I'm disgusted with myself for my cruelty to Kate Middleton... I'm choking on my words now I know the truth!

The crack about organic chooks is weird considering Charles is a big organic farmer.

Unless that was another dig at William not sharing his father’s sensibilities.

I doubt Kensington Palace gives a shit what she says. On the other hand, Platell got lots of pushback from the public (the public that wastes time reading the Mail). On the other, other hand, it's just an attempt to create controversy, make up stories, create a running theme, get clicks and subscriptions. It's no different from the*olive branch" and "reconciliation" stories, which are rooted in fantasy but create a running soap opera story line that can be flogged for years.

[quote] I doubt Kensington Palace gives a shit what she says

I think their PR team would. The woman is recovering from cancer and she is accused of being lazy and boring when Harry’s in town. This article in response to her original one is weirdly spiteful, even for a royal gossip columnist.

She sounds unstable and desperate for attention.

R3, she's accused of all sorts of nonsense all the time. The way they (and their PR team) deal with it is to ignore it, unless it's breaking the law, and then they will deal with it quietly and without fanfare through discreet legal action, as William did with the phone hacking case. The original Platell article was complete garbage as well. The best way for PR to deal with that kind of stuff is not to deal with it. It's eternal and forever and insignificant in the long run. And that's what grates the tabloid media about William - he doesn't give two hoots about them and his way to deal with them is to cut them out.

That article was a read.

[quote]R5 …through discreet legal action, as William did with the phone hacking case.

Was that Tampongate?

During those months when Catherine was recovering from surgery and out of the public eye and there was shrieking and wailing and the most unbelievable pressure from the media and social media for her to make a public appearance, with all sorts of bizarre stories about what could be going on (because the morons chose to disbelieve what they'd been told that she had health issues), the approach of Kensington Palace and its PR team was to ignore all that. The more pressure, the more it was ignored. Nothing was responded to. The only time there was a public response of some kind - and it was direct from Catherine, not PR - was when she'd flubbed the editing of the pic of her and the kids that was posted on their social media accounts and distributed to the press. Every single photo that's posted online is edited in some way, but apparently only this one was evidence of some kind of crime and was completely doctored, put together from separate images because William had actually imprisoned Catherine in the Tower or she'd run away and left him. Even Reuters/Getty or whatever and Instagram added notes to the effect that this image was dodgy, despite every photo that appears on Instagram being edited. That got a response - Catherine posted a story apologising that she'd over-edited the photo - and after that Kensington Palace decided no longer to send the press its social media images and to post them only on social media themselves. Their way to deal with the tabloid crap is not to engage with it and just ignore it.

quote] Every single photo that's posted online is edited in some way, but apparently only this one was evidence of some kind of crime and was completely doctored, put together from separate images because William had actually imprisoned Catherine in the Tower or she'd run away and left him.

The only reason that blew up the way it did was because photo agencies and the news wires knocked it back. They have to follow provenance because what they publish are used as non-partisan historical documents. They keep not publish significantly altered photographs as a standard practice because otherwise you’d get Donald Trump releasing pictures of Joe Biden in a clown car to Reuters as a matter of course. It’s not a big deal, and certainly bog-standard by the standards of social media and fashion editorials, but try telling that to people who conspiracy theorists who invent scars and assign meaning to bandaids.

Yawn.

Yet there was no outcry at the utterly ridiculous photo Megs posted on her Instagram for Harry's birthday (sorry the "beau" or "H" or "Fox" or whatever other dumb name she calls him so she doesn't have to actually say his name). It was very oddly a photo from shortly before they met and was photo-edited to high heaven. It was also highly unflattering. I'm convinced she hates him.

Yeah, that was a weird photo to choose for his birthday and a weird post all round. Not only is it from before she knew him, but it's now ten years old, from his 31st birthday. He was at a military flypass at Goodwood Aerodrome, with World War Two planes. He was supposedly going to take part but didn't (because he can't fly?), but still wore a pilot's suit. He also has a Spitfire patch, so this is clearly not a war or training scenario. His nametag says "Harry Wales" - is she trying to remind us of his life before her? It seems that this is when he debuted his beard.

The flypass, the Spitfires, the veterans, everyone cheering Harry on - just some of the things that Harry will no longer experience due to his own decisions.

Meghan doesn't even mention his name or wish him Happy Birthday. I tend not to believe the theories that they have split up, but posts like this do make you wonder what's up with them. Why not choose a more recent photo, perhaps with the kids (shown from behind even), doing something domestic or family oriented? They've been married for several years now and have two kids, so why is she writing about him as though he's a sex symbol - with a 10-year-old photo?

Well, yeah, because it’s an Instagram post, and not an Official Mother’s Day Portrait, copyright owned by the Prince of Wales, and sent out in a press release by Kensington Palace.

You're right, r13, everyone posts a ten-year-old photo of their spouse for their birthday, from a time before they even met them.

Meghan is trying to (a) manipulate Harry, (b) manipulate the press, and (c) manipulate and torment the royal family. See a pattern?

Agree with r12 about that pic.

That full head of hair no longer exists. His eyes look too close together. And, oh, by the way, it's not who or how he is now.

"Power couples" (ugh, hate that term but it will have to do) see their own power and status and reflected back at them through their partners.

Markle is either: a. trying to remind everybody, as she ages, of her own good looks and/or b. thinks posting a current pic doesn't cut it.

[quote] I tend not to believe the theories that they have split up, but posts like this do make you wonder what's up with them

I hadn't heard about fresh speculation they're split, but as many, including me have maintained, a divorce is inevitable.

R14 that’s the point. I’m confused as to why people think there would be an outcry. It wasn’t an officially released photograph of a future King sent to the Associated Press so no one gives as shit. I didn’t even know about it until r11.

It’s a birthday post by an influencer aiming to remind everyone, as if we could possibly forget, that her husband used to have hair and used to have identity that revolved around his devotion to Britain. Don’t you just love tea and crumpets? Which go beautifully with my white labeled spreads, back in stock and on sale.

Try the veal!

😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣

Plum Skyes she's not.

What r10 said