Smear Campaign? And if so, by whom? (Re: William and Kate)

[Winnie]

I have read all the above statements, but I still don't understand why a smear campaign against Kate. What is the British Media afraid of that would cause such a thing, or is it just the fact that they don't have another "Royal" to pull apart at the present time? Rather silly in the long scheme of things and world news.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Rather silly in the long scheme of things and world news.

But that's exactly the point: the buyers decide daily on the success of the editor-in-chief of a daily paper. So there is not much room for the "long scheme of things" but it's the need to have daily an eye-catcher as their lead in order to be the paper bought by commuters on their way to work. Because these commuters can decide daily if they take the Mail, the Sun or the Express at the news stands or at these little boxes at the entrances of the tube station.

 

[Warren]

Harry was the suitable media whipping boy for a while (smoking dope, SS uniform etc) but now he's served in Afghanistan he's harder to attack. Chelsy is in Leeds studying, so she's not much of a target. It's hard to whip up a media storm about William (the helicopter stuff died a quick death) so it seems that Kate's the one. It's easier with her because so much about her is a mystery, therefore more can be made up.

 

[Duchess]

i don't think you could call the few semi negative/negative stories about catherine a "smear campaign"...just a change of pace from the usual fluff pieces that they've been printing. the summer is usually slow news time so they have to do something. you want smear campaing? the duchess of york during her marriage....need i say more.

 

[Luv2Cruise]

I have the feeling the "smear campaign" started in the internet community and then translated to the papers. I have noted that there's a rather opinionated group of posters on several forums who are very much opposed to Kate Middleton and have been so for quite some time even long before any negative article was written about her. At first it was denied that she even was William's grilfriend then after university the first row of criticism started because Kate didn't have a job right away, then when she worked at Jigsaw her every picture was dissected, criticised and her every move torn apart. Finally she and her whole family were insulted as social climbers and golddiggers and now it's the Waity Katie line (a phrase, which was coined by someone at TIF, I think).
The Daily Mail obviously caught up with this group online and decided to use some of their story lines for their own publication - probably because they have no access to any real insiders as all the wrong reports about a possible engagement, Kate working for Testino, Kate living in Clarence House, Kate's mother attending Ascot with the Queen etc. clearly show.

This is EXACTLY what has happened. Thank you Isana, for speaking the ROYAL TRUTH.

The Daily Mail and others printed very favorable pieces about Kate early in her relationship with William. They've been reading internet royalty fora -- one in particular where the posters have disparaged Kate Middleton from Day 1 -- and have picked up their sleazy and disgusting lies and run with them. End of Story. "Waity Katey" originated at that horrible message forum. And then the Daily Mail, for whatever reason, outed much of the source of their erroneous information, complete with screen names and quotes and pictures that the posters at that site lifted from Facebook and put on that board. There are other photos of James where he is enjoying his friends while sailing, there are pictures of Kate's family's bonfire at their home, none of which will see the light of day because those aren't salacious enough. Those pictures of James in the French maid outfit and and other photos of Kate were emailed to the Daily Mail by some of those posters. Some of them would even hint coyly at having done it.

{inflammatory comment deleted - Elspeth}

 

[Kezza]

From what I understand is James himself registered on The Internet Forum Late last year when pics of him started to get posted on the forum. He apparently became friends with a few of them who liked Kate and his Family and let them have access to his facebook account to which those very people posted even more pics of James. One of those posters is said to know James in person, that posted a lot of photo's of James and his sister pippa. The Daily Mail lifted a lot of what that poster said and did and contributed it to the wrong poster.

Those pics didn't come from those so called nasty people they came from people who claimed to know James, or are fans of Kate.

Also the press are the ones who are smearing Kate not members of a forum, they just use us as an excuse to hide their own agendas.

 

[MARG]

I feel for the Middleton family. It cannot be easy for such a normal, ordinary, close family to suddenly become Tabloid fodder. They must all be feeling like goldfish in a bowl, and let's be honest, it is not their fault, or their choice. Their oldest daughter just happens to be dating a Prince.

They obviously love and try to run interferrance to protect each other from unkind attack, but I don't think they could ever have envisioned their lives turning into a daytime soap opera. As for James little "incident"? I wouldn't be surprised if half of it wasn't motivated by an urge to take a swipe at the "invaders" into what really is a very ordinary life. His life, and he can't even have a bit of harmless fun without sleazy papers plastering it on headlines around the world and countless "Dr Phil" types get to pontificate about his "real" motivations.

It is enough to drive any normal person barking mad, and I think that is what "they",the media in general, and the Daily Mail in particular wants. Someone in that family to "crack" and lash out in an indiscreet way.

Like Elspeth and so many others, I believe Catherine is the subject of a very specific, targeted "smear" campaign, driven by frustration on the part of the DM, by not having the inside track, having no control. As has been said earlier, the DM made the Queen do something she was reluctant to do. They forced her hand, and not surprisingly, they started to think they could "control" the BRF.

Camilla was a gift they couldn't believe but it all turned to dust when the average citizen exercised a little of their grey matter and decided they could make up their own minds about who should and who should not be married to the POW. The fact that the couple's friends are notoriously tight-lipped about Charles and Camilla must be an enduring thorn in their collective sides. The fact they are happy and the British public believe they are happy in defiance of media reports to the contrary must really drive them nuts.

But, with William, the DM have behaved as if he "belonged" to them in some way predicated on the link they previously had with his mother. Bad call. He seems to have learned from his parents media debacle and his girlfriend seems to be channeling Camilla in her behaviour toward them.

I believe the DM, with it's "Waity Katy" campaign have finally gone too far. They have metaphorically burned their bridges and can't go back and change their minds. Catherine's family are basically living under siege and the royal relationship is no further ahead nor behind what it was this time last year. They are desperate for a headline and I think they now intend to wage an all-out media war against Catherine in the hope that something, anything, will happen.

 

[Little_star]

In what way are the Middleton family under seige? If the posts on this forum are correct then the only paper that is coducting the "smear campagin" is the Daily Mail and they are simply one paper out of half a dozen other tabloids.

Personally I think it's wrong of the Daily Mail to post personal information about family members, it's clearly a step over the line. However, if you believed some of the posts here you would think the entire country was talking about the Middletons when quite obviously they are not.

 

[amandamrgt]

Sorry, but I'm not buying this anti-Middleton smear campaign. Daily Mail may be just a tabloid, but it is sort of telling the truth, isn't it?
I found the latest report that Catherine is actually working 9 to 5 quite absurd really; working for your family may or may not be easier (I, for one, now pursue family buisness), but she's been holidaying all the time and is always "available" when William is around.

I don't have anything against Catherine personally, she can be a pretty nice girl for all I know. But if I were her, I wouldn't put whole my life on hold for anyone, even for a prince.

 

[Isana]

She didn't holiday "all the time" this year. She was on three vacations with William Klosters in March/April, Mustique in May, Mustique in August. That's 3 weeks and a very common amount of holidays for European standards. You get about 4-6 weeks off plus bank holidays in Europe. I think in the US it's much less.
Most events she attended (with the exception of the wings and the Garter) took place on weekends - so no sign for her not working either. She was hardly seen out and about enough to leave no time to work at Party Pieces. To the contrary. She was hardly photographed. For example the last pics of her and William clubbing were taken August 15 that's 3 weeks ago.

 

[Menarue]

She didn't holiday "all the time" this year. She was on three vacations with William Klosters in March/April, Mustique in May, Mustique in August. That's 3 weeks and a very common amount of holidays for European standards. You get about 4-6 weeks off plus bank holidays in Europe. I think in the US it's much less.
Most events she attended (with the exception of the wings and the Garter) took place on weekends - so no sign for her not working either. She was hardly seen out and about enough to leave no time to work at Party Pieces. To the contrary. She was hardly photographed. For example the last pics of her and William clubbing were taken August 15 that's 3 weeks ago.

In Europe three weeks or a month´s holiday is usual, but they are not usually taken in three "doses" and if she was only out clubbing August 15 that was the only time that Prince William had available. I don´t think it is a smear campaign to tell the truth. She asked everyone to call her Catherine and everyone is (at least here). The Duchess of York asked everyone from the day she was married and probably before that, she didn´t want to be called Fergie (who would?) she was Sarah and wanted to be known by her name......hard luck, no one took any notice. So if Kate doesn´t want to be called this that is rather bad luck for her as I don´t think she is as badly treated namewise as Sarah Ferguson was, it sounded very disrespectful and she WAS a royal, married to the Queen´s second son, Miss Middleton is just waiting around so far, perhaps if she does get what she wants in the future, history books will print her name as Catherine.

 

[Little_star]

She didn't holiday "all the time" this year. She was on three vacations with William Klosters in March/April, Mustique in May, Mustique in August. That's 3 weeks and a very common amount of holidays for European standards. You get about 4-6 weeks off plus bank holidays in Europe. I think in the US it's much less.

4-6 weeks?! I think there were would lots of people celebrating in the UK if they did get that amount of time off.

As for her holidays I don't think many companies would allow their employees to take so many holidays in such a small space of time.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Kate's lifestyle is definitely not the lifestyle of an average girl of her age therefore people are interested. If she had a job, do the usual holiday and nights out nobody would care too much about her. She's one of those who don't get that you can't have it both ways - dating the future King and sporting the rich-bored-girl lifestyle under the eyes of the paparazzi but at the same time playing the private citizen card. In case of an engagement she will face a tough time because nobody knows what she stands for as she hasn't visibly done anything substantial for years. Vacation, clubbing, shopping or even editing the online catalogue for her parents' company hardly qualifies somebody as future Queen, at least not a middleclass commoner living in the 21st century.

 

[Warren]

In case of an engagement she will face a tough time because nobody knows what she stands for

She's not on the hustings campaigning for election. I don't know of any potential royal bride-to-be who's been obliged to publicly explain "what she stands for".
Ultimately she will be judged solely on how she performs her duties as a member of the Royal Family, not on what she did or didn't do prior to the transformation.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

4-6 weeks?! I think there were would lots of people celebrating in the UK if they did get that amount of time off.

As for her holidays I don't think many companies would allow their employees to take so many holidays in such a small space of time.

My husband just finished a 5 week holiday and has another one in November and after Xmas... that's pretty normal here in Germany, where overtime working hours can be added to your 6 week holidays plus bank holidays... Ok he's a research scientist at a state-funded institute but that's how the law is.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

She's not on the hustings campaigning for election. I don't know of any potential royal bride-to-be who's been obliged to publicly explain "what she stands for".
Ultimately she will be judged solely on how she performs her duties as a member of the Royal Family, not on what she did or didn't do prior to the transformation.

I disagree Warren. In the 21st century it is beneficial to public acceptance if the future Queen stands for something or is qualified in something and has a professional background. Mathilde is a speech therapist, Maxima was in banking, Letizia a journalist. A qualification for something can become a main theme in future duties which helps to be taken seriously. Monarchy is not seen as god-given anymore where people pay for the lifestyle for their representatives but are not allowed to ask questions about the qualification of those who represent the country. I am not sure that Kate's decision to solely focus on her prince and on the perspective of an eventual engagement or marriage is the right attitude to convince people she is the best choice for the wife of the future Head of State. Most of all will never know Kate Middleton personally so we have to judge her on what we see or read and what I have seen or read so far about her doesn't fit into my understanding of a qualified aspirant for Queen consort.

 

[MARG]

I disagree Warren. In the 21st century it is beneficial to public acceptance if the future Queen stands for something or is qualified in something and has a professional background.

I agree with Warren on this point. Catherine is not "on the hustings campaigning for election". She is Prince William's girlfriend until otherwise advised. Until such time as this changes I fail to see what she could do to alter our perception of her worth as a human being one way or the other.

Most of all will never know Kate Middleton personally so we have to judge her on what we see or read and what I have seen or read so far about her doesn't fit into my understanding of a qualified aspirant for Queen consort.

I am at a loss to comprehend precisely what qualifies an aspirant for Queen consort, albeit 20-30 years in the future. She is educated. She has a degree.

The future wife of Prince William would earn absolutely no brownie points for "going Hollywood" and conspicuously adopting a charitable and therefore "political" stance. She could already be a fully paid up member of Habitat for Humanity - oops, that's a political swipe at the government's housing policy so if she marries William that will have to go. Save the Whales? Nope, that would alienate some of Britains trading partners. "Fair Trade"? same as before, etc. ad nauseum.

It is only if and when she becomes wife to the second in line to the throne that we would all be looking to see what causes she will choose to support.

 

[Menarue]

It is only if and when she becomes wife to the second in line to the throne that we would all be looking to see what causes she will choose to support.

I completely agree with this. I think it would be ridiculous and perhaps presumptious for her to start doing charity work now. If (and it is still a quite big if) she marries Prince William then she will have to think about charity work or some cause (very difficult when you look at Marg´s list). Save the dolphins perhaps? No doubt she would have advisers to tell her what she should do as far as charity is concerned. First marriage. On some threads I have seen it commented that they don´t look that comfortable together, this may be because they know there is a camera always at the ready, but since this has been pointed out I have noticed it more and more.

 

[Odette]

She's not on the hustings campaigning for election. I don't know of any potential royal bride-to-be who's been obliged to publicly explain "what she stands for".
Ultimately she will be judged solely on how she performs her duties as a member of the Royal Family, not on what she did or didn't do prior to the transformation.

The difference between Kate and most other commoners who married into the RFs was the length of time each spent "waiting to become part of the firm". Letizia was a royal fiancee the same day the Spaniards did not see her on the TV, Alexandra also surprised the Danes, so the difference IMO with Kate is that she has been around for so long , she gave time to everyone to speculate and offer opinions. Most of the others arrived at the palace at the arm of their intended and had no time or need to explain much.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Is it not possible that she truly loves William with a mature love that passes the test of time?

I am not sure that Kate's decision to solely focus on her prince and on the perspective of an eventual engagement or marriage is the right attitude to convince people she is the best choice for the wife of the future Head of State.

 

[Incas]

But, with William, the DM have behaved as if he "belonged" to them in some way predicated on the link they previously had with his mother.

Interesting point. Many of the first group of reporters covering Diana before engagement, the likes of James Whitaker comes to mind, had made statements to the effect that they think Diana owed them her royal position. When she started to complain about press coverage and intrusion years later, competing papers would publish unflattering stories whenever she gave another scoops. Even now, when there is a flattering story on William, or Harry, there is the inevitable "Diana would be proud" line. It's as if these writers on royals, and their paper, feel they are the ones who knew Diana best, and her true standard bearers. This would make sense in their criticism of Kate. Taking the position of her would-be-future-mother-in-law, the likes of Daily Mail are the proud mamas/papa, tut-tut-ing on Kate's every move.

 

[MARG]

Well said Incas. Scary, but well said!

Freud would have had a field day were he still around. The kind of dynamics in play here are truely unhealthy, and that being the case the "mother-in-law" seems more than willing to destroy Catherine if she cannot control her.

 

[Elspeth]

Just a reminder of this rule:

• Discussion of other forums and websites should be limited to royal-related content. We do not allow criticism of other forums or continuation of disagreements that started elsewhere.

I understand that events at another royalty forum are indeed relevant to this thread. However, that doesn't excuse intemperate accusations against, and outright bashing of, members of other forums (who in some cases are also members here) or the forums themselves. Not every forum has the same subject matter, emphasis, and guidelines, and it would be pretty boring if they all did. We'd like to maintain good relations with the other royalty forums if possible, and some of the earlier posts in this thread aren't exactly calculated to help us do that.

I've done some deleting and editing, and I hope the mods can rely on everyone's good sense about this matter from here on.

Elspeth
for the British Royals moderators

 

[ysbel]

I disagree Warren. In the 21st century it is beneficial to public acceptance if the future Queen stands for something or is qualified in something and has a professional background.

You may be right in this but I fear this is an unreasonable expectation. If so, it is as if the public wants a princess that reflects themselves - a woman with all the middle class virtues that we expect from a young professional career woman while the woman in question may be put in a position that is far removed from our middle class reality as possible.

What can a prospective royal bride be qualified in to make her ready for a role as Princess? I work in HR and we deal with a lot of highly qualified and professional people who are just in the wrong jobs. They're bright, they're good, but they're not effective in their jobs because their jobs require skills and qualities they don't have. The qualifications that would make a woman a successful modern career woman may be detrimental to the qualities that she would need to have as Princess.

The BRF has many more privileges than the rest of us but they also have more restrictions; the members of the royal family cannot be so prominent that they outshine the monarch and they need to avoid taking on causes that can be in any way construed to have political overtones. Because of these restrictions, I think a woman that actually tries to stand for something before she marries into the family will have a tougher time of being accepted. No matter how popular a particular stand is right now, it can become unpopular over time and then the royal's identification with a certain position can turn out to be detrimental both to the royal in question and the royal family as a whole.

That having been said, if you are right and the British public is looking for a royal family with more middle class virtues, then I believe the BRF needs to find ways to exhibit those virutes in a way that doesn't look hypocritical for a family of their wealth and status. It is their job to keep in touch with the masses. However, I think this is a job for the Royals that are already in the family and any efforts towards making the BRF seem more in line with the middle class really need to be spearheaded by the Queen as the head of the monarchy.

IMO such a change can not be spearheaded by an outsider coming into the family. It makes the outsider look risky and the Royal Family look weak.

 

[pinkie40]

From Day One, I noticed the very, very, very subtle undertone that Kate was not "good enough" for Wills in many articles.

Jealousy, perhaps?

No, it's the lack of royal or even aristocratic bloodline, imo.

And, of course, she isn't "good enough". (Sometimes I like to think like a courtier in these matters)

But that's is exactly why William adores her, imo.

 

[Menarue]

From Day One, I noticed the very, very, very subtle undertone that Kate was not "good enough" for Wills in many articles.

Jealousy, perhaps?

No, it's the lack of royal or even aristocratic bloodline, imo.

And, of course, she isn't "good enough". (Sometimes I like to think like a courtier in these matters)

But that's is exactly why William adores her, imo.

I am sure there is probably some jealousy among William admirers but I am afraid the one thing I can´t quite agree with you about is the "William adores her" I really can´t see this. He is a young man with a presentable young lady at his complete disposition. She is said to have turned down jobs because she wants to be free when he feels like (or can) see her. On his part he doesn´t show that he feels anything very special for her but then how can anyone know this but it is a "feeling" I get from seeing their photos and whenever one of my sons came home (at last) with that someone really special it was very obvious.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

You may be right in this but I fear this is an unreasonable expectation. If so, it is as if the public wants a princess that reflects themselves - a woman with all the middle class virtues that we expect from a young professional career woman while the woman in question may be put in a position that is far removed from our middle class reality as possible.

What can a prospective royal bride be qualified in to make her ready for a role as Princess? I work in HR and we deal with a lot of highly qualified and professional people who are just in the wrong jobs. They're bright, they're good, but they're not effective in their jobs because their jobs require skills and qualities they don't have. The qualifications that would make a woman a successful modern career woman may be detrimental to the qualities that she would need to have as Princess.

The BRF has many more privileges than the rest of us but they also have more restrictions; the members of the royal family cannot be so prominent that they outshine the monarch and they need to avoid taking on causes that can be in any way construed to have political overtones. Because of these restrictions, I think a woman that actually tries to stand for something before she marries into the family will have a tougher time of being accepted. No matter how popular a particular stand is right now, it can become unpopular over time and then the royal's identification with a certain position can turn out to be detrimental both to the royal in question and the royal family as a whole.

That having been said, if you are right and the British public is looking for a royal family with more middle class virtues, then I believe the BRF needs to find ways to exhibit those virutes in a way that doesn't look hypocritical for a family of their wealth and status. It is their job to keep in touch with the masses. However, I think this is a job for the Royals that are already in the family and any efforts towards making the BRF seem more in line with the middle class really need to be spearheaded by the Queen as the head of the monarchy.

Excellent post Ysbel. It is true that there are many sides to the story and if things will finally turn out good or bad for the monarchy we will only know in many years’ time. I can only speak for myself and I rather prefer a future Queen who “stands for something” to one who doesn’t, whether her name will be Kate Middleton or not, and I believe my opinion reflects the majority of the British people. If it didn’t there wouldn’t be all these stories focussing on Kate and her attitude, I reckon that parts of the discussion are unlucky or superficial, but the blame cannot only lie with the media but also lies with Kate, William and the handling of the BRF. People want to know that royals are there for a purpose and not only enjoying the privileges that come with royal life. In times when even the Queen feels the need to cancel a wedding anniversary reception as the country is facing a recession, it doesn’t give the best of images when the young generation hits the headlines with living the easy life, be it Harry, William or Kate, who has been seen with William for such a long time that she is not only strongly associated with him but also with the lifestyle he leads as royal, although his final commitment towards her keeps missing, for whatever reason. I wonder how long this whole scenario will go on as the only party that currently benefits from the situation is the mass media, selling their magazines. There will be tough times ahead after the death of HM, an icon on the one hand, a cork in the bottle slowing down modernisation on the other hand. The new monarch and his family will have to accommodate the media or public opinion much more than HM ever had to as she is associated with to another era, but that bonus won't be granted to her successor.

IMO such a change can not be spearheaded by an outsider coming into the family. It makes the outsider look risky and the Royal Family look weak.

I believe it can work, but depends very much on the personality of the outsider. If all had been well in the Wales household Charles and his outshining outsider wife Diana IMO would have become the golden couple of monarchy, standing for tradition, modernisation and keeping in touch with the masses at the same time. Sadly, it wasn’t meant to be. Two more examples that worked IMO are Queens Silvia and Rania but to be fair these monarchies are not as much the golden fishbowl the BRF are.

 

[amandamrgt]

I don't think I can agree with you - Catherine hardly needs any special qualifications. I wish she'd been on holidays less then she's now and would otherwise choose a career or some sort of goal for future. But let's face it; even if she does marry William, she's going to be his consort, most of the pressure and attention should be on William. Now when it comes to him, I do think he needs to pay more attention to his future role and were a bit more prepared for it.

 

[Skydragon]

---Snipped---- That having been said, if you are right and the British public is looking for a royal family with more middle class virtues, then I believe the BRF needs to find ways to exhibit those virutes in a way that doesn't look hypocritical for a family of their wealth and status. It is their job to keep in touch with the masses. However, I think this is a job for the Royals that are already in the family and any efforts towards making the BRF seem more in line with the middle class really need to be spearheaded by the Queen as the head of the monarchy.

I find it hard to believe that the majority of the UK public want their Royal Family to have middle class 'virtues'. Those that continue to look up to the RF, do so because they are not middle class and do not have their virtues (many middle class virtues leave a lot to be desired anyway).
-------------------------------
Catherine is doing what 1000's of girls and boys do, from the similar backgrounds of wealth.

If 'people' are really going to suggest she becomes 'qualified' as a princess, starts on a career (which she would probably have to leave after they become engaged) then shouldn't the same question be asked of William. His work record isn't too good, he has had more holidays than Catherine, has been off on other jolly japes (Army, RAF, Navy) a few weeks/months at each one, if we want to judge both, his staying power is laughable!

Next thing someone will suggest she is sent to Paul Burrells for training!

 

[Skydragon]

and I believe my opinion reflects the majority of the British people. If it didn’t there wouldn’t be all these stories focussing on Kate and her attitude,

There we will have to disagree 100%. There is a concerted effort by some in the media (namely the Daily Mail) and one or two forums, (most of the posters on them seem to be American), to bring the girl down in some way. The very fact that the Mail had to use one of the forums to back it's story up shows, to me, a lack of support for their opinion.

I interact with people from all walks of life, of varying ages and almost all are of the opinion that 'they should leave them alone' and for those that work, 'I wish I could lead that lifestyle, perhaps when I win the Lotto, or the phrase some on here hate, 'they're just jealous'.