William and Catherine 4

[viii]

34 minutes ago, just_ordinary said:

I do think though, that the overexposure of H&M means they are not bringing in the clicks anymore. Just like with PA (most are thankfully in agreement that he should have had his days in court and is lucky he didn’t and therefore should never ever try a come back), people don’t have any time for their shit anymore. So the tabloids look back at W&K. Just like 9 years ago, they are making headlines by making the „villains“ and I am sure it’s a welcome comeback for them being so private. It’s just annoying that KP actually felt the need to respond at all. They should know better.

Yes, William and Kate (especially Kate) were destroyed in the UK media for years. They didn't really ease up until Meghan came along and they had a new target. I'm not surprised has reverted back to them since they are really an easy target. They've always had poor work ethic, and now when Kate has a valid reason, a lot of people don't care because of the history there. 

[klein_roeschen]

17 hours ago, louisa05 said:

One more thought: 

The real problem here is that in our world of constant oversharing by celebrities, leaders, and average people with social media accounts, someone maintaining privacy is not believable. That's what's happening here. I've seen multiple people asking why her friends are not telling the media what is happening, or why she or her team aren't posting on social media... someone maintaining privacy is incomprehensible now. 

Every person has a right to privacy, even a public member of a royal family. Is it important to know why Kate is on sick leave? No, it isn't and people publicly wondering why her friends aren't spilling the beans to the press should ask themselves if they want to call a person a friend who can't be trusted with information I tell them in private. And  while many people out there are eager to spread their whole life online, not everyone is the same. And no matter what I think about the concept of a heritary monarchy, the people who are said royals and monarchs have the same right to privacy as every other person. And that includes medical information.

[treehugger]

17 hours ago, noseybutt said:

The difference is that the BRF are paid to be celebrities. That’s the job description if they want to stay relevant. It’s a horrible bargain they make, but make it they do.

 

The BRF aren’t celebrities though.  Being glamorous and showy can be part of their job, but that isnt their whole job.  I think it can be challenging for us in North America to make the distinction between a Royal family and a celebrity, but it is not the same. 
Celebrities exist because of show biz.  The monarchy is something very different.  

[viii]

The BRF are basically celebrities at this point. The monarchy has next to little power. They've become a parody of themselves by this point because it's 2024 and monarchies are really not needed. 

[louisa05]

1 hour ago, viii said:

The BRF are basically celebrities at this point. The monarchy has next to little power. They've become a parody of themselves by this point because it's 2024 and monarchies are really not needed. 

If the UK abolishes monarchy tomorrow morning, they have to restructure their entire government as a prime minister is not a head of state.  They have to determine who signs legislation into law because the monarch does that. Someone has to take on the role of accepting diplomats, hosting visiting heads of state, etc...This would likely mean creating a presidency then determining how to appoint or elect one. At that point, enter even more ugly politics around the office and the likelihood that whoever got the job may not be content to be non-political as the monarch is. That would result in a huge change in the dynamics of their government. It would be a "be careful what you wish for" situation. 

Plus 14 other countries would have to figure out how to fill the head of state role. 

So, no, they are not celebrities.  

[noseybutt]

I find this side conversation as to whether the BRF are celebrities or not fascinating because I have never heard the term “celebrity” to mean only someone famous due to the entertainment industry. I assumed it was anyone famous within modern popular culture, which almost always overlaps with entertainment in some ways but not exclusively so. The BRF takes up prime space in magazines devoted to celebrities, has movies and TV shows dedicated to themselves, walks the red carpet at entertainment award shows, releases mundane family photos of minor children as newsworthy items… 

If not celebrities, then who are they?

(And yes, I get the Head of State role but that is exactly one member of the family, and often not the individual generating the celebrity buzz.)

 

[treehugger]

@noseybutt it is interesting, because I get what you are saying.  Certain people have a celebrity aura around them. In my case, as a Canadian, our prime minister currently has a bit of celebrity aura around him in that he is good looking and has had a Vogue photoshoot and lots of media press in celeb magazines, and up till recently at least was very popular in pop culture circles. His wife was fashionable and they often released family photos around special occasions. In fact, as far as celebrity culture goes, they were not unlike Harry and Megan and William and Catherine.  But I don’t think I’d call Trudeau a celebrity either…. 

I think maybe because there is more to the job than just entertainment.  In Trudeau’s case he is the Prime Minister. In the case of William and Catherine there is also the expectation that they spotlight local charities, causes and businesses as well as work the diplomacy angle and other things.  
In all of the cases above and celebrities included, I do think there should be an expectation of privacy.  Otherwise it just feels exploitative. No one owes everyone explanations of personal life.  Not even celebrities. Nor politicians. 

Edited March 13 by treehugger

[treehugger]

So I did just look up the actual definition of celebrity, because I figured I should. And @noseybutt you are right. Technically they are celebrities, as the definition is”a famous person”.  It’s not the first thing I think of, when I think of a celebrity, but that is the definition. So I may need to adjust my thinking. 

[VGL]

Will and Kate attend the Bafta awards because William is president of Bafta.

There is always a charitable component to the movie premieres that the Royals attend.

[viii]

Celebrity isn’t an insulting term, so I’m not sure why people have an issue with it. The BRF are definitely celebrities, they’re some of the most famous people in the world. Sure they do other things, and there would be a big adjustment period if the monarchy was abolished, but they provide very little worth on a daily basis and are more known for who they are than what they do. 

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

If royals weren't celebrities then the second Harry walked away nobody would have cared anything else about him, his wife, his kids. And certainly not years later.  There seems to be a negative value being applied to something like "hollywood celebrities/actor types" vs politicians. Both have a job and they do their jobs. Being an actor or similar celebrity doesn't necessarily make that person...worthless? or worth less than a politician.

Usually, I try not to voice any strong opinion about the absurdity that is the british monarchy. I'm pretty sure all the functions of the monarch could be reassigned without all that much drama outside of the should we/shouldn't we have a monarchy. Lots of countries manage. But certain people are very vested in the tradition of the monarchy and so be it. Overcoming the inertia would take a lot of societal interest. Not doing so, it's a sort of choice that's being made. 

But saying Kate has some right to privacy is a...interesting. I've watched a fair few british documentaries. And in those, especially ones about Harry And Meghan, there were quite a few interview on the streets with regular british people where the people were saying they did indeed have a right to images (pictures, videos, interviews) of the new baby, of meghan, of the family etc. That was repeated over and over. I will remember it forever because it's so creepy to me. But these people were very upset that royals were having the royal roles but not giving back in the form of non-privacy, particularly around the birth of archie.

I think if we're getting all enlightenment era philosopher on the topic, then yes, humans have some sort of innate right to privacy I think. But in the social construct that is "royal" people, especially in context of the British Royal Family - there does seem to be a social contract here, that we royals get to be Royal and have these privileges, estates, jewels, celebrity status, financial support, etc etc etc .... in return you common people get access to us. Where exactly that line is drawn varies over time - royals in the past had to dress in front of people, give birth in front of people, etc. So it does seem to me that Kate's "disappearance" and no further comment is pushing the line awfully far over in favor of kate's privacy. If she truly wants privacy, she can cease to be a public person. I don't go on instagram announcing I have a surgery. If you do stuff like that you can reasonably expect people to ask about it and want to know more and that's before even working in the royal family part. 

Anyway, as to comment up above somewhere like2-3 pages back, that it's cruel to the kids to enjoy this speculation. Dude that ship sailed a long time ago. 1stly kids are cruel no matter what 2ndly I would suspect that the school(s) the kids are at have dealt with this kind of intrusion ever since the 1st kid appeared. 3rdly I didn't sign my kids up to be in a very public hereditary monarchy, have publicity photos taken and distributed of my kids, make public proclamations about their births, and so on times thousands of invasive things their parents did and do- that on them, not me. 

The whole monarchy system with the paparazzi and rules and rank and curtsies and all of that I would say is basically offensive to the human condition and there appears to be ample evidence from the royals themselves over the last hundred years or so that it's soul crushing to those on the "inside"  (Ex, Edward who had to abdicate over his preferred spouse, his brother who didn't want to be king and his wife who felt it killed him, Qu. Eliz and Pr Philip who had their happy early married life brought to an abrupt close, Margaret's whole life it seems, Harry's whole life it seems). Are the internet gossips watching from afar are the bad guys here?  

 

 

[hoipolloi]

The British Press Photographers' Association has weighed in:

Quote

We are lead to believe that HRH The Princess of Wales has said that she edited the image and has apologised. That should not be an end to the matter however. Whether the picture was manipulated to ‘look nice’ by someone who didn’t understand the importance of truth in images or whether there is something else behind their actions is not as important as getting the message out there that it is wrong.  

Major surgery requires major recovery time that can't always be predicted. People would have understood a simple PR statement to that effect from KP. Instead, we got a wildly doctored photograph followed by a bizarre apology for bad photoshopping from the patient herself. This is absolutely nuts. 

Whatever else happens, W & K need to fire their PR staff. 

[viii]

I hate conspiracies but I have a hard time believing their PR could fuck it up this bad. Like… are they trying to misdirect?? Because this is truly baffling. 

[noseybutt]

5 hours ago, treehugger said:

So I did just look up the actual definition of celebrity, because I figured I should. And @noseybutt you are right. Technically they are celebrities, as the definition is”a famous person”.  It’s not the first thing I think of, when I think of a celebrity, but that is the definition. So I may need to adjust my thinking. 

Meh, we can define it however we want 😂

[Mrs Ms]

Celebrities, especially ones paid by the general public owe the public their time and curtesy. They do not owe their bodies. So yes, they need to turn up to their version of work or have a good reason not to. Any excuse needs to be given at the earliest time possible.

But I wouldn’t even have mentioned which part of her body she was having surgery on. ‘Planned surgery, longer than usual hospital stay, minimum 3 month recovery’. End of story. 
 

The public doesn’t need to know medical details of anyone unless it is relevant to the job/occasion. She isn’t pleading ‘clinical insanity’ in a trial, so which part of her body is stopping her from cutting a ribbon, shaking hands or laying a wreath doesn’t matter. She doesn’t need to share food intolerances with anyone who isn’t preparing food for her, pms symptoms, mental health, hay fever triggers, current weight, sleep health, hearing, state of her teeth or her glasses/contact strength. 
 

If she wants to share anything, cool!  Otherwise, WTF do people think she or any other celebrity OWE them that knowledge? 
 

But I fully agree that her PR team SUCK at their jobs. Same as the PR people for the Sussex…

[Mama Mia]

On 3/12/2024 at 8:46 AM, louisa05 said:

Everyday when I dismiss in elementary, kids whip out their smartphones while lining up. As young as second grade. George is turning 11 this summer, Charlotte 9 in May. Even if their access is limited, they have classmates that are online and are likely telling them that their mother is dead or dying or being held hostage or  she was actually in the hospital because their father beat her up or that he killed his cousin’s husband and more. 
 

Never mind the freaking picture. This shit is not okay and it’s not fun or entertaining when it negatively impacts real humans. 

Well….yea. But we are literally posting on a snark site directed at people who make themselves public figures, and have a weirdly regimented lifestyle and belief system that is considered strange. They all have kids, many of them older kids who have access to a phone. We make speculative, generally negative, comments about their parents and grandparents ALL the time. The difference with the Royals is they have really, really pretty clothes and jewels and a billion more people who know who they are. 

Edited March 14 by Mama Mia

[viii]

@Mama Mia the parallels between fundie families and royal families are uncanny. It's weird though how people who would tear fundie families apart for something, defend it for royal families. It's fascinating to watch. 

[just_ordinary]

@WatchingTheTireFireBurn I think the people that feel they have a right to photos of the babies of strangers are exactly the same irk that now come up with why don’t we get anything on Kate people. Maybe they are even the same. There are a lot of crazy and entitled people out there that don’t understand they are in fact not owed anything. And if they feel „betrayed“ that’s their problem and they need to find a new hobby. 

Their biggest problem is, that they never had a chance. If they are set on this level of privacy, there were always going to be crazy theories. The second they are out you have absolutely no chance of proving them wrong. If she would release her medical file people would point out some things that „don’t add up“, no doctor would phrase like that, strange treatments for a diagnoses…. If she showed her scars people would say they are not real but props. She and Wiliam haven’t divorced so far and Rose seem to be a regular guest with both of them, but the marriage has been over for years and she only accepts her husband’s mistress because either she is a door mat or doesn’t care because she is a cunning manipulator. You can’t win. And whatever you do will look desperate. 
They really need to reign in their team and shouldn’t feel pressured into anything. They can do nothing but stay calm anc wait it out.

[just_ordinary]

I am very sorry for the families of Thomas and Rose. Especially the children. I hope in those cases, the people spilling such cruel gossip will find themselves in the middle of such gossip at one point. Very Old Testament of me. But those families haven’t led public life’s and their character and life’s get ripped apart. Whoever thinks it’s still just fun gossip when it’s about them should have a look in the mirror. It’s interesting that some of this (not all) has even found its way here as I though FJ had rather strict rules when stuff concerns minors. 🤷‍♀️

Edited March 14 by just_ordinary

[SassyPants]

On 3/13/2024 at 2:29 PM, noseybutt said:

I find this side conversation as to whether the BRF are celebrities or not fascinating because I have never heard the term “celebrity” to mean only someone famous due to the entertainment industry. I assumed it was anyone famous within modern popular culture, which almost always overlaps with entertainment in some ways but not exclusively so. The BRF takes up prime space in magazines devoted to celebrities, has movies and TV shows dedicated to themselves, walks the red carpet at entertainment award shows, releases mundane family photos of minor children as newsworthy items… 

If not celebrities, then who are they?

(And yes, I get the Head of State role but that is exactly one member of the family, and often not the individual generating the celebrity buzz.)

 

THIS^, 100%, particularly the last sentence. There is 1 truly important and powerful person in the BRF at any given time. The rest, especially those decently removed from succession, meh, IMO.

[Antimony]

As the internet spreads from "serious conspiracy theory" to "outright shitposting", I have become more and more invested in curating the finest (read: most insane) theories as to Kate's whereabouts. Here is, in no particular order, my favorite possibilities (a word we're using very loosely here). The sources are....comment sections from posts I have scrolled past the past two days.

• Kate Middleton has undergone mitosis and split into Kate Toppleton and Kate Bottomton and the palace is simply unsure of how to put her back together again.
• She is on the Masked Singer, which we all know is a top secret operation so she cannot be seen during this time. 
• She has developed a crippling addiction to World of Warcraft and she simply is too busy raiding. The Royal family Mountain Dew budget has ballooned beyond all expectations. 
• She is the Avatar, and has entered a statis state in the fashion of Aang, and we will see here again when she is ready to master the four elements and bring the nations together. 
• A "Freaky Friday" type incident has occurred and Kate and presumably Charlotte (?) must each learn a valuable lesson about each other's perspectives before they can return to their own bodies. 

Edited March 15 by Antimony

[prayawaythefundie]

[noseybutt]

[klein_roeschen]

One theory I read these days was that Kate and by extension William are thrown under the bus to distract from Charles and his illness and whatever (non) threatment he chooses. Cynic me would not be suprised if something like that is going on.

But my theory is more simple: Kate just quiet being a royal, packed her tiaras up and moved abroad to set up house. Will and the kids will follow at the end of the schoolyear. And to prevent another quiting scandal, she is on sickleave. Come the end of the schoolyear, Will and the kids will develop a mystery illness and will disappear out of the spotlight. Any pics of them later wearing cheap wigs in public will be denied as them and we get official pics of them photoshopped into trooping the color and other events.

Edited March 16 by klein_roeschen

[viii]

I also wouldn’t be surprised if they were using Kate to misdirect from something else. They do that quite frequently.