abdominal surgery) that she can't be photographed in any open/honest/convincing fashion that would calm people down is the mystery at the center of this. Did she have a stroke, Bell's palsy, or a run-in with a dog bowl? How badly off is she?
posted by jenfullmoon at 5:24 PM on March 14
Obviously they can't, because if they could just film/shoot Kate's typical face in public right now, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Either she's there and in no shape for photos or she is gone, baby, gone. And I sorta doubt she could disappear enough (especially after surgery) to have not been caught making a break for it out the hospital doors even at 3 a.m.
The mystery of why Kate's face is in such bad shape (for supposedly abdominal surgery) that she can't be photographed in any open/honest/convincing fashion that would calm people down is the mystery at the center of this. Did she have a stroke, Bell's palsy, or a run-in with a dog bowl? How badly off is she?
posted by jenfullmoon at 5:24 PM on March 14
Additional thoughts
- Since this was designed to be a Mothers' Day photo, Will isn't in it by design. Once it becomes a "proof of life" photo, his absence needs an explanation. Suddenly he's taking the photo. (I don't believe he took the photo.)
- I'm actually surprised there's any metadata in there. Surely part of the process of preparing any media for release is to scrub the metadata. Maybe a scrubbed and ready-to-go image needed a couple of quick changes and the process wasn't followed for metadata any more than it was followed for not sending out edited photos to press agencies.
The Supreme Court forgot to scrub metadata from a recent decision, and they are arguably much more competent admin wise, so I don't think that proves much.
FWIW I think it's adorable so many here are trying to take things presented by KP at face value, or treat RF protocols the same way an average middle class family operates.
posted by computech_apolloniajames at 5:32 PM on March 14 [4 favorites]
FWIW I think it's adorable so many here are trying to take things presented by KP at face value, or treat RF protocols the same way an average middle class family operates.
posted by computech_apolloniajames at 5:32 PM on March 14 [4 favorites]
It's not at all unusual for the RF to share photos from the same photo session for occasions later in the year. Aside from some hard core conspiracists, there wouldn't be much of a story if they shared a photo in that way with the appropriate attributions. But they clearly stated that it had been taken "by William" the previous week, and in fact the metadata shows that the master image was taken on Friday and edited Friday night and Saturday morning. So depending on what kind of manipulation was actually done, it does appear to be a deliberate attempt to deceive on some level. "Here's Kate and the kids in a photo taken by William last week!"
I'm no Photoshop expert but it looks to me that the most obvious discrepancies are all around where elements of "Kate" interact with elements of the kids (around both her hands and around her head/upper body adjacent to George's hands and Charlotte's body). I'm not seeing the baby bank photos connection, but it seems entirely possible that Kate doesn't like how she looks right now and her head and hands were replaced from some earlier photograph.
Clearly something is up and she is entitled to privacy while she deals with it. The problem is the Palace's incredible bumbling around this and whatever the heck is up with William.
posted by Preserver at 5:33 PM on March 14 [2 favorites]
I'm no Photoshop expert but it looks to me that the most obvious discrepancies are all around where elements of "Kate" interact with elements of the kids (around both her hands and around her head/upper body adjacent to George's hands and Charlotte's body). I'm not seeing the baby bank photos connection, but it seems entirely possible that Kate doesn't like how she looks right now and her head and hands were replaced from some earlier photograph.
Clearly something is up and she is entitled to privacy while she deals with it. The problem is the Palace's incredible bumbling around this and whatever the heck is up with William.
posted by Preserver at 5:33 PM on March 14 [2 favorites]
I'm not sure the US Supreme Court is a useful example of a functioning organization.
posted by krisjohn at 5:39 PM on March 14 [9 favorites]
posted by krisjohn at 5:39 PM on March 14 [9 favorites]
It was the first example I could think of, please give a girl with COVID a break lol.
posted by computech_apolloniajames at 5:45 PM on March 14 [9 favorites]
posted by computech_apolloniajames at 5:45 PM on March 14 [9 favorites]
> The corpse in the library: "It's perfectly reasonable for a Mothers' Day photo to have been taken months before."
Indeed, in isolation, there's no reason to think anything weird or untoward about putting out a photo taken from a previous shoot. Unfortunately, the photo does not exist in a vacuum. I could easily see their PR people thinking if they put out a photo that was obviously from months ago they'd provoke even more speculation about the present whereabouts of the princess (i.e.: the whole "proof of life" thing). So instead, they go with... whatever this is.
posted by mhum at 6:03 PM on March 14 [3 favorites]
Indeed, in isolation, there's no reason to think anything weird or untoward about putting out a photo taken from a previous shoot. Unfortunately, the photo does not exist in a vacuum. I could easily see their PR people thinking if they put out a photo that was obviously from months ago they'd provoke even more speculation about the present whereabouts of the princess (i.e.: the whole "proof of life" thing). So instead, they go with... whatever this is.
posted by mhum at 6:03 PM on March 14 [3 favorites]
I’m still hung up on the absence of Kate’s rings in the photo. She wears them almost always. She appears to have even worn them while snorkeling a couple years ago. Her sapphire engagement ring is one of the most famous jewels in the world, and royal-watchers note its every appearance.
Did she choose not to wear her wedding band and her engagement ring—Diana’s engagement ring—in a Mothers’ Day photo? (Maybe.) Did she edit them out of the photo? (Probably not, as she likely didn’t do the editing herself—even the statement that we’re meant to believe was from her doesn’t explicitly cop to it.) Did someone else do the editing, and failed to realize that a ringless hand would be widely noticed, even if the photo shenanigans hadn’t been caught? (Maybe—if Will was giving final approval, he could be too stupid or careless to have noticed.)
Did she leave them at home during the surgery and William stole them back while she was hospitalized? Is her mother holding “Big Blue” hostage for Kate for divorce settlement ransom? Why didn’t the covert alien monarchist Photoshopping lizard people just cut-and-paste the ring back in? That engagement ring is so loaded with significance and meaning, not wearing it now is enough of a statement all on its own that “oh, no reason” is not really a believable answer, but the speculative reasons are increasingly crazy. Diana’s ring’s absence remains one of the weirdest things to me about an already hinky photo.
posted by obloquy at 6:40 PM on March 14 [7 favorites]
Did she choose not to wear her wedding band and her engagement ring—Diana’s engagement ring—in a Mothers’ Day photo? (Maybe.) Did she edit them out of the photo? (Probably not, as she likely didn’t do the editing herself—even the statement that we’re meant to believe was from her doesn’t explicitly cop to it.) Did someone else do the editing, and failed to realize that a ringless hand would be widely noticed, even if the photo shenanigans hadn’t been caught? (Maybe—if Will was giving final approval, he could be too stupid or careless to have noticed.)
Did she leave them at home during the surgery and William stole them back while she was hospitalized? Is her mother holding “Big Blue” hostage for Kate for divorce settlement ransom? Why didn’t the covert alien monarchist Photoshopping lizard people just cut-and-paste the ring back in? That engagement ring is so loaded with significance and meaning, not wearing it now is enough of a statement all on its own that “oh, no reason” is not really a believable answer, but the speculative reasons are increasingly crazy. Diana’s ring’s absence remains one of the weirdest things to me about an already hinky photo.
posted by obloquy at 6:40 PM on March 14 [7 favorites]
Depending on how cooperative the tech is (I do not know what “Photoshop without AI” is capable of), it feels like the least weird possibility is “Kate has gained weight / is bloated from her illness, and indulged in Photoshop tricks to conceal it.” That would actually explain the rings, potentially, if they don’t fit right now. And it might explain why many of the weird artifacts are near where the kids adjoin her in the image.
Usually the true answer to any conspiracy-theory-inspiring situation is very boring, so I think that’s where I’m going to put my money with this one. Recent photo, retouched badly for weight masking purposes, forgot to obfuscate the absence of the rings because she hasn’t worn them for so long.
posted by eirias at 7:09 PM on March 14 [9 favorites]
Usually the true answer to any conspiracy-theory-inspiring situation is very boring, so I think that’s where I’m going to put my money with this one. Recent photo, retouched badly for weight masking purposes, forgot to obfuscate the absence of the rings because she hasn’t worn them for so long.
posted by eirias at 7:09 PM on March 14 [9 favorites]
If the royal family didn't want to go with my earlier suggestion about the proof-of-life photo, they have plenty of other options to lighten the mood and distract the press.
I'm a little surprised they haven't even tried the "Thank you, but our princess is in another castle!" ploy, but maybe that has to do with how litigious Nintendo has been being lately.
posted by Nerd of the North at 8:30 PM on March 14 [2 favorites]
I'm a little surprised they haven't even tried the "Thank you, but our princess is in another castle!" ploy, but maybe that has to do with how litigious Nintendo has been being lately.
posted by Nerd of the North at 8:30 PM on March 14 [2 favorites]
I can’t rule out entirely the idea that Kate and the royals are so arrogant and contemptuous of the public that they refuse to release a new photo. That is why I wrote that either they can’t or they won’t. Now objectively it seems like a stupid thing to keep this scandal going and not kill it by putting out a video or some photos of couple and the kids, but these are not smart people.
posted by interogative mood at 12:42 AM on March 15 [1 favorite]
posted by interogative mood at 12:42 AM on March 15 [1 favorite]
The mystery of why Kate's face is in such bad shape (for supposedly abdominal surgery)
Could be a nasogastric tube
posted by atlantica at 1:24 AM on March 15
Could be a nasogastric tube
posted by atlantica at 1:24 AM on March 15
it feels like the least weird possibility is “Kate has gained weight / is bloated from her illness, and indulged in Photoshop tricks to conceal it."
Part of what has made this whole thing fun for me is exactly this: the overwhelmingly likely explanation is boring (and precisely the one they told us at the start). We know they haven't actually locked her in the Tower of London, but its hilarious how they keep effing up the PR so badly that it seems like they might have.
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 8:33 AM on March 15 [10 favorites]
Part of what has made this whole thing fun for me is exactly this: the overwhelmingly likely explanation is boring (and precisely the one they told us at the start). We know they haven't actually locked her in the Tower of London, but its hilarious how they keep effing up the PR so badly that it seems like they might have.
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 8:33 AM on March 15 [10 favorites]
I'm only stopping by to note that there was an entire academic paper written in 1980 about Cholmondeley jokes. Really. Mainly riffing on the pronunciation.
It includes the limerick:
There was a young chappie named Cholmondeley
Who always at dinner sat dolmondeley
His fair partner said
As he crumbled his bread
Dear me! You behave very rholmondeley
posted by vacapinta at 9:12 AM on March 15 [13 favorites]
It includes the limerick:
There was a young chappie named Cholmondeley
Who always at dinner sat dolmondeley
His fair partner said
As he crumbled his bread
Dear me! You behave very rholmondeley
posted by vacapinta at 9:12 AM on March 15 [13 favorites]
(he accepted the news very calmondeley)
posted by mochapickle at 9:45 AM on March 15 [6 favorites]
posted by mochapickle at 9:45 AM on March 15 [6 favorites]
perhaps kate middleton has drank of the water of life made from the last exhalation of a juvenile shai-hulud that has been drowned in water and so has received in one traumatic burst the memories and knowledge of all the past members of her line and has thereby gained very mysterious and very puissant psychic abilities but only at the obliteration of what she thought of as herself before the ceremony and every time they try to take a picture she either refuses to put her contacts in or she uses the weirding voice to make the photographers jump off balconies or else she just goes off on a tear about how the young prince george is in fact the fulfillment of both thousands upon thousands of years of careful inbreeding and also of ancient prophecy and refuses to stop which makes it hard to take acceptable photographs additionally princess charlotte keeps stabbing people to death and calling it mercy so they've kind of got to keep her under wraps too
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 10:39 AM on March 15 [28 favorites]
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 10:39 AM on March 15 [28 favorites]
Why Kate Middleton doesn’t quite have the same right to privacy as the rest of us by Alan Rusbridger [Prospect]
How the lads caught royal fever [The Handbasket Substack]
So What Has Prince William Been Up to This Week? [The Cut / Archive]
posted by ellieBOA at 1:02 PM on March 15 [1 favorite]
How the lads caught royal fever [The Handbasket Substack]
So What Has Prince William Been Up to This Week? [The Cut / Archive]
posted by ellieBOA at 1:02 PM on March 15 [1 favorite]
"there is nothing like climate change to take your mind off the fact that people think your wife is secretly in a coma."
"Prince Harry appeared separately at the event, via a video call that started hours after William had left. I guess even conspiracy theories can’t bring those two together."
LOL.
posted by jenfullmoon at 2:26 PM on March 15 [2 favorites]
"Prince Harry appeared separately at the event, via a video call that started hours after William had left. I guess even conspiracy theories can’t bring those two together."
LOL.
posted by jenfullmoon at 2:26 PM on March 15 [2 favorites]
Tucker Carlson Duped By YouTubers Into Interviewing Fake Kate Middleton Whistleblower (Deadline)
Most of the time, I hate pranks, but I'm going to make an exception and just LOL at this:
The YouTubers’ faked letter of engagement for the whistleblower included a clause stating that the palace had a right to amputate one of his limbs should he fail his probation period.
and
Manners said he “stroked” Carlson’s ego with the “bullsh**” claim that he was giving the former Fox man the exclusive because “mainstream media in the UK wouldn’t touch it.”
posted by creepygirl at 9:22 PM on March 15 [8 favorites]
Most of the time, I hate pranks, but I'm going to make an exception and just LOL at this:
The YouTubers’ faked letter of engagement for the whistleblower included a clause stating that the palace had a right to amputate one of his limbs should he fail his probation period.
and
Manners said he “stroked” Carlson’s ego with the “bullsh**” claim that he was giving the former Fox man the exclusive because “mainstream media in the UK wouldn’t touch it.”
posted by creepygirl at 9:22 PM on March 15 [8 favorites]
In case no one's linked it yet, apparently a couple of enterprising lads used the whole photoshop deal as a premise to prank Tucker Carlson.
In case anyone is worried this helping him, they revealed what they did before the segment was set to air so presumably it won't air now unless he's going to barrel through and pretend the reveal was fake news or something.
on preview: jinx creepygirl
posted by juv3nal at 9:25 PM on March 15
In case anyone is worried this helping him, they revealed what they did before the segment was set to air so presumably it won't air now unless he's going to barrel through and pretend the reveal was fake news or something.
on preview: jinx creepygirl
posted by juv3nal at 9:25 PM on March 15
Phil Chetwynd, global news director of Agence France-Presse (AFP), "revealed that the major news agencies, including Associated Press and Reuters, spoke before issuing notices to 'kill' the picture on Sunday. He said Kensington Palace was asked if it would provide the original, but the agencies did not receive a reply and the image was pulled. Chetwynd said it is unusual for media agencies to demand that photos be taken out of circulation.
'To kill something on the basis of manipulation [is rare. We do it] once a year maybe, I hope less. The previous kills we’ve had have been from the North Korean news agency or the Iranian news agency,' he explained."
posted by Iris Gambol at 9:55 PM on March 15 [1 favorite]
'To kill something on the basis of manipulation [is rare. We do it] once a year maybe, I hope less. The previous kills we’ve had have been from the North Korean news agency or the Iranian news agency,' he explained."
posted by Iris Gambol at 9:55 PM on March 15 [1 favorite]
Doubling down now
posted by TWinbrook8 at 12:02 AM on March 16
posted by TWinbrook8 at 12:02 AM on March 16
The Royal Family Brazilian Butt Lift Conspiracy (Rebecca Watson, Piped/YouTube/Invidious, 10m2s)
posted by flabdablet at 8:20 AM on March 16
posted by flabdablet at 8:20 AM on March 16
I don't know what that Prospect article says because of their confusing cookies popup not being worth the hassle and I'm trying to make a cake today and don't want to fall into this hole again, but in case it's trying to say "The royals are the property of the taxpayers and their job is to represent their royal asses to the deserving public at state occasions and suchlike and that equates to being available for viewing via the world wide web x hours/day every day and sometimes at night as well blah blah blah etc. essentially if they're not on camera, they're shirking their holy duty to be on camera," no. No to everything in italics.
No.
Here's what they're required to do in public: whatever Elizabeth was doing on first couple of seasons of The Crown before the advent of the paparazzi, TV, the internet, yaddada. That is the age-old bargain. Nothing that is not age-old is part of the bargain. So they have to go through all the stupid shit Anne went through on The Crown and have their dopey scandals yacked about in the press and their love lives ruint and suffer exquisitely and nobly for all of our benefit. They do NOT have to be on camera to do all of that. So they don't have to present themselves when they're sick or in a coma or have a black eye because their husband is an inbred waste of skin or whatever is the actual problem, here, if there even is one. They only have to present their physical selves to all the cats who may look at a king at official state occasions the end period. They do have to get gossiped about constantly and be conspiracy theory fodder whether they appear in public or don't.
Thus all of us are guiltless for gossiping and spinning up elaborate sugar castles of pure delicious conspiracy-thinking. All of this bullshit is permitted to us because people in Britain pay taxes. (Thanks, guys!)
Also thus, Kate et al. cannot be faulted for not appearing on camera. It's fine.
posted by Don Pepino at 9:29 AM on March 16 [1 favorite]
No.
Here's what they're required to do in public: whatever Elizabeth was doing on first couple of seasons of The Crown before the advent of the paparazzi, TV, the internet, yaddada. That is the age-old bargain. Nothing that is not age-old is part of the bargain. So they have to go through all the stupid shit Anne went through on The Crown and have their dopey scandals yacked about in the press and their love lives ruint and suffer exquisitely and nobly for all of our benefit. They do NOT have to be on camera to do all of that. So they don't have to present themselves when they're sick or in a coma or have a black eye because their husband is an inbred waste of skin or whatever is the actual problem, here, if there even is one. They only have to present their physical selves to all the cats who may look at a king at official state occasions the end period. They do have to get gossiped about constantly and be conspiracy theory fodder whether they appear in public or don't.
Thus all of us are guiltless for gossiping and spinning up elaborate sugar castles of pure delicious conspiracy-thinking. All of this bullshit is permitted to us because people in Britain pay taxes. (Thanks, guys!)
Also thus, Kate et al. cannot be faulted for not appearing on camera. It's fine.
posted by Don Pepino at 9:29 AM on March 16 [1 favorite]
Lol Don Pepino I legitimately can’t tell which parts of that are sarcasm. No shade either way.
In all seriousness, I have been asking myself why I DO care about this, as a person with no history of interest in the royal family or in celebrity gossip in general.
I think there are a lot of factors really. There’s the general atmosphere of resenting the rich and powerful and the way they feel entitled to set a narrative and expect us not to question it. For me as a person who has worked in journalism and mass communication it’s also fascinating from the angle of the clumsy PR machinations, and the questions of journalistic integrity with respect to the royals’ complicated, transactional relationship to various aspects of the press.
Ultimately for me I think it comes down to this - I never would have cared about just not getting the information, because I don’t feel fundamentally entitled to it. I don’t feel the need to know personal information about the royals as individuals. But the transparent falsehoods in this whole saga are bizarrely fascinating because they suggest so much more about the royal/media relationship than simple silence would have, and I can’t help wanting to fill in those blanks.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:03 AM on March 16 [14 favorites]
In all seriousness, I have been asking myself why I DO care about this, as a person with no history of interest in the royal family or in celebrity gossip in general.
I think there are a lot of factors really. There’s the general atmosphere of resenting the rich and powerful and the way they feel entitled to set a narrative and expect us not to question it. For me as a person who has worked in journalism and mass communication it’s also fascinating from the angle of the clumsy PR machinations, and the questions of journalistic integrity with respect to the royals’ complicated, transactional relationship to various aspects of the press.
Ultimately for me I think it comes down to this - I never would have cared about just not getting the information, because I don’t feel fundamentally entitled to it. I don’t feel the need to know personal information about the royals as individuals. But the transparent falsehoods in this whole saga are bizarrely fascinating because they suggest so much more about the royal/media relationship than simple silence would have, and I can’t help wanting to fill in those blanks.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:03 AM on March 16 [14 favorites]
There is also a Baldurs Gate 3 Theory.
posted by interogative mood at 10:43 AM on March 16 [4 favorites]
posted by interogative mood at 10:43 AM on March 16 [4 favorites]
I'm not afraid for Kate, and as someone who had a hysterectomy in January, I can absolutely believe she's building her strength back up after abdominal surgery. I'm still on lift restrictions and my surgery was minor. What makes Kate's disappearance something I follow beyond general parasociality/leftover Anglophilia from living there in the 1980s is that I've realized that the royal press-spinners would be reacting the same way if Wills had beat the crap out of her and seriously injured her and they were covering it up. You don't have to think that anything beyond surgery recovery is going on to be disturbed by that realization.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 7:31 PM on March 16 [8 favorites]
posted by gentlyepigrams at 7:31 PM on March 16 [8 favorites]
KP has now "moved" "Easter" to "after April 17." And they wonder why everyone thinks they are shady.
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:42 AM on March 17 [4 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:42 AM on March 17 [4 favorites]
KP has now "moved" "Easter" to "after April 17."
On Tuesday, the Buckingham Palace switchboard “rang off the hook” with messages of support for them.
People ring the Palace to leave messages for the RF?!
posted by ellieBOA at 10:28 AM on March 17
On Tuesday, the Buckingham Palace switchboard “rang off the hook” with messages of support for them.
People ring the Palace to leave messages for the RF?!
posted by ellieBOA at 10:28 AM on March 17
Sure they did.
posted by computech_apolloniajames at 12:21 PM on March 17
posted by computech_apolloniajames at 12:21 PM on March 17
Royal sources and royal friends are suddenly very chatty in the roundup at jenfullmoon's latest link.
- Says a source: “In Kate’s case, there is almost nobody else in the world whose face, body, clothes are more judged than hers. So it’s entirely right for them not to want to be drawn into a game about what is going on with her health. What is happening is exactly what they said would happen — she would spend two weeks in hospital and be back after Easter. So what if they haven’t pushed her out there to wave from the back of a car? She is not a show pony.” [They had someone who drew more criticism, but they threw her away. And did Source mean to reference that wonky backseat photo, because a lack of waving wasn't the issue there.]
- The tide turned when William pulled out of a memorial service in Windsor at short notice last month for his godfather, King Constantine of Greece, citing a “personal matter”. The friend, who knows why William cancelled, said: “He had no choice but to pull out but the reaction was disappointing. That blew the lid off everything with people’s impatience to know what was going on." [The memorial service was 2 weeks before the altered photo.]
- A royal source said: “They are at their most open when out interacting with members of the public and I can see a world in which the princess might discuss her recovery out on engagements. [Recent example of top-notch, post-Frankenphoto interaction: At a charity event, William was complimented on his cookie-icing skills; he responded, "My wife is the arty one."]
- “I don’t think they should engineer what they do next,” says one who has been in touch with the couple. “The royals are at their best when they get on with their job." [A big part of that job is engineering, though?]
And the obligatory jab:
- “They’re not like [Prince] Harry, obsessing and scrolling through Twitter, but they know it has broken through. They follow the news and see the BBC breaking news alerts,” says a friend who is in close touch with both. “Social media has provided the media with plenty of content and the speculation around their marriage is just cruel. These are people with three small children going through the hardest time they’ve had to go through as a family, with that as an awful backdrop. They are trying to keep things as normal as possible for the kids, but it’s not easy.”
Son Louis has a birthday on April 23, and their wedding anniversary is April 29.
posted by Iris Gambol at 12:29 PM on March 17 [1 favorite]
- Says a source: “In Kate’s case, there is almost nobody else in the world whose face, body, clothes are more judged than hers. So it’s entirely right for them not to want to be drawn into a game about what is going on with her health. What is happening is exactly what they said would happen — she would spend two weeks in hospital and be back after Easter. So what if they haven’t pushed her out there to wave from the back of a car? She is not a show pony.” [They had someone who drew more criticism, but they threw her away. And did Source mean to reference that wonky backseat photo, because a lack of waving wasn't the issue there.]
- The tide turned when William pulled out of a memorial service in Windsor at short notice last month for his godfather, King Constantine of Greece, citing a “personal matter”. The friend, who knows why William cancelled, said: “He had no choice but to pull out but the reaction was disappointing. That blew the lid off everything with people’s impatience to know what was going on." [The memorial service was 2 weeks before the altered photo.]
- A royal source said: “They are at their most open when out interacting with members of the public and I can see a world in which the princess might discuss her recovery out on engagements. [Recent example of top-notch, post-Frankenphoto interaction: At a charity event, William was complimented on his cookie-icing skills; he responded, "My wife is the arty one."]
- “I don’t think they should engineer what they do next,” says one who has been in touch with the couple. “The royals are at their best when they get on with their job." [A big part of that job is engineering, though?]
And the obligatory jab:
- “They’re not like [Prince] Harry, obsessing and scrolling through Twitter, but they know it has broken through. They follow the news and see the BBC breaking news alerts,” says a friend who is in close touch with both. “Social media has provided the media with plenty of content and the speculation around their marriage is just cruel. These are people with three small children going through the hardest time they’ve had to go through as a family, with that as an awful backdrop. They are trying to keep things as normal as possible for the kids, but it’s not easy.”
Son Louis has a birthday on April 23, and their wedding anniversary is April 29.
posted by Iris Gambol at 12:29 PM on March 17 [1 favorite]
Oh, pretty sure this is the obligatory jab:
Wiglet Christ Superstar
posted by TWinbrook8 at 2:54 PM on March 17
Wiglet Christ Superstar
posted by TWinbrook8 at 2:54 PM on March 17
Just for fun: some cartoons.
SUPPOSEDLY Kate has been sighted walking about shopping. And yet, no photographs of this? HMMMMMMM.
Appropriate Reddit quote: "Oh ok sure she is fine to go out and about shopping (and somehow nobody managed to get a photo despite the huge media interest) but she is unable to take 2 minutes to say in public she is fine and the speculation is ridiculous etc? This gets more intriguing and the official story is starting to sound like complete bullshit." (Also, she still can't work until god knows when?
posted by jenfullmoon at 6:25 PM on March 17 [2 favorites]
SUPPOSEDLY Kate has been sighted walking about shopping. And yet, no photographs of this? HMMMMMMM.
Appropriate Reddit quote: "Oh ok sure she is fine to go out and about shopping (and somehow nobody managed to get a photo despite the huge media interest) but she is unable to take 2 minutes to say in public she is fine and the speculation is ridiculous etc? This gets more intriguing and the official story is starting to sound like complete bullshit." (Also, she still can't work until god knows when?
posted by jenfullmoon at 6:25 PM on March 17 [2 favorites]
Yes, and if you believe that, you probably voted Leave.
posted by computech_apolloniajames at 7:57 PM on March 17 [1 favorite]
posted by computech_apolloniajames at 7:57 PM on March 17 [1 favorite]
And yet, no photographs of this? HMMMMMMM.
Shouldn't have been too much trouble for security to prevent snaps. It's basically their shop on their land. Hardly a trip to ASDA.
posted by run"monty at 5:31 AM on March 18
Shouldn't have been too much trouble for security to prevent snaps. It's basically their shop on their land. Hardly a trip to ASDA.
posted by run"monty at 5:31 AM on March 18
Just for fun: some cartoons.
Those are depressingly close to the truth.
posted by Paul Slade at 7:54 AM on March 18 [1 favorite]
Those are depressingly close to the truth.
posted by Paul Slade at 7:54 AM on March 18 [1 favorite]
Various people have pointed out that if Kate was well enough to stroll around a garden shop, she could have done the St. Patrick's thing she usually does, or go to Trooping the Color, or well, anything else. Also, the Guardian has busted Photoshopping/altering on this grandchild photo.
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:57 AM on March 18
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:57 AM on March 18
Various people have pointed out that if Kate was well enough to stroll around a garden shop, she could have done the St. Patrick's thing she usually does
The timing, being on the day Putin is elected, is not coincidental. It's a direct message: you tried to poison her but she is still alive. If she's unwell/recovering, a short drive to the shop at the bottom of the garden is more bearable than a full working day.
posted by run"monty at 8:42 AM on March 18
posted by run"monty at 8:42 AM on March 18
Plus, it doesn't require dress fittings or serious hair and makeup, and not be all poor little rich girl about it but dress fittings are exhausting.
posted by jacquilynne at 10:00 AM on March 18 [3 favorites]
posted by jacquilynne at 10:00 AM on March 18 [3 favorites]
Rest assured TMZ has the footage from the home farm shop.
posted by TWinbrook8 at 2:19 PM on March 18 [1 favorite]
posted by TWinbrook8 at 2:19 PM on March 18 [1 favorite]
Yep , there's that "my abdominal incision is pulling and I know walking is good for me but ouch" hunch forward. Hopefully her staff stop making idiots of themselves so she can get some more rest.
posted by I claim sanctuary at 3:21 PM on March 18 [1 favorite]
posted by I claim sanctuary at 3:21 PM on March 18 [1 favorite]
There are lots of folks on Xitter claiming that that ISN'T Kate in the TMZ footage. Even if it IS her, the handling of this entire situation continues to be ABSOLUTELY BANANAS and wildly entertaining. (Assuming that Kate is just fine, of course. If they're hiding bad news, then it becomes pretty fucked up.)
posted by leftover_scrabble_rack at 3:42 PM on March 18
posted by leftover_scrabble_rack at 3:42 PM on March 18
There are lots of folks on Xitter claiming that that ISN'T Kate in the TMZ footage
One possible reason the "unblurred" version of the footage doesn't look like her is that "unblur" is not a thing unless you live in the CSI universe.
posted by 0xFCAF at 3:49 PM on March 18 [5 favorites]
One possible reason the "unblurred" version of the footage doesn't look like her is that "unblur" is not a thing unless you live in the CSI universe.
posted by 0xFCAF at 3:49 PM on March 18 [5 favorites]
Sarah Kendzior, among others, claims that this is not Kate and that the whole thing may be "engineered chaos", an op to test who obeys authority, how consensus forms, etc.
I just find that so unlikely. If our rulers were capable of coordinating at that level effectively, they wouldn't need the brute force they always deploy. Think about it - you need a Kate-alike who is going to keep her mouth completely shut, who is accessible to the secret service and who is never, never going to get a lot of commentary from her friends and family about how much she looks like Kate. Prosthetics and disguise, you say? Well, that makes it even more complicated - you need not only the Kate-alike but a whole prosthetics team, all of whom will keep their mouths shut. You need to keep the farm store visit secret and have one of your guys leak the footage to TWZ so that there's no uncontrolled footage out there, because you want it to leak but in a controlled way. And then what if something goes wrong? What if someone on the prosthetics team talks or someone at the farm store spots "Kate's" nose peeling off? Then you don't just have a "where's Kate" problem, you have a what-the-fuck problem that will be much worse.
All this in order to "test" how consensus forms online and who obeys authority, etc, things you could never, never figure out from observing anything else that might happen.
Also, seriously, let's say that Kate is dead, having a mental breakdown, beaten into a coma by William, or something else absolutely inadmissable...Why, why wouldn't they just put out a tragic but reasonable story, like, "Kate had surgery for [awkward but realistic thing] and is experiencing unexpected complications, whoops she went into sepsis, it's a national tragedy, let's all come together and mourn". If they're really so clever and it's all ops instead of idiocy, why aren't they putting out a reasonable cover?
It looks like Kate to me, rather pale and wan as a skinny person would look after abdominal surgery, that's all.
posted by Frowner at 4:02 PM on March 18 [7 favorites]
I just find that so unlikely. If our rulers were capable of coordinating at that level effectively, they wouldn't need the brute force they always deploy. Think about it - you need a Kate-alike who is going to keep her mouth completely shut, who is accessible to the secret service and who is never, never going to get a lot of commentary from her friends and family about how much she looks like Kate. Prosthetics and disguise, you say? Well, that makes it even more complicated - you need not only the Kate-alike but a whole prosthetics team, all of whom will keep their mouths shut. You need to keep the farm store visit secret and have one of your guys leak the footage to TWZ so that there's no uncontrolled footage out there, because you want it to leak but in a controlled way. And then what if something goes wrong? What if someone on the prosthetics team talks or someone at the farm store spots "Kate's" nose peeling off? Then you don't just have a "where's Kate" problem, you have a what-the-fuck problem that will be much worse.
All this in order to "test" how consensus forms online and who obeys authority, etc, things you could never, never figure out from observing anything else that might happen.
Also, seriously, let's say that Kate is dead, having a mental breakdown, beaten into a coma by William, or something else absolutely inadmissable...Why, why wouldn't they just put out a tragic but reasonable story, like, "Kate had surgery for [awkward but realistic thing] and is experiencing unexpected complications, whoops she went into sepsis, it's a national tragedy, let's all come together and mourn". If they're really so clever and it's all ops instead of idiocy, why aren't they putting out a reasonable cover?
It looks like Kate to me, rather pale and wan as a skinny person would look after abdominal surgery, that's all.
posted by Frowner at 4:02 PM on March 18 [7 favorites]
Sarah Kendzior, among others, claims that this is not Kate and that the whole thing may be "engineered chaos", an op to test who obeys authority, how consensus forms, etc.
Wait, really? I haven't been following her - has she been heading into crank territory more generally?
Even if it isn't Kate, the line from that to some kind of sophisticated Machiavellian probe is pretty ridiculous (among other things because, as pointed out, it would be wildly redundant).
posted by trig at 4:15 PM on March 18 [6 favorites]
Wait, really? I haven't been following her - has she been heading into crank territory more generally?
Even if it isn't Kate, the line from that to some kind of sophisticated Machiavellian probe is pretty ridiculous (among other things because, as pointed out, it would be wildly redundant).
posted by trig at 4:15 PM on March 18 [6 favorites]
Peter Hitchens says the monarchy is finished… this is the moment it died.
posted by interogative mood at 4:59 PM on March 18
posted by interogative mood at 4:59 PM on March 18
There are a lot more people than Sarah Kendzior who do not think that the person in the video is Kate.
posted by computech_apolloniajames at 5:39 PM on March 18 [2 favorites]
posted by computech_apolloniajames at 5:39 PM on March 18 [2 favorites]
I give up.
posted by jenfullmoon at 6:56 PM on March 18
posted by jenfullmoon at 6:56 PM on March 18
Rest assured TMZ has the footage from the home farm shop.
"Kate Middleton Seen in New Video Enjoying Windsor Farm Shop with William"
The Royal Farms Windsor Farm Shop, just a short distance away from the beautiful scenery of the Great Park and historic surroundings of Windsor Castle. The shop opened in 2001 as an outlet to sell locally sourced goods and produce from the Royal Estates and The Great Park.
posted by Iris Gambol at 8:33 PM on March 18
"Kate Middleton Seen in New Video Enjoying Windsor Farm Shop with William"
The Royal Farms Windsor Farm Shop, just a short distance away from the beautiful scenery of the Great Park and historic surroundings of Windsor Castle. The shop opened in 2001 as an outlet to sell locally sourced goods and produce from the Royal Estates and The Great Park.
posted by Iris Gambol at 8:33 PM on March 18
It’s Kate omg. Just without a metric ton of foundation.
posted by St. Peepsburg at 8:42 PM on March 18 [4 favorites]
posted by St. Peepsburg at 8:42 PM on March 18 [4 favorites]
There are a lot more people than Sarah Kendzior who do not think that the person in the video is Kate.
At this point, Kate Middleton could call on each of the conspiracy theorists in person and allow them to conduct their own DNA test - and they'd still refuse to accept it was her.
posted by Paul Slade at 1:16 AM on March 19 [4 favorites]
At this point, Kate Middleton could call on each of the conspiracy theorists in person and allow them to conduct their own DNA test - and they'd still refuse to accept it was her.
posted by Paul Slade at 1:16 AM on March 19 [4 favorites]
Well, that sure looks like Kate to me, and also throws cold water on my theory that the photo was doctored to hide eg weight gain from steroids. Though maybe it works just as well if it was doctored to hide weight loss?
Given the second doctored photo discovered (the one with the queen), maybe this really is just about a pattern of behavior rather than anything particular to this circumstance — maybe they do this quite a lot actually, for reasons no more nefarious than wanting the family to look instagram perfect, but they got sloppy, and this one got outsized attention because of the environment it was released into (princess on medical leave). New most boring explanation?
posted by eirias at 1:43 AM on March 19 [9 favorites]
Given the second doctored photo discovered (the one with the queen), maybe this really is just about a pattern of behavior rather than anything particular to this circumstance — maybe they do this quite a lot actually, for reasons no more nefarious than wanting the family to look instagram perfect, but they got sloppy, and this one got outsized attention because of the environment it was released into (princess on medical leave). New most boring explanation?
posted by eirias at 1:43 AM on March 19 [9 favorites]
I find this whole thing fascinating. Not because of any interest in the Royal family but of watching conspiracy theories sprout and grow in the absence of information. This one is particularly interesting because it will have a resolution. Kate will re-appear and likely things will go on as normal. Its not like, say, a UFO sighting with blurry photos where "we will never know" and there is no resolution to shut down wild theories.
If so, that's where the former conspiracy theorists split into two camps. One camp accepts that it was a strange episode but the boring explanations were the correct ones all along: She wanted to take some time off from the media and William was ok with it too. The second camp won't let it go and spiral into deeper theories to sustain their belief: Kate has been substituted for a body double for example or she remains a prisoner and we have to look for coded messages of her asking for outside help.
posted by vacapinta at 3:37 AM on March 19 [5 favorites]
If so, that's where the former conspiracy theorists split into two camps. One camp accepts that it was a strange episode but the boring explanations were the correct ones all along: She wanted to take some time off from the media and William was ok with it too. The second camp won't let it go and spiral into deeper theories to sustain their belief: Kate has been substituted for a body double for example or she remains a prisoner and we have to look for coded messages of her asking for outside help.
posted by vacapinta at 3:37 AM on March 19 [5 favorites]
You know, a lot of this stuff is very reminiscent of 1969's "Paul is Dead" nonsense. Turn them on, dead woman!
posted by Paul Slade at 4:30 AM on March 19
posted by Paul Slade at 4:30 AM on March 19
vacapinta, have you ever read When Prophecy Fails? It’s a fast and fun read — a group of social scientists infiltrate some manner of doomsday cult and write about it. Like the most fun social science, the arguments weren’t watertight, but the images stayed with me.
posted by eirias at 4:41 AM on March 19 [2 favorites]
posted by eirias at 4:41 AM on March 19 [2 favorites]
Not because of any interest in the Royal family but of watching conspiracy theories sprout and grow in the absence of information.
Could be useful if you want to spread dis-information during a national election, say. Now we have a list of accounts that will readily share news about Biden's necrophilia.
posted by run"monty at 5:13 AM on March 19
Could be useful if you want to spread dis-information during a national election, say. Now we have a list of accounts that will readily share news about Biden's necrophilia.
posted by run"monty at 5:13 AM on March 19
I just saw a post on Facebook that said approximately 'I'm no detective, but I was looking for a rich middle-aged lady who was tired of her shitty husband, I would at least *ask* Pete Davidson' and I laughed and I laughed.
posted by jacquilynne at 6:15 AM on March 19 [22 favorites]
posted by jacquilynne at 6:15 AM on March 19 [22 favorites]
I couldn't find it yesterday for some reason but today I did find the Sarah Kendzior tweet and it looks like her second claim isn't that the royal family of all people is doing a psyops thing (good, because that would be absolute crank territory), but rather that if one wanted to do a psyops test on a global audience, misinformation about the royal family would be a useful topic to track. I still think that's weird (since when is there any lack of global-interest misinformation topics? What would make this more useful than anything else?) but not totally the "she's gone off the deep end" that I was worried about. (Granted, I don't have a twitter account and can't see any followups she might have made.)
ETA: I checked this because Kendzior has been an influential voice and I figure it's worth knowing about influential voices' biases and position on the reasonable/crank spectrum.
posted by trig at 7:31 AM on March 19 [5 favorites]
ETA: I checked this because Kendzior has been an influential voice and I figure it's worth knowing about influential voices' biases and position on the reasonable/crank spectrum.
posted by trig at 7:31 AM on March 19 [5 favorites]
I personally think "this obviously isn't Kate" and "this could be a really useful psyop to see who bows to authority, which was her follow-up tweet, are pretty much in the deep-end territory. But I've known two people in my personal life who are very smart, whose analysis is often extremely useful and who very occasionally entertain slightly cranky views, so I don't really view that as "now I will never listen to her again". The qualities needed to be critical of media consensus and attuned to little stuff also predispose one to occasional crankishness, just like the qualities needed to be a popular actor or musician can predispose one toward a lot of drama in the personal life, etc.
But I think it's cranky because why would this be a useful "psyop"? It's an absolutely bog-standard "Paul is dead" thing. The people who are engaging with it are engaging in a really different way and with really different standards than people would/do if there were, say, an airborne toxic event in San Diego. Assuming that people are going to interact with a juicy but basically not-affecting-anyone's-life story about Kate Middleton in a way that usefully predicts how they will respond to some kind of elders of Zion stuff or news about a disaster seems to me to get over into sheeple territory - the average person assumed to be unable to distinguish between fun gossip and serious stuff.
And all this stuff is unfalsifiable - "this seems like a dumb way to do an op so it probably isn't one"....well, seeming dumb is all part of the master plan, tenth dimensional chess, etc.
posted by Frowner at 8:00 AM on March 19
But I think it's cranky because why would this be a useful "psyop"? It's an absolutely bog-standard "Paul is dead" thing. The people who are engaging with it are engaging in a really different way and with really different standards than people would/do if there were, say, an airborne toxic event in San Diego. Assuming that people are going to interact with a juicy but basically not-affecting-anyone's-life story about Kate Middleton in a way that usefully predicts how they will respond to some kind of elders of Zion stuff or news about a disaster seems to me to get over into sheeple territory - the average person assumed to be unable to distinguish between fun gossip and serious stuff.
And all this stuff is unfalsifiable - "this seems like a dumb way to do an op so it probably isn't one"....well, seeming dumb is all part of the master plan, tenth dimensional chess, etc.
posted by Frowner at 8:00 AM on March 19
But I think it's cranky because why would this be a useful "psyop"?
Agreed.
I think in her case it might be about how having a hammer makes everything look like a nail.
posted by trig at 8:17 AM on March 19 [1 favorite]
Agreed.
I think in her case it might be about how having a hammer makes everything look like a nail.
posted by trig at 8:17 AM on March 19 [1 favorite]
Well, this was fun while it lasted. I'm almost disappointed that it looks like there was nothing more to it than incompetence. This whole episode could have been avoided had the royals had a media person with the slightest imagination. Can't find good help these days...
posted by Capt. Renault at 8:51 AM on March 19 [2 favorites]
posted by Capt. Renault at 8:51 AM on March 19 [2 favorites]
nothing more to it than incompetence
One of the things I've learned in life is that cock-up's always a more likely explanation than conspiracy.
posted by Paul Slade at 10:44 AM on March 19 [2 favorites]
One of the things I've learned in life is that cock-up's always a more likely explanation than conspiracy.
posted by Paul Slade at 10:44 AM on March 19 [2 favorites]
But I think it's cranky because why would this be a useful "psyop"?
It's useful for a psyop. A proven vector for spreading BS.
posted by run"monty at 10:55 AM on March 19
It's useful for a psyop. A proven vector for spreading BS.
posted by run"monty at 10:55 AM on March 19
At this point I feel incompetent to tell if that video is Kate or "Kate" or not. It looks like her for a few seconds on the video, but freeze-frames on her face clearly look like it's a softer-faced-edged individual and Kate tends to have pointy features. The video has been verified with metadata so we have to go with "not 'shopped" on it now, but at this point I now feel incompetent to identify a woman I've seen in 9 billion photos over the years.
Again: why are all these photos/video at a distance, why is the video grainy, etc., and why couldn't they just do a normal photo/video at home? Why did they have to do so many alterations on the Mother's Day photo? Those questions remain, and also if Kate is up and perky enough to stroll around a shop holding a bag, is she still unable to, I dunno, go to Easter services and we can't confirm her for that June event? And also, the difference between this chick and the one in the first car shot...I'M CONFUSED NOW.
posted by jenfullmoon at 11:33 AM on March 19 [4 favorites]
Again: why are all these photos/video at a distance, why is the video grainy, etc., and why couldn't they just do a normal photo/video at home? Why did they have to do so many alterations on the Mother's Day photo? Those questions remain, and also if Kate is up and perky enough to stroll around a shop holding a bag, is she still unable to, I dunno, go to Easter services and we can't confirm her for that June event? And also, the difference between this chick and the one in the first car shot...I'M CONFUSED NOW.
posted by jenfullmoon at 11:33 AM on March 19 [4 favorites]
The RF are now advertising for a Communications Assistant 😂
posted by ellieBOA at 11:40 AM on March 19 [14 favorites]
posted by ellieBOA at 11:40 AM on March 19 [14 favorites]
For a glorious 25,000 pounds/$31,000 a year, no less! Granted, I imagine you can't get that type of job unless your name is Clarissa Cork-Nethersole and your family has a Georgian house in Kent and a townhouse in Belgravia so that won't matter much, but still.
posted by Frowner at 12:35 PM on March 19 [5 favorites]
posted by Frowner at 12:35 PM on March 19 [5 favorites]
Kate's standard makeup is pretty heavy and she looks quite different without it (here's another one). In fact, I'd say the ski photo is a good match for the car shot where her face looks rounder than usual, and the other photo is a good match for the video where her features are a bit less angular.
posted by 0xFCAF at 1:14 PM on March 19
posted by 0xFCAF at 1:14 PM on March 19
If the men find out we can shape-shift, they're going to tell the Church
posted by flabdablet at 4:50 PM on March 19 [9 favorites]
posted by flabdablet at 4:50 PM on March 19 [9 favorites]
AND SO MUCH FOR MEDICAL PRIVACY (Daily Beast). Now I'm thinking of that nurse who killed herself.
Staff at the exclusive private hospital where Princess Kate Middleton underwent abdominal surgery in January are investigating claims staff attempted to access her private medical records. The shock revelation is likely to be particularly disturbing to William and Kate as after her first child was born, a nurse at the hospital she was being treated at committed suicide after connecting two Australian radio show hosts pretending to be the late Queen Elizabeth and her son to another nurse who gave out information about Kate. The Mirror says that “at least one member of staff was said to have been caught trying to access” Kate’s notes while she was at the London Clinic. An insider said that Kate’s office at Kensington Palace had been alerted, adding, “The whole medical staff have been left utterly shocked and distraught over the allegations and were very hurt that a trusted colleague could have allegedly been responsible for such a breach of trust and ethics.” A spokesperson for Kate told The Daily Beast: “This is a matter for The London Clinic.”posted by jenfullmoon at 8:59 PM on March 19
After endorsing yesterday's Kate Spotting video, TMZ live is now walking back their judgement on the credibility of the video due to concerns with several inconsistencies. Following further analysis, they say, it's especially the woman in the footage that has since raised questions.
"Fake Middleton."
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:48 PM on March 19
"Fake Middleton."
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:48 PM on March 19
I think this is the actual TMZ "I don't think it's her" video.
posted by jenfullmoon at 11:05 PM on March 19
posted by jenfullmoon at 11:05 PM on March 19
Its an epic battle is it not? In the left corner we have the conspiracy theorists who make it their business to concoct... conspiracy theories. And, in the right, we have the PR people whose job is to conspire.
posted by rongorongo at 5:19 AM on March 20
posted by rongorongo at 5:19 AM on March 20
Why is the TMZ video so blurry? Every picture of Middleton has been in 4k, then TMZ gives us early 2000’s era video? Make it make sense.
posted by edithkeeler at 6:01 AM on March 20 [1 favorite]
posted by edithkeeler at 6:01 AM on March 20 [1 favorite]
God, I hate that I actually have an opinion on this. I want to believe that's her. 99% likely it IS her, the palace would be insanely idiotic to try to pass off a lookalike in this way.
But...while the woman physically resembles Kate, my brain can't reconcile the way she moves with the way Kate usually moves. Maybe that's just a result of healing from surgery. The other thing I find weird is that almost no one in the background is looking at them as they walk past. I get it that this is close to their home and people are probably used to seeing them and give them privacy, but she's currently the focus of intense media and social media speculation, you'd think people would at least be turning their heads.
I don't know. It is just so weird. If she looks this normal and they're just sending her out for a couple of pap walks/drives as proof of life, why is every single one (and we have what, three sightings plus the Mother's Day photo) so problematic (grainy, blurry, photoshopped)?
posted by Preserver at 6:46 AM on March 20 [5 favorites]
But...while the woman physically resembles Kate, my brain can't reconcile the way she moves with the way Kate usually moves. Maybe that's just a result of healing from surgery. The other thing I find weird is that almost no one in the background is looking at them as they walk past. I get it that this is close to their home and people are probably used to seeing them and give them privacy, but she's currently the focus of intense media and social media speculation, you'd think people would at least be turning their heads.
I don't know. It is just so weird. If she looks this normal and they're just sending her out for a couple of pap walks/drives as proof of life, why is every single one (and we have what, three sightings plus the Mother's Day photo) so problematic (grainy, blurry, photoshopped)?
posted by Preserver at 6:46 AM on March 20 [5 favorites]
So if this video isn't of Kate, there are only three realistic possibilities:
1. The video is totally a fake - it's AI, it's someone who looks like William with someone who looks like Kate at the farm store but not them, etc. This means either that it was leaked without Palace permission but they haven't wanted to disavow it for unclear reasons, or, even in the wake of the photo fiasco, they decided that distributing a poor-quality video would be good somehow.
2. William is wandering around the farm store with someone who looks like Kate but who is not an impersonator - Lady Cholmondeley or a Kate-esque rando - and the video was not intended to be public but the Palace has decided to pretend that the video is of Kate. This seems like absolute madness. If you were William, why would you go out in public, especially to this location, with either your putative affair-partner or a Kate-alike just for funsies while everyone is speculating madly about where Kate is? If you did have a good reason - this is Kate's long-lost cousin or something - why not make that public?
3. William is wandering around the farm store with a Kate impersonator and the leak was planned. Again, that seems like absolute madness given the level of scrutiny that all images of Kate are now under and given what must be an incredible temptation to talk on the part of everyone who saw them. If you or I can tell that it's not Kate in a low-quality video, the farm-store staff can tell up close, and so can any passers-by, and if actual trained medical staff can't keep their little paddy-paws off Kate's private medical records, the Palace would have to be utter fools to think they could guarantee that no one would talk.
I find it very difficult to believe any of these because they all rely on people thinking "we've just had a huge scandal about a fake photo, let's release some misleading video and hope no one figures that out and no one with information talks". The most economical explanation is that this is a video of Kate, she's up and around after surgery and she looks different because she's not wearing much makeup and has lost weight around the face.
You can get all the way over into unfalsifiable territory with some kind of "well actually Kate is DEAD and they think it's better to have a scandal over the video while they line up a permanent fake Kate" or something but that's really getting us into how-do-we-know-anything-is-real territory.
posted by Frowner at 7:04 AM on March 20 [4 favorites]
1. The video is totally a fake - it's AI, it's someone who looks like William with someone who looks like Kate at the farm store but not them, etc. This means either that it was leaked without Palace permission but they haven't wanted to disavow it for unclear reasons, or, even in the wake of the photo fiasco, they decided that distributing a poor-quality video would be good somehow.
2. William is wandering around the farm store with someone who looks like Kate but who is not an impersonator - Lady Cholmondeley or a Kate-esque rando - and the video was not intended to be public but the Palace has decided to pretend that the video is of Kate. This seems like absolute madness. If you were William, why would you go out in public, especially to this location, with either your putative affair-partner or a Kate-alike just for funsies while everyone is speculating madly about where Kate is? If you did have a good reason - this is Kate's long-lost cousin or something - why not make that public?
3. William is wandering around the farm store with a Kate impersonator and the leak was planned. Again, that seems like absolute madness given the level of scrutiny that all images of Kate are now under and given what must be an incredible temptation to talk on the part of everyone who saw them. If you or I can tell that it's not Kate in a low-quality video, the farm-store staff can tell up close, and so can any passers-by, and if actual trained medical staff can't keep their little paddy-paws off Kate's private medical records, the Palace would have to be utter fools to think they could guarantee that no one would talk.
I find it very difficult to believe any of these because they all rely on people thinking "we've just had a huge scandal about a fake photo, let's release some misleading video and hope no one figures that out and no one with information talks". The most economical explanation is that this is a video of Kate, she's up and around after surgery and she looks different because she's not wearing much makeup and has lost weight around the face.
You can get all the way over into unfalsifiable territory with some kind of "well actually Kate is DEAD and they think it's better to have a scandal over the video while they line up a permanent fake Kate" or something but that's really getting us into how-do-we-know-anything-is-real territory.
posted by Frowner at 7:04 AM on March 20 [4 favorites]
It’s like the “Biden is senile/Biden is deep state” conundrum. The palace PR is mismanaged and incompetent/The palace PR found one or two impersonators, depended on or bribed the farm shop employees not to notice or call the newspapers, depended on a video just grainy enough to mask the truth. Of course it could have been Pippa.
posted by TWinbrook8 at 7:21 AM on March 20 [1 favorite]
posted by TWinbrook8 at 7:21 AM on March 20 [1 favorite]
I think the real issue here is that the KP employees and William are legitimately this dumb to think they can "get away with" *any of this.*
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:19 AM on March 20 [3 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:19 AM on March 20 [3 favorites]
Why is the TMZ video so blurry? Every picture of Middleton has been in 4k, then TMZ gives us early 2000’s era video? Make it make sense.
This by itself is one of the least weird things to me: covert photography/videography is done at range so you don't get caught doing it. And if you're shooting at range and aren't using huge telephoto lenses to compensate (because, e.g., the people who are going to rumble you for taking photos/video will notice a huge fucking lens), you're gonna get shit focus and resolution for the small portion of the image you're cropping to.
People don't do portraiture from several hundred yards away hiding in a bush.
posted by cortex at 8:27 AM on March 20 [2 favorites]
This by itself is one of the least weird things to me: covert photography/videography is done at range so you don't get caught doing it. And if you're shooting at range and aren't using huge telephoto lenses to compensate (because, e.g., the people who are going to rumble you for taking photos/video will notice a huge fucking lens), you're gonna get shit focus and resolution for the small portion of the image you're cropping to.
People don't do portraiture from several hundred yards away hiding in a bush.
posted by cortex at 8:27 AM on March 20 [2 favorites]
Which just comes back to "why not have a staffer do a brief photo/video session that isn't a fucking paparazzi mess" which brings us right back to conspiracy theories vs. incompetence/stubbornness.
posted by cortex at 8:28 AM on March 20 [4 favorites]
posted by cortex at 8:28 AM on March 20 [4 favorites]
Monica Hesse, Washington Post: Why is the Royal Family So Bad at This?
The Kate Middleton saga has revealed something about the post-Elizabeth royals (WaPo gift link)
posted by obloquy at 8:40 AM on March 20 [1 favorite]
The Kate Middleton saga has revealed something about the post-Elizabeth royals (WaPo gift link)
posted by obloquy at 8:40 AM on March 20 [1 favorite]
If I were a public figure who had said, "I'm having surgery, please leave me alone for a while" and then everyone started champing at the bit and demanding photo sessions and pretending I had been murdered, mere stubbornness would cause me to say, "It's already chaos, I'm going to enjoy a few more days of relative privacy until I'm really 100%". It's like if people pester you when you're supposed to be fully disconnected on vacation; it does not inspire you to fall all over yourself getting back to them.
I mean, this whole thing really just seems like poor PR decision-making up front coupled with throwing up one's hands and just accepting the chaos, probably somewhat exacerbated by the whole "the queen died recently and now William's father has cancer" thing. I definitely don't expect the very wealthy and famous to have the same reactions to stressors that I would have, but I expect them to react in some kind of a way.
posted by Frowner at 8:43 AM on March 20 [6 favorites]
I mean, this whole thing really just seems like poor PR decision-making up front coupled with throwing up one's hands and just accepting the chaos, probably somewhat exacerbated by the whole "the queen died recently and now William's father has cancer" thing. I definitely don't expect the very wealthy and famous to have the same reactions to stressors that I would have, but I expect them to react in some kind of a way.
posted by Frowner at 8:43 AM on March 20 [6 favorites]
I linked it above, but: is this a usual thing, that they'd shop at the royals' own farm store?
posted by Iris Gambol at 9:12 AM on March 20
posted by Iris Gambol at 9:12 AM on March 20
It doesn't help the situation that Royal Farms means something different stateside.
(Wawa is better.)
/derail
posted by emelenjr at 9:29 AM on March 20 [1 favorite]
(Wawa is better.)
/derail
posted by emelenjr at 9:29 AM on March 20 [1 favorite]
- Reuters is updating its vetting process for palace-issued manipulated photos
- Also, no, the Sussexes still haven't altered any photos. "A load of cobblers!"
- "Asked if the reality was that the palace would have little choice now that major picture agencies have said they no longer regard Kensington Palace as a trusted source, the former staffer said: “They could continue to put her pictures out on social media but the point is, they won’t.”
- Kate Middleton, Britney Spears and the Online Trolls Doubting Their Existence Whether it is just for kicks or propelled by genuine doubt, the unsupported claims about celebrities and public figures keep gaining traction online.
- How the Windsor Women Became Human Shields
Why do Windsor women so consistently come in for this kind of treatment? Start with the fact that the royals don’t actually rule Britannia, or anything else. Think of them as a family business that doesn’t make anything except babies and the case for British taxpayers to keep them around. Royals and their spouses have to prove, daily, that the monarchy is giving taxpayers value for their money; that kings and queens and lords and ladies are useful symbols, avatars of the nation’s character; that they are honest, steadfast and true.WaPo: Why is the royal family so bad at this? The Kate Middleton saga has revealed something about the post-Elizabeth royals
In this system, the monarch is the most important. Male relatives are heirs or spares. The women have historically served as a combination of brood mares and mannequins. Their job is to stay thin, say little, look good in clothes, and produce heirs who will stay thin, say little and look good in clothes.
If something threatens the reputation of a more senior, male Windsor, the women have another essential role: human shield.
How have the Windsors, whose entire job is really optics, managed to be so terrible at optics?There is an argument to be made that the royal family, despite their centuries of practice, has no idea how to be famous. At least, not modernly famous.Honestly, why I'm so into watching The Windsors as if they are reality television (or a silly sitcom, I watched that too) is that the born-ins tend to be people who seem to have no charisma or interest in fame and always give the impression that they'd rather be playing with dogs, horses or gardens... but get SUPER PISSED OFF if anyone else, i.e. someone who marries in, gets more attention than they do. Then HOO BOY DO THEY START FLINGING POO. It's such a bizarre reaction and I agree that this family, who has been reality TV long before reality TV existed, to this day has no clue as to how to handle anything. If they could just reproduce without having to allow in-laws into the family, darn it, everything would be fine! (Cue incest jokes here.)
When Queen Elizabeth II was crowned in 1953, fame was a different thing. Heads of state were expected to have private lives. The lung cancer that took Elizabeth’s father, George VI, was so closely guarded that his death shocked the nation, which hadn’t even realized he was very sick. And then the queen reigned for 70 years, and the social mores surrounding her changed but the social mores applied to her — the ones about her own health privacy — did not. A posthumous biography, set to be published next month, reports that Elizabeth, too, had been battling cancer, myeloma, for years before her death, and nobody knew. She had managed to carry a 1950s protocol for fame all the way into the 2020s.
But by the time she died, we were living a tin-foil-hat, anti-vax, lizard-people, flaming-dumpster world, very different from 1952, and the royal family is still operating as if they live in a world in which the public will believe them when they couch something medical as routine or planned. What the debacle has revealed, on a grander scale, is that the royal family has lost control of the narrative and they do not know how to get it back. Theirs is an ancient brand built on mystery rather than disclosure, sympathy rather than empathy, being among the people but not regular folks.
It would have been the common thing to do. But it would not have been the royal thing to do. It might remove the mystery of where she had been, but it would also remove the mystique of the monarchy. And that is what the current state of affairs has revealed: The royals can’t continue to behave like royals if they want to be trusted.
But once they start behaving like commoners, what’s the point of them anyway?
Kate has previously been the one prominent in-law who hasn't gotten as much of the poo treatment since marriage, because she generally isn't outshining William, keeps herself bland in public, doesn't speak a lot, doesn't work a lot, etc. Unfortunately this whole thing has now made her The Target and yes, it's ironic that her disappearance has made her outshine William and get all the attention. That puts her in an incredibly dangerous place. Camilla seems to be the only one who's gotten out of target territory, mostly by well, not outshining, staying bland in public, etc. (and maybe people are just tired of her by now too).
But seriously, they just have no idea what to do when Kate is currently looking facially unattractive and/or unwilling to be photographed, or just plain AWOL right now. The body doubles are just getting more ridiculous. I get that good people probably don't want to work for KP and people who won't listen to them anyway, but seriously, at this point we're all just sitting with popcorn waiting for the next ridiculous move to happen now.
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:28 AM on March 20 [5 favorites]
Does Monica Hesse Washington Post not remember how the not-yet-post Elizabeth handled Diana’s death (“Show us you care, Ma’am” for a full week)? That was the nadir of palace PR. This is the silly season.
posted by TWinbrook8 at 10:33 AM on March 20
posted by TWinbrook8 at 10:33 AM on March 20
“I can’t believe the royals have been allowed to exist this long” - loved this hilarious and true take on TikTok by journalist Melanie Hamlett.
posted by edithkeeler at 11:00 AM on March 20
posted by edithkeeler at 11:00 AM on March 20
Such a saga. That Mother's Day photo's one job was to show a recuperating Kate, thus drawing positive attention to the English Windsors.
posted by Iris Gambol at 1:58 PM on March 20
posted by Iris Gambol at 1:58 PM on March 20
Meredith Constant has a lot of interesting things to say of late. Especially about what the palace has done.
posted by jenfullmoon at 1:59 PM on March 20
posted by jenfullmoon at 1:59 PM on March 20
Camilla seems to be the only one who's gotten out of target territory, mostly by well, not outshining, staying bland in public, etc. (and maybe people are just tired of her by now too).
If what I have read is even remotely true, Camilla has gotten out of target territory by throwing everyone else under the bus.
The whole thing is utterly fascinating because of how poorly the situation has been managed by the one organization (so to speak) that I expect to have this shit completed locked down.
And Sheetz forever.
posted by theBigRedKittyPurrs at 5:48 PM on March 20 [1 favorite]
If what I have read is even remotely true, Camilla has gotten out of target territory by throwing everyone else under the bus.
The whole thing is utterly fascinating because of how poorly the situation has been managed by the one organization (so to speak) that I expect to have this shit completed locked down.
And Sheetz forever.
posted by theBigRedKittyPurrs at 5:48 PM on March 20 [1 favorite]
Camilla's played a long game ruthlessly well. There are essentially three camps at the top now: Buckingham Palace (Charles III), Kensington Palace (Will & Kate), & Ray Mill House (Camilla). (Harry didn't realize that sharing the Kensington Palace team with his brother was a horrible mistake until it was too late.) All three have their own agendas and media relationships. But Camilla's the only one whose inside press contacts are also loyal personal friends. Her sole job for decades was to somehow get the public to not hate her enough that she could eventually get to where she is now, and her carefully cultivated inner circle has been instrumental in making that happen.
I don't even know if she ever really even wanted to be queen, but Charles surely wanted her to be. Sad the two of them had to ultimately feed both her stepsons to the wolves to accomplish it, but surviving as a monarch is apparently as much a cold-blooded business in the 21st century as it ever was.
As for the palaces, it doesn't matter if your management team is the best other people's money can buy if there's just one petulant asshole at the very top making or vetoing all the decisions.
posted by obloquy at 6:45 PM on March 20 [8 favorites]
I don't even know if she ever really even wanted to be queen, but Charles surely wanted her to be. Sad the two of them had to ultimately feed both her stepsons to the wolves to accomplish it, but surviving as a monarch is apparently as much a cold-blooded business in the 21st century as it ever was.
As for the palaces, it doesn't matter if your management team is the best other people's money can buy if there's just one petulant asshole at the very top making or vetoing all the decisions.
posted by obloquy at 6:45 PM on March 20 [8 favorites]
From Bluesky: Ellie Hall @ellievhall.bsky.social
New royal story dropping tomorrow…
posted by MonkeyToes at 7:48 PM on March 20 [4 favorites]
New royal story dropping tomorrow…
posted by MonkeyToes at 7:48 PM on March 20 [4 favorites]
Still waiting, ellie!
You Can’t Use AI to ‘Zoom and Enhance’ That Grainy Photo of Kate Middleton
Public Relations Pros Are Spilling Alllll Their Thoughts On The Kate Middleton Situation, And I'm Somehow More Intrigued Than Ever
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:47 AM on March 21 [1 favorite]
You Can’t Use AI to ‘Zoom and Enhance’ That Grainy Photo of Kate Middleton
Public Relations Pros Are Spilling Alllll Their Thoughts On The Kate Middleton Situation, And I'm Somehow More Intrigued Than Ever
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:47 AM on March 21 [1 favorite]
It seems to me that all of this has to fall on the King and his poor leadership of the family and parenting. Being head of the family and ultimately responsible for the fate of brand Windsor are his only real jobs. If I were in his place I would absolutely be calling a family meeting among the working royals and laying down the law withe their private secretaries to put a stop to this. It should be a basic rule that any staff dishing any dirt on any member of the family is fired immediately and that they all should adopt a rule of speak no evil of the royals. That if you want any of the benefits of being a working royal you are going to have to live under those kind of rules.
I don't know what he can do to fix the decades of bad parenting decisions that seem to have made it impossible for him to repair the rift between his adult sons. My advice would be for him to start by bringing them together with him for some extended private together time in hopes that they might find someway to repair all this in the years he has left.
posted by interogative mood at 10:46 AM on March 21 [1 favorite]
I don't know what he can do to fix the decades of bad parenting decisions that seem to have made it impossible for him to repair the rift between his adult sons. My advice would be for him to start by bringing them together with him for some extended private together time in hopes that they might find someway to repair all this in the years he has left.
posted by interogative mood at 10:46 AM on March 21 [1 favorite]
Still waiting, ellie!
Maybe she meant this story? From the Telegraph, archive link as they have a strong paywall.
posted by ellieBOA at 11:25 AM on March 21
Maybe she meant this story? From the Telegraph, archive link as they have a strong paywall.
posted by ellieBOA at 11:25 AM on March 21
I found another Telegraph story with new info:
The Princess of Wales has been working from home on her early years project to improve the lives of babies, as she eases back into normal life after her abdominal surgery.
posted by ellieBOA at 11:45 AM on March 21
The Princess of Wales has been working from home on her early years project to improve the lives of babies, as she eases back into normal life after her abdominal surgery.
posted by ellieBOA at 11:45 AM on March 21
Sorry, ellieBOA, I was thinking of the Ellie reporter who wrote the original NiemanLabs article that said she was going to post something today! (Looks like that hasn't happened yet?)
posted by jenfullmoon at 12:37 PM on March 21
posted by jenfullmoon at 12:37 PM on March 21
Rose Hanbury, Marchioness of Cholmondeley, Accused of Possessing Looted Chinese Artifacts. People in China looked a little too closely at this photoshoot of the Marquis and Marchioness of Cholmondeley in their gorgeous stately home, and noticed that it’s full of authentic Chinese furniture and artefacts that were stolen from China during the fall of the Qing dynasty, and they are pissed.
posted by 1970s Antihero at 6:55 AM on March 22 [6 favorites]
posted by 1970s Antihero at 6:55 AM on March 22 [6 favorites]
Wait wait wait
It’s unclear where exactly each piece of furniture in Houghton Hall came from, though some were acquired by the Victoria and Albert Museum in 2002 to be conserved in situ.
Apparently this means ‘state institution gives us money for our stuff but then we keep it’.
posted by bq at 7:02 AM on March 22 [2 favorites]
It’s unclear where exactly each piece of furniture in Houghton Hall came from, though some were acquired by the Victoria and Albert Museum in 2002 to be conserved in situ.
Apparently this means ‘state institution gives us money for our stuff but then we keep it’.
posted by bq at 7:02 AM on March 22 [2 favorites]
That’s some headline from TIME, seeings that she married into the family and it was her husband’s ancestors who -acquired- the antiques, whether by stealing or purchasing, but let’s assume the worse! Of course I’m so old I remember reading about the Cultural Revolution when Red Guards condemned the Four Olds and smashed and burned anything belonging to class enemies.
posted by TWinbrook8 at 8:17 AM on March 22
posted by TWinbrook8 at 8:17 AM on March 22
It was cancer all along. Terrible news for her and her family.
posted by interogative mood at 11:06 AM on March 22 [6 favorites]
posted by interogative mood at 11:06 AM on March 22 [6 favorites]
Full Guardian article.
As someone who was in a similar situation in January but thankfully got a clear histopathology report, I have nothing but sympathy for her right now. When things are borderline, doctors might send samples to additional histopathology labs, and the timing for William pulling out of the funeral might line up with getting the supplemental results and confirmation. I know I was useless for a couple of days after getting my clear report because of the sheer relief - getting the reverse news is exponentially more stressful.
(I also saw so many marvels of reproductive system oncology in the hospital. Best wishes to her and if it's early, she does have near-certainty of being all right in the end.)
posted by I claim sanctuary at 11:16 AM on March 22 [6 favorites]
As someone who was in a similar situation in January but thankfully got a clear histopathology report, I have nothing but sympathy for her right now. When things are borderline, doctors might send samples to additional histopathology labs, and the timing for William pulling out of the funeral might line up with getting the supplemental results and confirmation. I know I was useless for a couple of days after getting my clear report because of the sheer relief - getting the reverse news is exponentially more stressful.
(I also saw so many marvels of reproductive system oncology in the hospital. Best wishes to her and if it's early, she does have near-certainty of being all right in the end.)
posted by I claim sanctuary at 11:16 AM on March 22 [6 favorites]
Congratulations to all of you who were ghouls munching popcorn or sure you were entitled to all her private health information as the price of your not engaging in wild conspiracy theories.
posted by praemunire at 11:28 AM on March 22 [6 favorites]
posted by praemunire at 11:28 AM on March 22 [6 favorites]
(Could be pancreatic cancer, which would be worse; I truly hope not.)
posted by praemunire at 11:28 AM on March 22
posted by praemunire at 11:28 AM on March 22
Came here when the news alert popped up on this. I am also a recent cancer survivor and all of this tracks with my experience: I had to wait a few weeks after my initial surgery to find out my lymph nodes were clear and wouldn't have to go through radiation or chemo.
At one point in my "cancer journey" there was a question about whether an anomaly on my liver was cancerous. Endometrial/uterine cancer is 99% survivable at 5 years when caught early; liver cancer is about 36% at 5 years. I was pretty useless while I was waiting for the results of the tests there even though I knew it was highly likely not to be cancer (we had another candidate, which we already knew was part of my medical profile). I'm not surprised they've all been acting erratically.
Good luck to the princess and her family. (And I hope having seen the results of this stress test on their PR people, they reconsider their strategies when she's recovered.)
posted by gentlyepigrams at 11:33 AM on March 22 [6 favorites]
At one point in my "cancer journey" there was a question about whether an anomaly on my liver was cancerous. Endometrial/uterine cancer is 99% survivable at 5 years when caught early; liver cancer is about 36% at 5 years. I was pretty useless while I was waiting for the results of the tests there even though I knew it was highly likely not to be cancer (we had another candidate, which we already knew was part of my medical profile). I'm not surprised they've all been acting erratically.
Good luck to the princess and her family. (And I hope having seen the results of this stress test on their PR people, they reconsider their strategies when she's recovered.)
posted by gentlyepigrams at 11:33 AM on March 22 [6 favorites]
It was cancer all along. Terrible news for her and her family.
Seconded. There's no other way to say it: it's legimitately terrible news for her and her whole family. Those poor people, and yes, poor Prince William, whatever his position or personality, he now has his father and wife battling cancer at the same time with three young children to care for. Even while everyone was clowning around online, I had a sneaking suspicion that something very bad was going on.
posted by fortitude25 at 11:52 AM on March 22 [3 favorites]
Seconded. There's no other way to say it: it's legimitately terrible news for her and her whole family. Those poor people, and yes, poor Prince William, whatever his position or personality, he now has his father and wife battling cancer at the same time with three young children to care for. Even while everyone was clowning around online, I had a sneaking suspicion that something very bad was going on.
posted by fortitude25 at 11:52 AM on March 22 [3 favorites]
Awful news.
Hope some sections of the public feel shame about how they've behaved the last few weeks.
posted by Klipspringer at 11:57 AM on March 22
Hope some sections of the public feel shame about how they've behaved the last few weeks.
posted by Klipspringer at 11:57 AM on March 22
Even while everyone was clowning around online, I had a sneaking suspicion that something very bad was going on.
Much of what you're calling "clowning around" was in fact folks voicing their "sneaking suspicion that something very bad was going on."
Congratulations to all of you who were ghouls munching popcorn or sure you were entitled to all her private health information as the price of your not engaging in wild conspiracy theories.
This kind of broadband attack is unfair. Nothing about the announcement that Middleton has cancer excuses the Palace's release of doctored photos that lied about Kate's appearance and health, and folks around the world were hardly "ghouls' to point out the fundamental dishonesty of the Royal Apparatus throughout this affair, which was deeply stupid and fanned the fires of speculation. The British public that financially supports Middleton and her family in their amazingly privileged lifestyle deserved much, much better, and the rest of us who were wondering what the fuck the Palace was up to in its idiocy do not suddenly become ghouls now that our suspicions that something was off have come true.
posted by mediareport at 12:01 PM on March 22 [37 favorites]
Much of what you're calling "clowning around" was in fact folks voicing their "sneaking suspicion that something very bad was going on."
Congratulations to all of you who were ghouls munching popcorn or sure you were entitled to all her private health information as the price of your not engaging in wild conspiracy theories.
This kind of broadband attack is unfair. Nothing about the announcement that Middleton has cancer excuses the Palace's release of doctored photos that lied about Kate's appearance and health, and folks around the world were hardly "ghouls' to point out the fundamental dishonesty of the Royal Apparatus throughout this affair, which was deeply stupid and fanned the fires of speculation. The British public that financially supports Middleton and her family in their amazingly privileged lifestyle deserved much, much better, and the rest of us who were wondering what the fuck the Palace was up to in its idiocy do not suddenly become ghouls now that our suspicions that something was off have come true.
posted by mediareport at 12:01 PM on March 22 [37 favorites]
mediareport thank you for saying what I was thinking.
posted by marxchivist at 12:04 PM on March 22 [4 favorites]
posted by marxchivist at 12:04 PM on March 22 [4 favorites]
I wonder if this clusterfuck was engendered by the kind of aristocratic functionaries who are old enough to believe that cancer is shameful because it's caused by your personality, something you did wrong, or just genetic unworthiness. This used to be pretty commonplace. King Charles can say what he pleases, but Kate's not him, and he wasn't sick in bed, at least not like this.
It's possible, of course, that an ordinary desire to make sure something's Not a Thing snowballed to where it is very much a Thing. That happens to everybody. I really do feel sorry for her, in any case.
posted by Countess Elena at 12:26 PM on March 22 [5 favorites]
It's possible, of course, that an ordinary desire to make sure something's Not a Thing snowballed to where it is very much a Thing. That happens to everybody. I really do feel sorry for her, in any case.
posted by Countess Elena at 12:26 PM on March 22 [5 favorites]
I'm out right now and just found out, holy crap. I'm really sorry it was this bad of news.
posted by jenfullmoon at 12:27 PM on March 22 [6 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 12:27 PM on March 22 [6 favorites]
and the timing for William pulling out of the funeral might line up with getting the supplemental results and confirmation.
She started chemo in February, so it seems likely that that it was related (he pulled out on 27th Feb).
The British public that financially supports Middleton and her family in their amazingly privileged lifestyle deserved much, much better,
My employer pays me, and if I had cancer they have the right to diddly-squat information about my treatment. They certainly don't get to broadcast those details in the company newsletter.
Plus this attitude smacks of the same shitty attitude that teachers, council workers and other public sector employees get all the damn time 'because *I* pay your salary'.
You can want to dismantle the entire royal family as an anti-democratic barnacle on the state (please!) but that doesn't mean we have to throw away all human decency for a woman - who was a commoner until she married into the whole fucking mad circus - wanting privacy during a nasty medical crisis, *especially* since they wanted to break it to their young children when they weren't at school and have headlines everywhere and no doubt discussed in the schoolyard. Louis is 5, FFS.
The photo was absolutely a botched idea, but given the jackal press and the rampant public conspiracy theories I can understand the desire to at least try and show she wasn't like, dead, or run away because her husband had an affair or any of the other 100 theories that have been running around. And don't forget the last moments of William's mother's life were the paparazzi crawling over the car trying to take snaps of her dying, which would make anyone not a fan of the press.
posted by Absolutely No You-Know-What at 12:31 PM on March 22 [5 favorites]
She started chemo in February, so it seems likely that that it was related (he pulled out on 27th Feb).
The British public that financially supports Middleton and her family in their amazingly privileged lifestyle deserved much, much better,
My employer pays me, and if I had cancer they have the right to diddly-squat information about my treatment. They certainly don't get to broadcast those details in the company newsletter.
Plus this attitude smacks of the same shitty attitude that teachers, council workers and other public sector employees get all the damn time 'because *I* pay your salary'.
You can want to dismantle the entire royal family as an anti-democratic barnacle on the state (please!) but that doesn't mean we have to throw away all human decency for a woman - who was a commoner until she married into the whole fucking mad circus - wanting privacy during a nasty medical crisis, *especially* since they wanted to break it to their young children when they weren't at school and have headlines everywhere and no doubt discussed in the schoolyard. Louis is 5, FFS.
The photo was absolutely a botched idea, but given the jackal press and the rampant public conspiracy theories I can understand the desire to at least try and show she wasn't like, dead, or run away because her husband had an affair or any of the other 100 theories that have been running around. And don't forget the last moments of William's mother's life were the paparazzi crawling over the car trying to take snaps of her dying, which would make anyone not a fan of the press.
posted by Absolutely No You-Know-What at 12:31 PM on March 22 [5 favorites]
Much of what you're calling "clowning around" was in fact folks voicing their "sneaking suspicion that something very bad was going on."
It's possible to have suspicions that something bad is going on, but to still choose to not add to speculations about what that something bad might be.
I mean, I heard about all of this too, and I had the same thoughts that "there's probably some shit going down," but I simply.....didn't contribute to the conversation, because what would that achieve aside from perpetuating a rumormill?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:31 PM on March 22 [2 favorites]
It's possible to have suspicions that something bad is going on, but to still choose to not add to speculations about what that something bad might be.
I mean, I heard about all of this too, and I had the same thoughts that "there's probably some shit going down," but I simply.....didn't contribute to the conversation, because what would that achieve aside from perpetuating a rumormill?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:31 PM on March 22 [2 favorites]
Poor Kate, I hope the treatment goes well.
posted by ellieBOA at 12:45 PM on March 22 [1 favorite]
posted by ellieBOA at 12:45 PM on March 22 [1 favorite]
Do not compare the royals to teachers and public servants. In their view it is quite the opposite. The citizens of the commonwealth are their subjects. It is the Royal mail, the Royal Navy, his majesty’s government, etc. You bow to them, not the other way around.
posted by interogative mood at 12:50 PM on March 22 [1 favorite]
posted by interogative mood at 12:50 PM on March 22 [1 favorite]
Nothing about the announcement that Middleton has cancer excuses the Palace's release of doctored photos that lied about Kate's appearance and health
It's all about ethics in royal journalism! Sure!
If adults haven't already learned the floor of basic decency owed to any other human, even someone who happened to marry into the English royal family, they're not going to learn it arguing with me on Mefi. But you're not fooling anyone about your motives.
posted by praemunire at 1:24 PM on March 22 [1 favorite]
It's all about ethics in royal journalism! Sure!
If adults haven't already learned the floor of basic decency owed to any other human, even someone who happened to marry into the English royal family, they're not going to learn it arguing with me on Mefi. But you're not fooling anyone about your motives.
posted by praemunire at 1:24 PM on March 22 [1 favorite]
It's all about ethics in royal journalism! Sure!
Actually, this time it is. Tell me honestly, what do you think the odds are that if it were Meghan Markle who got diagnosed with cancer that it wouldn't be played for jokes on the pages of The Sun (an official member of the Royal Rota)? I'd say better than even.
posted by tclark at 1:49 PM on March 22 [1 favorite]
Actually, this time it is. Tell me honestly, what do you think the odds are that if it were Meghan Markle who got diagnosed with cancer that it wouldn't be played for jokes on the pages of The Sun (an official member of the Royal Rota)? I'd say better than even.
posted by tclark at 1:49 PM on March 22 [1 favorite]
And to be abundantly clear, I'm not in any way saying that the British press should be treating Kate the same way they've treated Harry and Meghan for years. I'm saying maybe this would've not been such a clusterfuck had the press treated Harry and Meghan a bit more like they're treating Kate now.
It's all about ethics in royal journalism. I know you were trying to make a fun joke about gamergate, but the joke is that royal journalism has no ethics, so paint speculative folks on mefi as ghouls all you want, but they're not the ghouls you should be after.
posted by tclark at 1:53 PM on March 22 [2 favorites]
It's all about ethics in royal journalism. I know you were trying to make a fun joke about gamergate, but the joke is that royal journalism has no ethics, so paint speculative folks on mefi as ghouls all you want, but they're not the ghouls you should be after.
posted by tclark at 1:53 PM on March 22 [2 favorites]
> you're not fooling anyone about your motives
I'm curious what you think the motives are. You were in this thread wondering about the photos the same as the rest of us.
posted by The corpse in the library at 1:53 PM on March 22 [3 favorites]
I'm curious what you think the motives are. You were in this thread wondering about the photos the same as the rest of us.
posted by The corpse in the library at 1:53 PM on March 22 [3 favorites]
I’m impressed that it was kept under wraps this long. So many people must have know.
posted by The corpse in the library at 1:59 PM on March 22
posted by The corpse in the library at 1:59 PM on March 22
It's all about ethics in royal journalism! Sure!
Ew, that is just gross.
But you're not fooling anyone about your motives.
That, too, is gross.
posted by mediareport at 6:54 PM on March 22 [2 favorites]
Ew, that is just gross.
But you're not fooling anyone about your motives.
That, too, is gross.
posted by mediareport at 6:54 PM on March 22 [2 favorites]
Congratulations to all of you who were ghouls munching popcorn
You wrote ten ghoulish comments in this thread before saying that.
posted by spitbull at 8:02 AM on March 23 [8 favorites]
You wrote ten ghoulish comments in this thread before saying that.
posted by spitbull at 8:02 AM on March 23 [8 favorites]
« Older "Making things with light bright" | This is the story of the Theranos of marshmallows Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by janell at 8:45 PM on March 11 [2 favorites]