Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Magazines' started by vogue28, May 25, 2020.
I find this a bit disrespectful tbh. The nerve to make His Royal Highness look like a bodyguard with the face barely recognizable and blocked by the masthead. I mean, that's literally the heir to throne.
Kate looks grand and beautiful as usual.
I agree, I think they should have removed him entirely from the photo.
It's tricky. I get why she's the main focus because the feature is presumably about her. But maybe they've covered Prince William's face to shut down the 'Waity Katie' brigade? Imagine they have a couple on the cover but the feature is actually about her? The Guardian will stop ranting and raving about Cummings and rage against Tatler instead with tongue lashings of misogyny.
Or..... maybe Tatler is being passive-aggressive which would not be something new for them. Whatever the reason, there's just no way Dennen looked at this cover and didn't think it would seem odd to have William's face covered with a masthead. They should've just kept him out entirely.
The cover as a whole is ok but not very original. I believe Vanity Fair had a similar cover years ago.
I hate these paparazzi covers, they’re so cheap. We all know it’s a shot taken on a red carpet and not for the magazine. I don’t buy a magazine to see a regurgitated shot from The Daily Fail on the cover.
How terribly trite, Meghan's the anti-Christ so Kate is a hero [yawn].
No to the pap cover
No but it does looks like OK!
So old fashioned.
I honestly don't understand the UK's obsession with Kate, and honestly, what did she do during the Covid-19 crisis to be "the kingmaker". The only reason they like her so much is because she's white and middle class.
Aside from who's on the cover - the current editor is rumoured to be friends with the Cambridges so it's no surprise - if UK magazines are combining months, does that mean a year's subscription gets extended by one issue, or do subscribers just have to make do with getting fewer issues for their money than they normally would?
She's been busy with loads of interviews to talk about mental health and the NPG project on Phil & Holly and that mummy podcast show. She also wrote a charming letter to the children's hospital, and she's been thanking everyday people for small acts of kindness. It may not sound like much but I suppose for some people it's just enough.... considering. To shove yourself in front of everybody and make it all about you or drama right now would be tasteless.
"Catherine The Great"...only in her dreams.
This chick is the greatest social climber since Cinderella.
I'm not mad at her tho, she's getting that crown.....eventually.
I like Kate and admire her determination (lol) but this is such a distasteful cover. I can imagine it on a tabloid stand surrounded by yellow blocky headlines and pictures of Katie Price, but not here. The photo itself is over a year old and seems weirdly photoshopped to make her look younger? And the caption? I wonder if she even gave permission for this.
I believe some 'sources' are quoted, but this is by no means an exclusive. She won't endorse it either.
White & middle class people are allowed to have their favourites too
Well, this article has prompted Catherine to release a response specifically about it. That’s incredibly rare.
“This story contains a swathe of inaccuracies and false misrepresentations which were not put to Kensington Palace prior to publication.”
And just like that, Dennen's time is ticking.
That's what Tatler deserves for promoting their covers via the Mail! Sickening. I don't know why UK Conde Nast is hell-bent on using the Mail to push their covers?!? Even Vogue and Love do it on the regular. Is it to get eyeballs?
They ran a massive extract from the cover feature before it went live on Tatler's website, and obviously used it as some sort of thinly veiled attack on Harry and Meghan. 'She's overworked because Harry and Meghan left everyone in the lurch'.
But that aside, Tatler oddly enough responded to her statement! I suppose it's safe to say they will no longer get any palace exclusives going forward.
Kensington Palace responds to Tatler report claiming Kate Middleton is overworked and unhappy
'This story contains a swathe of inaccuracies and false misrepresentations'
by Margaret Abrams
3 hours ago
Kensington Palace has issued a rare statement after the Duchess of Cambridge appeared on the cover of Tatler and unnamed friends spoke to the magazine about her increased workload.
Kensington Palace released a statement on Wednesday about the cover story.
“This story contains a swathe of inaccuracies and false misrepresentations which were not put to Kensington Palace prior to publication," the Palace spokesperson said in a statement.
A Tatler spokesperson responded in a statement, telling Entertainment Tonight, "Tatler's Editor-in-Chief Richard Dennen stands behind the reporting of Anna Pasternak and her sources. Kensington Palace knew we were running the 'Catherine the Great' cover months ago and we asked them to work together on it. The fact they are denying they ever knew is categorically false."
The article examines life for Kate and her husband Prince William and alleges the Duchess is now doing more work than ever before, particularly since Harry and Meghan stepped down as senior royals.
"Kate is furious about the larger workload. Of course she’s smiling and dressing appropriately but she doesn’t want this. She feels exhausted and trapped," a source told Tatler. "She’s working as hard as a top CEO, who has to be wheeled out all the time, without the benefits of boundaries and plenty of holidays."
The article also claimed that Kate, who is dubbed 'Catherine the Great' on the cover, has "a ruthless survival streak," adding that "she keeps her head down because the prize of being queen is so great."
Other controversial comments included one that her mother, Carole Middleton, is "a terrible snob."
I am not that well versed when it comes to British royals and the press, so correct me if I’m wrong. I imagine there are countless stories being published throughout the year by tabloids that are not true. And I understand that Kensington Palace doesn’t always respond with saying the stories are not true. So why bother to vehemently repute the claims made in this particular article? What’s the difference with all the other untrue stories? Maybe because there’s actually some truth to it?