Why so much made up rubbish?

[antelopevalley]

I have insomnia so just reading a fluff piece about Prince George in US Weekly. And it is so full of obviously made-up shit. Why do they do this?
Apparently, George who is nine years old "goes out of his way to help his mother with the household chores." They have cleaners. Catherine is not spending her days doing household chores and neither is George.

In terms of becoming future monarch George apparently - “He sees it as a huge honor and frequently asks his dad to loan him books about history, he loves listening to stories about his ancestors and the history of the Commonwealth, not just England. It’s very clear he takes it all very seriously and is dedicated to serving the Crown when his time eventually comes.”

Again he is nine years old, he is not dedicated to serving the Crown, he just knows he will be King one day, but he is too young to fully comprehend what that means.

Why do they make up this rubbish? I mean I know it is to sell magazines and get internet clicks, and that they know very little about George so have to make it up. But why not make up believable things? Why do they try and make him sound like a 50-year-old man rather than a very young child?

If I was going to write an article and makeup things about him I would write something believable e.g. he loves playing rugby, football and cricket and follows all the big matches. He also loves playing games in the large garden like tag and is a very active boy. He enjoys learning about history in his school lessons and like lots of little boys loves the particularly gory details of ancient history. He also enjoys learning about other countries around the world and Catherine encourages him to try more unusual foods from around the commonwealth. Maybe not exactly that, but at least make it believable. Not an article that is only believable if you have never met a nine-year-old in your life.

They make stuff up just so you can have an opportunity to write other made up stuff. 🤣

I think some of it is made up by those they have deals with. Their teams are probably working overtime to drive a specific narrative.

@darmaka maybe I am being thick, but what do you mean by those they have deals with?

The article could be true because he isn't a normal 9 year old.
He is going to be your King.
He is far more superior than the rest of us.

The bigger problem is just how unreliable media is. It is such a shame that you have to put a gear deal of effort into finding out what is worth absorbing.

The world is awash with shite misinformation. Nonsense, hate and manipulation.

it is also driving a new divide; those who are gullible, but into and repeat the shite and those who are smug and consider themselves far too learned to be gullible. It’s the new class divide.

*Great deal of effort

*Buy into …

@whereamu Anointed by God apparently. So maybe God has created the interests of a 50-year-old man into an ordinary-looking nine-year-old boy?

I would be concerned about him if what this article said was true. Not that I think it is.

Sorry perhaps I didn't put it across well. They have people they work with and PR teams who work with journalists or "royal experts" and people in the media who are usually getting these "leaks".
I also thought Piers was friendly with Meghan because he was going to write all the articles and get the news first hand etc which would also in turn boost her career - then Meghan met Harry who didn't like peers and that door closed very quickly for him - he assumed probably he would be the chosen journo. That's why he hates her. He is seemingly pally with Camilla.
I might be wrong here, I think it's all about protecting their image as well / destroying others in the process.

A lot of stuff in the media is completely fabricated. Read some of the utter rubbish the news outlets post on line most of it is pure speculation. I'm sure Gorge knows he will one day be King put William and Kate seem level headed enough to let him(mostly) enjoy his boyhood. There have been numerous pictures published of Kate looking very pissed off with her kids, so their behaviour is probably pretty normal!!

He might not become king, he might choose not to bother - his sis would be next in line.

My theory-

By the time he becomes king, there’ll be even less interest in the monarchy and likely more calls for a republic. People will question what the point is of promoting someone to an elite role based on their birth, and then the palace will dig out the historical articles showing how King G has been dedicated to the public since he was a small boy.

That’s if the monarchy survives beyond Charlie.

It's because there is a huge market for this in parts of the US. There's possibly less scrutiny of the printed media over there and a vast appetite for it, to judge by some of my American friends, anyway.

The Royals sell well there, I think, regardless of how much fact there is (or isn't) in the supermarket tabloids.

I doubt it will last beyond William or even make it to William . . . the monarchy that is

The American and also the Australian press make up all kinds of nonsense because they know it sells and that they won't be sued. I had a quick google and just in two minutes found headlines claiming the Queen had died, that Andrew had a drunk punchup with William, that Meghan was pregnant with twins, that Kate was pregnant with twins, that Harry and Meghan have split, that William and Kate have split, that Kate had done a 'tell all' about her mental health, that there's a Charles and DI sex tape, that William had walked out on Kate to be with his mistress, that Kate had packed her stuff and fled her home in Buckingham Palace (um no) in tears, that the Queen is stepping down, that the Queen is giving her crown direct to William and skipping Charles. My favourite headline was one claiming that the Palace have organised a lavish Coronation to crown Queen Kate (William doesn't get a look in apparently) which costs £1billion and will be this Christmas. Or maybe last Christmas, who knows?

Royals traditionally have a policy of never complain never explain, even though in practice it's only the Queen and older royals who do that. They have agreements with the British press and they do use lawsuits and legal threats against the British press sometimes, but mostly ignore foreign press except in cases like the topless photos of Kate where her privacy had been violated.

I doubt it will last beyond William or even make it to William . . . the monarchy that is

Yes, this.

HMQ has acquired an almost mythical public approval mainly by being there forever and keeping her trap firmly shut. Charles and his many mis-steps in the longest apprenticeship ever falls far short. Workshy Wills still heroically lives up to his nickname.

The whole circus is a ticking time-bomb.

The older Royals also complain and explain. Charles's interview where amongst other things he complained about the Queen's parenting.
It is only the Queen and Philip who did this.

Well PH is trying his hardest.

His book is apparently coming out for Thanksgiving so who knows if that’s going to be a lot of made up rubbish too.

I won’t be reading either TB or PH book but I’m expecting wall to wall media coverage of it through the long winter months - joy.

Charles's interview where amongst other things he complained about the Queen's parenting.

Given the state of her kids, despite every possible advantage, I suspect he may have a very valid point.

From the second he was born he's been brought up to be King, he sees what his great grandmother does to serve the country and he's 9 so he will have an idea of what will happen.

As for cleaning, yeah, don't buy that for a minute.

Do you think the monarchy will be deposed by a referendum, the Royal Family’s decision or revolution?

I think he has been taught about the monarchy, his place in it, his future role and so on. 9 is certainly old enough for a child to understand this - my 10yo DS has a deep interest in history and knows a lot about it off his own back, and he’s not being raised as the future king. If you watch the Crown you see the Queen being taught about these things as a child and there’s every reason that Prince George, as Charles and William before him, has had this stuff taught at an age-appropriate time. If you watch his behaviour in public (as opposed to Louis) you can clearly see the training he’s had already.

I know George will be being taught about the monarchy and his role. Although I hope he is getting a better education than the Queen. The Queen said her education outside constitutional monarchy was very poor and she took extra study as an adult so she understood the world better.
But being educated in the monarchy is a far cry from saying a nine-year-old boy is dedicated to serving the Crown. That is rubbish - I hope! No 9 year old should be dedicated to a future career, they are 9!!
He may be interested in history, but unless William's reading material is very simplistic, he is not reading William's history books. Decent adult history books assume a lot of wider knowledge that adults have so they can go in-depth about a subject. A 9-year-old would only be able to understand a pretty basic adult history book - the kind sold in bargain bookshops. Unless he was borrowing them to look at photographs.
Even child geniuses are always around subjects such as maths and science that can be learned without having a wider knowledge of the world. Never arts subjects such as history.

I think he has a valid point. The Queen does not appear to have been a great mother. But it is still a pretty damning thing to say to the public. And rather exposes the lie that only Harry has ever criticised members of the Royal Family.

Don't be ridiculous - he is not superior, but the plan is that he will serve as King. Seems a pleasant little lad to me.

He is nine years old. I am sure he will be an ordinary pleasant nine year old boy.
Charles seemed a nice lad when a child. I do not feel the same about him as an adult.