This may come as a shock, but here in the UK newspapers and broadcast media still treat the Royal Family with a considerable degree of respect. A blue ribbon of reverence and restraint, a cushion of comfort given to few others, colors that all report their activities.
For the British royals and the British media, the rules of engagement are subtly different. In America there are no such subtleties. There is no line between royalty and celebrity. And in America at the moment, the gloves are off.
Lurid gossip has been published in American newspapers based on nothing but speculation. In popular chat shows – programs watched by millions – our royals have been discussed and openly mocked.
There has been much ridicule of the Mother’s Day photograph taken of the Princess of Wales and gleeful mockery of the huge, ongoing Katespiracy regarding her lack of public appearances.
The Washington Post published a home-style cartoon of Prince William holding a cardboard cutout of his wife in front of a palace window.
There has been much ridicule of the Mother’s Day photograph taken of the Princess of Wales and gleeful mockery of the huge, ongoing Katespiracy regarding her lack of public appearances
Once again it is open season in Wales, just as it was more than 30 years ago. How did we get here so fast?
In January, Kate was just recovering from stomach surgery. In February, online conspiracy theorists on both sides of the Atlantic began filling the news void with increasingly sinister conjectures.
In March, there was a snap of a seemingly miserable Kate and William staring off in opposite directions from inside a car.
Oh oh, I thought, sparking a conspiracy theory of my own. We’ve been here before. How long before Kate poses solo on a bench at the Taj Mahal?
The problem for courtiers and communications teams in the modern age is that they have little control over the narrative. And to withstand the onslaught of the online rumor machine, they will need to be more – not less – transparent.
Because anyone can find out the worst of the gossip at the click of a computer key. For out on the wilder shores of cyberspace there are no borders or barriers, nor warm pools of royal glory.
The time when royalty in crisis could slip behind a nice big rock, like a family of shy velvet crabs, is long gone.
What has changed so much? It could be argued that it is in part due to online engagement that the public feel so invested – and why not, as they are encouraged to do so by the Windsors themselves.
The sweet royal Instagram accounts, the official websites, the very fact that the Princess of Wales felt the need – innocent as it was – to retouch a family photo of her children to make it more attractive.
Still, the rush to be relatable has its drawbacks.
The difficulty is that now, for keyboard surfers as well as American chat show hosts, everything is entertainment. There is no distinction between tragedy and triumph, between fiction and real life.
Cast your mind back to Nicola Bulley’s disappearance a year ago; a tragic event which provided a chilling insight into how certain sections of the public consumed news events – primarily as an enjoyable online game of Cluedo.
It resulted in a morally nauseating fiasco, with some people joining the police search (uninvited) and making wild allegations about Bulley’s death and the possible involvement of members of her family. It was all bullshit, of course. An investigation found hers to be an accidental death and the circus moved on, leaving a family broken.
That horrific level of intensity is repeated here without a clue as the mushroom cloud of panting speculation and conspiracy theories grows larger and larger. Who can handle it? Who can possibly survive that?
If gossip is news running ahead of itself in ermine robe and crown, then things will get worse before they get better. A little clarity from the royals would go a long way to allaying the worst rumors, but there are no signs that will happen anytime soon. In this void a fever burns.
At the heart of conspiracy is the belief that innocent justifications do not exist, and any coincidences, however improbable, must be shot down in righteous flames.
While the British media patrols the zone of interest with care and consideration, the rest of the world looks on and laughs.
The time when they could slip behind a nice big rock like a family of shy velvet crabs is long gone.
A £550-a-head Michelin restaurant in the US is facing a backlash over claims it serves smaller portions to female customers. Sushi Noz in New York City has been accused of offering smaller versions of its omakase menu to the little ladies. Is it really sexist? To be fair, many of my female friends have the appetite of a bird. Only that bird happens to be a vulture.
Naomi, a role model for whiners and being spoiled
Naomi Campbell is definitely a glass half empty girl! The supermodel is to be honored with a solo exhibition at the V&A in London, an accolade normally accorded to the likes of Rodin or Dior or Picasso.
But behind her designer sunglasses, Naomi can’t see the bright side.
“Trying to take care of my two babies and doing it at the same time is a lot,” she moaned. She also said she had to “stop doing (her) everyday life” to help curate the show.
Naomi Campbell is to be honored with a solo exhibition at the V&A in London
And also that having her museum-worthy clothes spread across her collection of luxury homes in Russia, America and Spain had added to the “difficulties”.
Yes, Naomi speaks for working mothers everywhere. Let’s all sob into our Givenchy hankies as one, let’s hold our Chanel blocks tight in solidarity.
Meanwhile, the V&A must be wondering why it bothered.
Menopause advice for transgender people is so ridiculous
You have to believe – hope! – that NHS bosses would have more to worry about than the small proportion of the population who are transgender. You would be wrong.
Health service bosses have produced a 17-page booklet reminding staff that ‘not all those experiencing menopause are women’. It is biologically impossible and also empirically untrue, but never mind. The new guidance says: ‘Transgender, non-binary and intersex colleagues may also experience menopause and will have specific needs.’
Of course, this advice should only apply to trans men – who may still have a female body. But as always, without doubt the largest – and most vocal – contingent here will be men who identify as women.
They deserve support in their brave journey to sexual bliss, but these ‘specific needs’ will not include a hysterectomy to remove their uterus and fallopian tubes, the possibility of ovarian cancer and a one in two chance of significant bone loss resulting in osteoporosis – so why pretend it’s different? It’s not just nonsense, it’s an insult to women everywhere whose lives are affected for the worse by their biology.
Listen, Buster. Try four decades of periods and period pain along with childbirth, menopause, increased risk of breast cancer, lower wages and mood swings – then get back to me.
It reminds me of my friend who works in an NHS maternity ward and now has to refer to the pregnant women and new mothers in her care as ‘people with a cervix’. Ridiculous. And sneaky.
Feud that defies protocol
How gratifying it is to know that in a moment of public and personal crisis you can always rely on your brother for support. Only not if you are Prince William or Prince Harry.
The warring siblings refused to show a common solidarity this week, not even in memory of their holy mother.
Last night the Prince of Wales attended the Diana Legacy Awards at London’s Science Museum to present the awards.
But he left before the Duke of Sussex was sent in via video call from his home in California to congratulate the winners. Awks.
Warring siblings William and Harry
This was the 25th anniversary of the founding of The Diana Award charity – a watershed moment, a high-profile entrenchment of their mutual maternal heritage. Yet the brothers were unable to find common ground even in this moment of family pride.
In many ways, who can blame them for not being able to inhabit even the same vain cyber-space? Harry is a seething knot of bitterness, playing hardball on his exile court thousands of miles away.
And how could William ever forgive his younger brother for the trouble caused to his wife, Catherine? A bride who fit the ‘royal mould’, woman accused of being ‘racist’ in row over Prince Archie’s skin colour? It is impassable, unforgivable.
Some things said can never be unsaid and some actions are beyond redemption.
But in moments like this, when their personal relationship supersedes public protocol, it’s very hard to take any of these men seriously.
Screen stars are dominating the best actress category at the London theater Olivier Awards this year – but is it entirely fair?
Sarah Jessica Parker is up for a gong for her bubbly but underwhelming (I thought) turn in the Plaza Suite at the Savoy, while Sarah Snook has been nominated for her flashy one-woman performance in The Picture Of Dorian Gray at the Theater Royal Haymarket.
The latter had mixed reviews. ‘Swimmingly good’, wrote one critic. “Imagine Orson Welles touting the Pizza Express wine list King Lear-style,” sniffed another. Both actresses only committed to short runs, while theaters charged £300 or more for prime seats for the privilege of seeing them on stage.
If there is any justice in this world, the award will go to Laura Donnelly for her glowing performance in The Hills Of California, written by her real-life partner, Jez Butterworth.
This touching, bittersweet, unforgettable play about families and grieving and sisters would also get my vote for Best New Play. But as I often ask myself, what do I know?