The story of Kate Middleton is much more than Kate Middleton

“Where is Kate Middleton?”

On Monday, another headline rang out.

Public speculation following his unspecified abdominal surgery, long withdrawal from appearances and dubious publicity photography has become so intense that reasonable people might want to roll their eyes and distract themselves.

Can’t we just wish her well and leave her alone?

But the frenzy around Catherine, Princess of Wales raises important questions that go far beyond the usual concerns of royal watchers.

These questions arise from the extreme deference with which Catherine, also known as Kate, has previously been treated, at least in Great Britain, compared to beating given to his sister-in-law, Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex.

At first glance, the controversy over Kate’s photo and her absence may have nothing to do with Meghan.

However, the development of things (and the contrast with the development of the controversies over the Duchess) has its roots in the way in which the monarchy and its allies have conditioned us to think of the two of them.

Their supposed rivalry has been manipulated for years to generate nostalgia for the social hierarchies from an idealized past.

“Bread and circuses” is how the Roman poet Juvenal described the strategy with which imperial Rome appeased the masses with alms and entertainment, often cruel and ferocious spectacles that involved death in front of cheering crowds.

In modern Britain, the royals have played a similar role entertainment and distractiona role that has persisted throughout the post-Brexit decline.

He Brexit It came in by a very narrow margin after an intense propaganda campaign hit on voters’ fears about foreigners willing to invade and plunder Britain.

Similar themes are at play in the storyline of a supposed rivalry between Meghan and Kate.

That story, promoted subtly and overtly by the press and admirers of the Princess of Wales, presents Kate as an “English rose” (beautiful, noble, white) and her biracial sister-in-law as a dangerous, squalid girl. just arrived.

In January, when it was announced that Kate had undergone surgery and would have an unusually long hospital stay and recovery, the British press seemed to take the matter at face value.

He repeated vague statements to the Kensington Palace press even though something out of the ordinary was clearly happening.

When a paparazzi agency took a grainy photo of her in a car driven by her mother, neither the mainstream newspapers nor any of the blatantly aggressive tabloids published the photos, “out of respect,” as one editor said in explaining his decision.

“For your privacy while you recover.”

Compare that to last month’s decision by Britain’s highest-paid newspaper, The daily mailto publish “exclusive” paparazzi photos of Meghan.

It is described as a tiny figure, barely visible in the grainy image, “showing a smile”.

“Meghan Markle smiles as she passes her $14 million home in Montecito, hours before Prince Harry returns home after 24 hours in London to see cancer-stricken King Charles,” the tabloid boasted, with the clear implication that she was materialistic and unfazed by her father-in-law’s health crisis while he rested in California.

Measures

The double standard goes back many years.

A few months after the birth of Meghan and Harry’s first child, during which the couple was criticized for waiting a few days before posting photos of their son and asking for more privacy, a columnist from Sunday times of London mocked her, saying she was “trying to break the royal family’s contract with the public: we pay, they pose.”

But the attack continued even after the duchess stopped working as a royal and therefore stopped getting paid.

British tabloids now publish dozens of negative (and, frankly, often shocking) articles about her in a single day.

The BBC estimated that, in one week in March 2021, there were more than 25,000 stories about her.

The bombing continues to this day.

So the contract wasn’t “we pay, you put,” but rather that Meghan would never be left alone, no matter how she made a living.

They had thrown her to the lions.

Cheering crowds joined this frenzy of hate from the stands, or as we call them in the 21st century, social media sites.

I didn’t pay much attention to it at first.

But last year I delved into the matter and said that Harry was right that the British tabloids had invaded his and his wife’s privacy, and that such behavior had damaging consequences far beyond the royal family.

The vitriol I encountered as a result, even though his claims were confirmed in court on numerous occasions, was shocking.

On Reddit there is a group of more than 60,000 people singularly dedicated to Meghan’s hatred.

And social media sites are full of claims that their children are dolls or someone else’s and therefore a threat to the hereditary monarchy.

Kate’s situation, on the other hand, would never have been in question if William, the Prince of Wales, had not taken the highly unusual step of withdrawing from a family memorial service at the last minute, with no explanation if not that it was a “personal matter.”

Imagine if it had been Harry or Meghan who canceled at the last minute, perhaps at the birthday party of one of their children. I think the British press might have called for an all-out assault on the couple’s home in Montecito.

Which brings us to a photograph released by Kensington Palace on Sunday.

The image, said to have been taken by the Prince of Wales, shows the princess happy and healthy in the company of her children.

However, it quickly became clear that the photograph had been severely altered.

Many media and photo agencies removed it.

The palace refused to publish the unaltered version.

The result: another glaring example of double standards.

Columnist Celia Walden had previously insisted that, as a member of the royal family (which she called “that society”), Meghan had no right to privacy.

When the photo manipulation was discovered, Walden intervened to protect Kate’s privacy.

“The shameful speculation about the health of the Princess of Wales,” he wrote, “must stop.”

Post-Brexit Britain has major and substantive problems, problems that are much bigger than any controversy over a doctored photograph of the Princess of Wales.

And trapping women in restrictive public roles, pitting them against each other, and reducing them to symbols of virtue or vice is a powerful and politically expedient distraction.

But it is harmful everywhere and ultimately, as the manipulated photography shows, it can prove counterproductive if accompanied by harsh manipulation.

Blatant cover-ups fuel conspiracy theories that can spiral out of anyone’s control, a social dynamic that applies to much more than a sordid tale of two princesses.

c.2024 The New York Times Company