Tatler July/August 2020 : HRH The Duchess of Cambridge

[Benn98]

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?

LOL. They never really engage the tabloids, but they're well aware of everything being written about them.
I think this time around it's because it has something to do with Harry/Meghan. If the latter, or any of their allies, got wind of this story which clearly states that the info has been supplied by palace sources, that won't be a good look for Kate. That's all it can really be. Because the British press wrote far worse in the past about how workshy she was and mocked the Middletons countless times.

I hope the Cambridges will let this story die right here. Don't respond to Dennen's counterclaim, just cut off their access to the palace. Because a lawsuit won't make her popular at all.

 

[honeycombchild]

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?

I believe it’s because Tatler is claiming someone close to Catherine was the source and also because it’s a big glossy magazine rather than an awful daily paper. They clearly wanted to rubbish everything in it and make it clear the source is incorrect and not someone ‘close’.

 

[tigerrouge]

Indeed. I've no interest in reading about any supposed feud over the issue of children wearing tights at a wedding. It's hardly scandal on the scale of whatever else the Royals have done. But the whole thing seems to have sparked a response in a way so many other articles haven't.

News outlets can run stories about William allegedly having an affair, but if Tatler claims you feel like you're working too hard and your mother has the snobbiness that goes along with being a social climber - which was talked about endlessly over ten years ago - then it's suddenly time to speak out? What's really going on?

 

[honeycombchild]

My understanding is the article claims that Kate has been stressed and exhausted by the whole Covid affair and is struggling with the additional work load and appearances she’s making via video to people. I imagine rebutting the claims like that was to protect opinion and make it very clear she doesn’t feel like that.

It’s a bizarre piece according to the news report I read. It seems to be entirely centred around ‘someone close’ telling Tatler Kate was tired.

 

[tigerrouge]

I guess I'll find out for myself when my subscription copy turns up, but the entire thing is just odd, in that it doesn't make sense for Tatler to have run this article.

Does the author (Anna Pasternak) have a new book out that she wants some publicity for? Looking online... the paperback version of her book about Wallace Simpson seems to have been published in April 2020, so the publicity can't hurt her.

There's a rumoured grapevine between Anna Pasternak and the Mulroneys, which could suggest the info comes from Megan's side, with Jessica Mulroney and her daughter having been in Megan's wedding. So the insider could have been "close to Kate" and the information might be true, and the vigorous denial by the Palace does makes it seem that something about this article has bothered them in a way most things don't.

That said, Dennen seems to have been friendly with the Cambridges - not to mention Tatler's tradition of sucking up to the Royals - so why would he run an article that sounds less than complimentary to Kate on many fronts? You could argue that it gets the magazine worldwide coverage for a few days - but at the cost of any relationship between the magazine and the Royal establishment? What return is the magazine (or Conde Nast in general) going to get that would be worth it? Can you run a less-than-complimentary article in Tatler and then expect to get another Royal exclusive for Vanity Fair?

As for the Daily Mail - the Mail on Sunday being one of Dennen's past employers - repeating stories that portray Kate in a bad light wouldn't really align with their current position, given the ongoing court case between the newspaper and Megan. Unless there's something going on there - Megan's legal team may have lost the first fight, but things aren't over yet, unless some behind-the-scenes settlement is being worked out, which might filter through in the form of more positive coverage of Megan's side of things.

 

[honeycombchild]

The article also does some Megan shading, something about ‘having to pick up more work since Megan and Harry’s departure’

 

[Benn98]

I guess I'll find out for myself when my subscription copy turns up, but the entire thing is just odd, in that it doesn't make sense for Tatler to have run this article.

Does the author (Anna Pasternak) have a new book out that she wants some publicity for? Looking online... the paperback version of her book about Wallace Simpson seems to have been published in April 2020, so the publicity can't hurt her.

There's a rumoured grapevine between Anna Pasternak and the Mulroneys, which could suggest the info comes from Megan's side, with Jessica Mulroney and her daughter having been in Megan's wedding. So the insider could have been "close to Kate" and the information might be true, and the vigorous denial by the Palace does makes it seem that something about this article has bothered them in a way most things don't.

That said, Dennen seems to have been friendly with the Cambridges - not to mention Tatler's tradition of sucking up to the Royals - so why would he run an article that sounds less than complimentary to Kate on many fronts? You could argue that it gets the magazine worldwide coverage for a few days - but at the cost of any relationship between the magazine and the Royal establishment? What return is the magazine (or Conde Nast in general) going to get that would be worth it? Can you run a less-than-complimentary article in Tatler and then expect to get another Royal exclusive for Vanity Fair?

As for the Daily Mail - the Mail on Sunday being one of Dennen's past employers - repeating stories that portray Kate in a bad light wouldn't really align with their current position, given the ongoing court case between the newspaper and Megan. Unless there's something going on there - Megan's legal team may have lost the first fight, but things aren't over yet, unless some behind-the-scenes settlement is being worked out, which might filter through in the form of more positive coverage of Megan's side of things.

^Turn it into a movie. I'd watch it.

I'm still of the opinion that the reason the Cambridges shut this down so quickly was to make it clear to the public that they've had no hand in what seems to be a swipe at Meghan. It's a shame they've sent out that statement because it's much like the Streisand effect, isn't it? Now everyone is asking 'If it's not true then why are you so pressed?' Take some lessons from the other Kate ...'don't complain, don't explain.'
The DM article actually took a more sympathetic stance towards Kate when they ran the extract, which was to be expected. Tatler must've known from the start this will not be a glowing profile of Kate like anyone would think based on the cover alone. How wicked to use her as some sort of pawn when she clearly wants no part of the Meghan/media battle.

This is why I hope Kate should no longer speak on this matter or worse yet, sue. It'll be a pyrrhic victory. Just look at how relentless the media is with Meghan and she hasn't even won yet.

From a marketing pov, silly of them not to put a paywall on the article. It would have been a dead cert to drive newsstand sales. But maybe the online version is merely a preview.

 

[tigerrouge]

I suppose the reason it's so fascinating is because it's been a long time since a magazine "mattered" in that it provoked a response from that part of the establishment.

And then the issue will come out, and it'll be a 98 page pamphlet shrink-wrapped with a travel supplement so you can't see inside, and everyone who buys it will wonder what the fuss was about, because the actual beef behind the arguments and the gossip will all be very boring, and the article itself will be two pages long.

 

[MON]

I love how magazines throw away their own sales from their own doing.

 

[JPineapple]

The only good thing about it is that conflicts like this make me wanna royalty gossips.

 

[HeatherAnne]

The Duchess of Cambridge is the July/August cover | Tatler

Here is the article in full. There is absolutely NOTHING worth suing over in it. It would undo any good press they've had during COVID by suing over something so absolutely harmless. If they don't have a thicker skin, then they shouldn't be on the throne one day.

 

[Benn98]

The Duchess of Cambridge is the July/August cover | Tatler

Here is the article in full. There is absolutely NOTHING worth suing over in it. It would undo any good press they've had during COVID by suing over something so absolutely harmless. If they don't have a thicker skin, then they shouldn't be on the throne one day.

Totally agree! We've seen that with Harry and Meghan. They had a great tour in South Africa which got a lot of positive press even from the ones who always nitpicked on her. But the moment her lawsuit against the Mail was revealed, they've gone total on her and it's been like that ever since.

Incidentally, this morning I saw a massive headline on the Mail's newspaper cover that Kate is indeed planning to sue. Not sure how true that is, I wouldn't ever buy that pitiful rag.

 

[tigerrouge]

The entire situation is absurd. During one (sweet and fleeting) moment, it seemed like the Royal Family were going to have two couples representing the new generation - William and Kate as the traditionalists, while Harry and Megan could have been the more glamorous pair.

Instead, it's all gone to sh*t and turned into a Dynasty-style drama, with the couples decamping to separate continents and firing shots at each other through thinly veiled announcements, with William and Kate taking up the role of the boring good guys, while Megan is the scheming, seductive villain everyone loves to hate. Brothers falling out with brothers and wives who can't stand the sight of the other, and WHO IS PAYING FOR ALL OF THIS says the British taxpayer at regular intervals, usually as a result of the Daily Mail printing an article about Royal finances because they've got no other news about them at that moment.

It's all fun and games until someone dies in an underpass.

 

[tigerrouge]

My subscription copy has arrived - it's 126 pgs and had a £20 ESPA voucher card stuck to the front.

The magazine opens with a 2 pg Chanel ad on thicker paper, which does nothing to improve your impression of the latest campaign. Dior ads have a strong presence too.

This issue is full of tiny shots of people at parties of yesteryear, including Joan Collins. There's also an appearance by interior designer and man-about-town Nicky Haslam - always a sign of peak Tatler.

I'm on pg 33 and I've seen pictures of Joan Collins in three different sections.

The Kate Middleton feature is quite lengthy - 8 pgs. The article might be bitchy, but there's a lot of other items in the feature which give the impression of a celebration of her existence. The magazine has gone for a gossipy angle in the article, and seen in isolation on the internet, it means the cover feature doesn't seem as positive as it does in print.

FLIGHTS OF FANCY is a 12 pg studio-shot couture editorial, shot by Louie Banks, styled by Lisa Jarvis, and modelled by Katia Andre@Elite.

The rest of the magazine is a mix of interviews and articles about posh people, politicians and Oxford colleges, with the feeling that it's more Vanity Fair than Vanity Fair is.

This magazine is full of society glamour, rather than fashion glamour, but it's achieved the sense of being a world that remains untouched by current events, like you're up there in the clouds.

 

[Benn98]

... with the feeling that it's more Vanity Fair than Vanity Fair is.

My thoughts precisely, especially since Dennen took charge. Of course, I cannot wait to get my copy just for the cover feature and Joan 'The Camp' Collins alone. That's how desperate I am for some escapism and distraction.

 

[tigerrouge]

I see the latest update on the legal saga is that they want Tatler to remove the article from the internet... which wouldn't do much other than potentially increase sales of the print copies.

And what would that mean for the digital edition?

 

[HeatherAnne]

Totally agree! We've seen that with Harry and Meghan. They had a great tour in South Africa which got a lot of positive press even from the ones who always nitpicked on her. But the moment her lawsuit against the Mail was revealed, they've gone total on her and it's been like that

Apples/oranges. Meghan faced relentless invasions of privacy and racism. I’d argue the public loved to hate on her before the lawsuit ever surfaced.

Kate was harassed to a similar (but far less troubling) degree when first marrying into the royal family... but what is the worst thing said here: that she said she was exhausted from having to hardly work, that her mum is a social climber and sister a try hard? — Not worth suing over and would reek of the EXACT same over-privilege and stuffiness the article is insinuating. Suck it up, buttercups.

 

[Benn98]

Tatler July/August 2020

Flights of Fancy

Reprint from Vogue Arabia

Photographer: Louie Banks
Set Designer: Nicola Scarlino
Stylist: Lisa Jarvis
Hair: Quentin Lafforgue
Makeup: Thomas Lorenz
Manicure: Marcea Gomes
Cast: Katia Andre








Tatler Digital Edition

 

[Benn98]

IPSO to investigate Tatler over 'sexist and woman-shaming' Kate Middleton jibes

This part stuck out to me, which obviously meant to insult:

'Since taking over the Condé Nast title’s editorship two years ago, Richard Dennen, a flamboyant showbusiness journalist who knew Prince William at university and once holidayed with Kate Middleton, has reinvigorated the 300 year-old brand he calls “the original social media.”

 

[tigerrouge]

The end result of an IPSO investigation usually sees a newspaper publishing "a clarification in a suitably prominent position" in small print between the sports headlines and the crossword.

A list of the other important cases investigated by IPSO over the past twelve months is available on their website, which includes a lot of whinging about Brexit reporting, and at least one more complaint by Megan and Harry against the Mail - in addition to the ongoing saga - which was not upheld.

There's also the case of "All Star Parrots vs Daily Star":

The article reported that a "pain-loving parrot" had taken to laughing at its owners when they were hurt. The article reported that the couple who rehomed the parrot had first noticed the behaviour when one of them had stubbed their toe and the parrot "suddenly let out a loud peal of laughter". The article reported that the couple typically fostered parrots before they moved on to another home but featured comments from one of the men explaining that the parrot was "originally going to be found a forever home after staying with us but he's settled in so well" and "so he's staying". The article reported that the man as a result "reckons" that the parrot had now found its "forever home". The article featured a superimposed image of the parrot in a flat cap and a photograph of the parrot with the man.

The complainant also said that "the article had compared the parrot to a psychotic television character by putting it in a flat cap which was not a responsible way to portray the parrot for the general public" and that a parrot didn't understand the nature of pain and was only showing learned behaviour.

These people are in denial about the true nature of parrots. COMPLAINT NOT UPHELD.