In the UK are we…

[StrawberriesandCreamTea]

…really like this? Back in March the New Statesman had this to say:

“Our parasitic behaviour is the only reason she’s made this announcement.”

https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2024/03/kate-middleton-and-the-sickness-of-a-nation

Judging by all the mud slinging yes!

My answer to both of you is this perceptive post by journalist Mark Toth on X. Incidentally, both of my parents also died from cancer as well as a close friend.

https://x.com/MCTothSTL/status/1802019878167060534

Mark, an American journalist, has written several articles as well as X comments on the RF. He is a man of integrity and decency.

https://x.com/MCTothSTL/status/1771243405231739219

Some good points in the article - but it's the New Statesman, so they're going to be pretty anti-monarchy, I guess.

I think the terrifying power of social media is the problem with regard to Catherine's predicament: the horrible rumour machine and generation of fake news, churning out the sort of spite and venom which would once have been hidden - or maybe not even produced 20 or 30 years ago. The people who would have gone to watch public executions, or perhaps knitted around the guillotine, are now given power of utterance and a global platform when once they would have been illiterate and voiceless. Sorry if that offends, but I think that's the issue!

I'm just amazed at the dignity which Catherine in particular has shown. I would have done murder by now after what she's been put through (by H & M about the now-retracted racism slur, and then the Sussex Squad about her cancer/marriage rumours etc).

And I'm not sure the journo is right about most of the country hating Camilla either. I've never 'hated' Camilla and I think many people who might have been obsessively fond of Diana have come to accept and admire her for her quiet, supportive conduct and the work she's doing in difficult circs and at an advanced age. I think 'hatred' of her comes from those who regarded Diana as some kind of secular saint.

When I have read the nasty comments which some posters write I have been reminded that people went to Tyburn to enjoy a public hanging, and still would if it still happened. They are the modern equivalent.

I agree,and I also think that another issue with social media is people jumping on the bandwagon of a train of thought or idea that is trending, without really stopping to think it through for themselves

I'm not sure. But for the actions of Christopher Bouzy, the Sussex Squad and the American tabloids that are heavily invested in driving an anti Catherine and William narrative - one picked up by certain UK tabloids and commentators, and that is the order the news cycle was going in, SM-US tabloids-UK news; would the British people have been parasitically demanding Catherine explain herself, or would we have just accepted the initial statement made in January, explaining that she needed an operation and giving a clear timeline for her reappearance (as clear as it was to them at that time)? I for one accepted that she wouldn't be seen until she recovered and had no problem with that. No doubt, in the eyes of some, that makes me a "sheeple". But, rather a sheeple than a parasite getting my rocks off on another person's illness - and that's the true motivation behind what happened, a fervent hope, one that has been enunciated in the last couple of days even on these pages, that she will not be back and/or leaving her marriage. The veil of republicanism is thin indeed.

@BemusedAmerican I am so sorry to hear your lost both parents this way. 💐

This is a brilliant post by Mark Toth. I thank you for sharing it and hope everyone will read it and take a beat.

You don’t have to believe in monarchy to believe in decency and human kindness.

I agree, thank you @BemusedAmerican . Mark Toth's writing on the Sussexes has been highly illuminating. I think his tweet warrants being set out here for those who don't clink on links:

Heretofore, I’ve intentionally not commented on
@KensingtonRoyal
despite frequently writing about the British Royal Family in context of national security — and King Charles’ status as head of state & head of the Commonwealth. For the past several weeks, I’ve watched in utter disgust as a young mother has been trolled, attacked and maligned by so-called nameless Sussex squad Twitter accounts — and wondered how they would personally react if the world’s town square turned on them or a beloved family member during a time of significant health crisis.

Several of my own sources I have always found credible, confirmed weeks ago to me that the Princess of Wales was undergoing a significant health crisis. Believing in privacy, I went no further as her health condition falls outside the purview of what I cover as a journalist.

Yet her story was never about royalty let alone about a royal personage. It was solely about a woman enduring a significant health crisis — and every Twitter account that reveled in demonizing her for clicks and revenue should be ashamed. Cancer sucks. I’ve watched close family members die of it. I’ve attended the wake and funeral of a young 11-year-old boy I helped coach and train in soccer. You don’t have to believe in monarchy to believe in decency and human kindness. I am under no delusion. These accounts do not care about humanity. They’ve attacked her children, her parenting decisions to prioritize raising George, Charlotte and Louis — and they have attacked her husband, the Prince of Wales, for adamantly refusing to betray her desire to keep the nature of her illness private until she and her family could process it.

Clearly, as an American, I do not believe in monarchy as the best means of governing a democratic nation. Yet, at the same time, I 100 percent respect that this is a choice for only the British people to make — and it is none of my business what choice they make. England is America’s closest ally — and I believe that means being as supportive as possible of the decision the British people make for themselves. I also believe in decency — and it is sorely missing by many on this and other social media. Godspeed to Catherine, William, George, Charlotte and Louis as they as a family face this period of uncertainty as so many other families do when cancer attacks.

@CoffeeCantata

In that article, it sounds like they're actually anti- people, making out that we were all baying for, er, whatever it is we were baying for.

A certain section on social media were baying. The mainstream picked it up and started promulgating the horrible rumours.

None of the British mainstream media mentioned the souce of all the rumours, though, which is the real story, and they still don 't.

I think Catherine would have planned to made an announcement anyways, but the awful rumours changed the climate in which it was delivered.

The British newspapers seem very leery of investigating, or allowing mention BTL, the source of the allegations they were beginning to pick up on, and still are. I imagine you know what I'm alluding to, and it baffles me that even.the New Statesman is blaming the journalistic "we" rather than the individuals driving the online character assassination of our next head of state.

(Who ncidentally, once faced off with Meghzn.)

A very moving piece from Mark Toth, Milkshake - which restores my faith in humanity.

I think I know what you're referring to, Rhaidimiddim. Giles Coren has been blamed for starting the obnoxious rumour about PW, but as you say, it's alleged that things may be more complicated than that. Perhaps it started as a joke (what a vile joke!) but it took on a life of its own and will take some quashing. I wonder if it's because of the alleged actual source of the rumour that GC may be afraid to come out and say how it really originated?

It's accepted, gospel truth on Celebitchy - and elsewhere, I'm sure. When the SS got going on here a month or so ago, there were many unfamiliar (possibly one-night-only) posters with teenage-style usernames who appeared and were positively relishing this story.

It really upsets me that all this cruelty has happened because one woman was consumed with jealousy for another, and set out to destroy her character on a global stage. I wonder how that person sleeps at night! But she's clearly convinced herself that her truth is THE truth.

Mark Toth. 😱 Another old, white, right wing guy, pro the Israeli war, retweets Piers Morgan of all people and pro Kate. Tries to impress with his cv and utilised his own world view to try and take down Harry and Meghan. Pass.

The Vintage Read has done some excellent research into the online bullying of Catherine and exactly when and where it started. She’s thinking of writing a book about it - I hope she does, this disgrace and the people behind it need to be exposed more widely. They, after all, have had several big platforms on which to spread their bile.

When you start with ageism you lose. Did you read what he wrote?

So much to unpack here. Pro Kate. Was that a slip?

It remains a common denominator for all the abuse and hateful bile against Meghan. Kicked off by Piers. Ageism does not an argument make in the culture wars where white male hegemony has been a defining problem for many countries. The patriarchy is a recognised issue. As are old white men who like to think they run things still. Even worse police a woman of colour. Starting with William behind the scenes. An heir not the Monarch either back then or now.

There was nothing vile in that post and nothing about Meghan but about the Sussex squad. Do you view them as one mind? Any criticism of the sussex squad is an attack on Meghan?

Harry will be an old white man one day.

The weak point in your theory is the attribution of influence to American tabloids.

Nobody buys or pays any attention to those rags. People used to leaf through them when they were standing in line at the supermarket checkout, but now they have phones, and most supermarkets have self checkouts so lines move fast.

Social media, otoh, definitely fueled the obsession, and conspiracy theories are very much part of the zeitgeist.

Regardless of the zeitgeist, however, the statement about an unusually lengthy recovery period for what was presented as a planned abdominal surgery/ "nothing to see here folks" was never going to be accepted. People are not stupid.

I think it would have been far better for KP to issue a brief statement shortly after the initial announcement, thus preventing the speculation.

”they should have” was a familiar excuse and an end run around blaming the victim that was frequently parroted here during the height of the hysteria.

The Times published an article a few dayscago about Harry's falling popularity and the failing PR strategy behind it.

I made a bland, low-key remark about the article's failure to mention the SS's activities, and it got rejected.

Edited to add "failing PR strategy"

OK...

So can you pinpoint precisely which bits of his comment you find disagreeable?

I'd be fascinated to know.

Mathanxiety
Regardless of the zeitgeist, however, the statement about an unusually lengthy recovery period for what was presented as a planned abdominal surgery/ "nothing to see here folks" was never going to be accepted. People are not stupid.

I think it would have been far better for KP to issue a brief statement shortly after the initial announcement, thus preventing the speculation.

Am I the only person in the UK who just takes a statement that a public figure is undergoing medical treatment, and will re-appear when recovered, as perfectly reasonable?

I just do not understand this obsession with 'preventing speculation'. What is so hard to understand about the info that Catherine was ill and would be back when she is better?

The horrible assertion that 'WE MUST BE TOLD!; baffles me. Even now, I don't need to know just what kind of cancer she has and what treatments she's undergoing. I really must be a weirdo.

the statement about an unusually lengthy recovery period for what was presented as a planned abdominal surgery/ "nothing to see here folks" was never going to be accepted. People are not stupid.

This implies that the initial surgery couldn't possibly have a long recovery time. Why do you think it's not possible to have surgery that takes months to recover from? Or surgery that can only be deemed successful after a prolonged period?
I suspect the initial surgery was something that could fail so they were over cautious on time scale to allow for a follow up procedure if necessary. E.g 20 years ago my grandmother broke her hip, she had an operation to repair the break. She had to wait more than 3 months for it to be confirmed that the repair has failed and she needed a hip replacement. If the palace had declared an operation with the potential to fail a success after 2 weeks then had to back track that would have caused speculation and accusations of lies.

Planned versus emergency does not equate, in medical terms, to something under the control of the patient. It just means she wasn’t blue lit in under an emergency situation. Nobody knows what the nature of her surgery was. So how would you or anyone other than the patient and her doctor know what length of recovery was needed? It was never presented as “nothing to see here surgery”. Subsequent statements were made. Making it clear that KP would not be giving a running commentary on Catherine’s recovery. Why would they, she’s not the head of state or the future head of state and her private medical business is just that, private. Nosey bastards don’t need to be pandered to. We now know she received a cancer diagnosis around 27 February and thereafter was waiting for an appropriate time to tell her children before the rest of the world. The ridiculous furore over a photo and her medical records being accessed meant she needed to bring that forward. No doubt the non stupid people felt very proud of themselves.

You do realise those rags are all online, don’t you? They are frequently cited by Sussex supporters on this board in support of their hero and heroine, so someone is definitely reading them. And someone is definitely feeding them stories.