Tatler removed the ‘Top CEO’ sections from their Duchess Kate cover story

kate baby bank5

In May of this year, Tatler released their shady “Catherine the Great” cover story. The story was originally done with the implicit approval of Kensington Palace, likely because they believed Tatler would just go along with their Embiggening Kate campaign. Unfortunately, the story was the Revenge of the Turnip Toffs – all of the rich-bitch aristocrats used the opportunity to talk sh-t about how Kate has zero personality, how William is obsessed with Carole Middleton, how Kate honestly believes that she works as hard as a Top CEO, that Kate feels exhausted and trapped, that Carole, Kate and Pippa are just some social climbing hustlers, and on and on. Kensington Palace FREAKED. They threatened to sue Tatler and, wouldn’t you know, “never complain, never explain” went straight out the window.

For months, the Tatler story existed online with zero edits. The print edition obviously went out months ago too, and no edits were made on that either. But then we heard a few weeks ago that Tatler had quietly removed only one paragraph: the paragraph about William’s friendship with Rose Hanbury. It was a bit like closing the barn doors after the horses had bolted. Hilariously, that wasn’t the end of it. Two weeks later, it now appears that Tatler has removed several more paragraphs from the cover story.

Tatler has cut huge swathes from its online profile of the Duchess of Cambridge after the society bible was accused of publishing a ‘string of lies’. The magazine has caved in and removed almost a quarter of the piece – in particular ‘cruel’ and ‘snobby’ barbs aimed at Kate’s mother Carole Middleton and sister Pippa. It comes after Kensington Palace instructed its lawyers to demand the ‘inaccuracies and false representations’ be removed.

July/August’s edition of Tatler, which was published in May under the cover story ‘Catherine the Great’, detailed claims, now deleted, that Kate, 38, felt ‘exhausted and trapped’ following Harry and Meghan’s decision to step back from royal life, was ‘perilously thin’ like Princess Diana and had even consulted psychics with William. But The Mail on Sunday understands it was the criticism of the Middleton family that caused the greatest upset.

Initially, Tatler refused to remove anything from the internet, despite Palace fury, with editor Richard Dennen insisting he stood ‘behind the reporting of Anna Pasternak and her sources’. However, the Cambridges’ lawyers pointed out that Kensington Palace had not been given the opportunity to comment on the specific content of Ms Pasternak’s feature, much of which was disputed. Eventually both sides agreed that chunks would be cut from the online profile, which was done this week – four months after its publication.

The erased paragraphs include claims that William was obsessed with his mother-in-law, that Carole, 65, is ‘a terrible snob’ and that Pippa, 37, is ‘too regal and try-hard’. The only reference Tatler has made to the climbdown is a sentence at the end of the piece, saying it has been edited.

A source close to the magazine’s publisher Condé Nast said: ‘Tatler has a long-standing relationship with the Royal Family and wanted to end this amicably.’ A spokesman for Kensington Palace declined to comment.

[From The Daily Mail]

What’s funnier, the fact that William and Kate are too dumb to understand the Streisand Effect, or that the DAILY MAIL went on to copy-and-paste every single section which was removed from the Tatler piece? The whole thing is hilarious to me, oh my God. When I read the full Tatler piece, I knew that it was a big deal and that KP would be mad about it. What I didn’t expect was William and Kate throwing a big, public hissy fit… which ended up drawing more attention to this shady article. I did not expect for their tantrum to extend months beyond the publication, to the point where four months later, we’re still hearing about this sh-t. Do the Cambridges think they’ve won? They haven’t. Now we know that they would not have fought so hard if Tatler hadn’t been speaking the truth.

The Duke And Duchess Of Cambridge Attend Gala Dinner To Support East Anglia's Children's Hospices' Nook Appeal

The Duke And Duchess Of Cambridge Attend Gala Dinner To Support East Anglia's Children's Hospices' Nook Appeal

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Avalon Red.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

97 Responses to “Tatler removed the ‘Top CEO’ sections from their Duchess Kate cover story”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Emily says:

    The Daily Mail doesn’t quote the removed section that mentions “Rose’s apparent closeness to William” though…

    • Sofia says:

      I think it did when I checked last night but there’s a possibility it was never there or KP got them to remove it.

      • Becks1 says:

        I just looked, it mentions the “glamorous neighbor” but doesn’t have the specific line about her “apparent closeness” to William.

      • Sofia says:

        @Becks: Yeah I think they did have “apparent closeness” but it was removed at KP’s request. Or maybe they never had it and I’m making it up

      • notasugarhere says:

        It was removed, we don’t know it if was at the request of KP or the request of Rose and Rocksavage. As it was removed before these other sections, my bet is on R&R getting it removed.

      • Lady D says:

        nota, do you know Rose’s last name? Is it Chomdeley, Rocksavage or Houghton? Rose Rocksavage sounds pretty badass.

      • SomeChick says:

        Pretty sure it’s Rose Hanbury. (aka “Rose Who?” around here.) Mr Rocksavage used to be called something else, but he had it changed. And they’re also both known as the Chumleys (that’s just how it’s pronounced, I can’t keep track of all the letters that are supposed to be in it, haha).

      • Becks1 says:

        Hanbury was her maiden name.

        I think her last name may technically be Cholmondeley, based on her IG, which is the same, But I don’t know how titles and all that works in the UK, lol. I think her husband used to be titled the Earl of Rocksavage, which is why he uses that name? All I know for sure is that Hanbury is not her married name, but she may still use it.

    • PEARL GREY says:

      So when is the British media going to start accusing the Cambridges of “censorship”, given that freedom of the press is oh so important to them when writing about others?

      When are they going to chastise the Cambridges for being “weak” and not following the “never complain, never explain” rule, that they claim to live by?

      What happened to the “spine of steel” Duchess that “gets on with her work quietly without fuss”?

      • VS says:

        If there were actual journalists in the royal rota rat nest, someone would ask these questions. Meghan was supposed to take everything and never complained. The others can complain, sue, refute, contest, etc…..the black one was supposed to stay quiet! and I was told royalists and the rf aren’t racists! OK……….
        H&M thank you lucky stars you were able to escape a nasty situation! never have I seen a family with so much of their personal business ending up in tabloids!

      • dynastysurf says:

        Her last name is Hanbury. Her husband’s is Choldmondely – he used Rocksavage briefly when he was working as an actor but it’s not actually his last name, the title he held at the time was Earl of Rocksavage, so it was a similar situation as the Cambridge kids using that as their last name.

  2. Belli says:

    Wow, Willy really can’t stand it if there’s a single person out there not fawning over them and kissing their asses. If one less positive article makes them this angry just imagine if they’d had to deal with a fraction of what H&M went through.

  3. Becks1 says:

    So, first off, this just makes KP look horrible, because we see that they WILL fight back against negative stories, even ones with sources, and they WILL protect their own. They never saw Meghan as “their own.”

    Second – its like we said last week, I think about the Prince Philip story – the BM can be so shady in their way, like here. An article about the removed paragraphs that recites all the claims in those paragraphs and just brings more attention to those paragraphs.

    Finally – damn, KP really was mad and embarrassed about that article. The fact that they were still pushing for things to be removed after FOUR MONTHS (when by this point, is anyone besides people like us still talking about it?) is kind of hilarious.

    I wonder if Tatler always planned to go along with KP and remove sections, but left it all up there as long as possible to make a point .

    • notasugarhere says:

      It also shows taxpayer money is being used (again) for the Middletons. This isn’t the first time. Security upgrades at Middleton home, security at Middleton home, RPOs for Pippa’s book signings, royal lawyers used to disappear the gun charges against Pippa in France. Were taxpayer-funded lawyers also used to disappear James and the Nazi party supplies, the underage rape charges against Pippa’s father in law, etc.

      • Becks1 says:

        Good point Nota. KP used their power here to protect the Middletons, which is ridiculous.

      • notasugarhere says:

        They also likely used the power of the Crown to *influence another country not to press criminal charges* against a member of the Middleton or Matthews families.

      • Andrew’s Nemesis says:

        @Nota Gun charges?! What did I miss?!!

      • Becks1 says:

        @Andrew’s Nemesis it was a few years ago – before she was married – and the details are fuzzy now, but Pippa was in Paris and in a car with someone who had a gun, which I guess is against the law? (don’t ask me, I’m from the US.) I don’t think Pippa herself actually had the gun but could be wrong. But the charges just sort of…..went away.

        And then her father-in-law was accused of rape in St. Barts (from years ago I think) and likewise whose charges just sort of…..stopped being mentioned.

      • SomeChick says:

        I just looked it up and apparently it was a plastic toy gun. Pippa was in the passenger seat, and the driver waved it at some paps. So, not that big of a deal, assuming of course that it really was a plastic gun. Still really stupid tho. In the US he totally could have gotten shot for that.

      • notasugarhere says:

        In French law, it is a big deal and there were criminal charges involved. But somehow, things that would be charges for everyday people suddenly weren’t charges for a member of the Middleton family.

    • 809Matriarch says:

      That’s what I say too. Notice Will didn’t clap back or get incandascent with rage when Piers penned an article saying Harry should wake from his “woke hell” and come back home and MARRY A DIM BLONDE – like HIS BROTHER WANTED.

      I mean if I were William, I would have sicced the law on Piers and the DM for publishing such an inflammatory statement. But crickets from KP about that statement. Must be true. They – particularly the Lambridges want Harry to dump Meghan and come home with his tail between his legs and let the firm choose a suitably stupid blonde bride for him.

  4. Izzy says:

    LMAO like those sections haven’t been screenshot hundreds of times. Things live forever on the ‘net.

  5. ABritGuest says:

    The Fail republishing exact sections which were removed to a bigger audience then Tatler and showing again they are trash.

    Interesting how certain royals are applauded when they drop no complain no explain and challenge the press. Interesting also that pressure may have been put on Conde Nast& issues resolved because the relationship with the royal family is important even though some of what was said about the Middletons especially have been said in other publications for years. But we were expected to believe Tatler & other publications can do hit pieces after hit pieces on Meghan (with some details we know were untrue eg Meghan pregnant at the wedding, causing staff to leave) & the family’s hands are tied.

  6. Elizabeth Regina says:

    William and Kate are not very bright. They are sly, they are cunning and they are spitefully underhand but not very bright. Their ‘victory’ is a very hollow one indeed and shows no long term thinking. Arms have been twisted to make Tatler back down but the damage is done. We know Kate and her mother cooperated with the magazine on that piece. We know it did them no favours. This story will run and run. What no one is mentioning is that the knife twist allegedly came from Camilla’s daughter in law. Kate is getting too big for her prairie dresses in more ways than one.

    • Sofia says:

      “What no one is mentioning is that the knife twist allegedly came from Camilla’s daughter in law”

      First time I’m hearing this. Sara Parker Bowles (Camilla’s daughter-in-law) has no connection to Tatler employee wise that I can find. Are you thinking for Louisa Parker Bowles? She’s Camilla’s niece (through marriage) and works at Tatler but I had no idea she was heavily involved in this piece.

      • Elizabeth Regina says:

        Yes you are right Sofia. Sorry I meant Camilla’s niece not daughter in law. Much was made in the Dm about M’s supposed involvement in the piece whereas the smoking gun was much much closer to home.

      • notasugarhere says:

        There’s no smoking gun re. Camilla. It relates directly to W&K’s uni friend, the current editor at Tatler. He attacked Meghan mercilessly for W&K, and when they were done using him as one of their mouthpieces? He decided to go against them. This is how it will go with Tanna as well, who will eventually spill about all those years of royal exclusive photos thanks to tips from within the Middleton household.

      • Wiglet Watcher says:

        Nota
        Looking forward to Tanna doing a tell all. They’ve had to appease him before when he was slighted exclusives so he must have oodles of dirt.

  7. Sofia says:

    What’s telling to me is that they’ve decided to keep all the Sussex bashing paragraphs there including how the Cambridges feel the Sussexes threw their kids under the bus. I think that shows you how the Cambridges /really/ feel because if they were getting Tatler to remove things, they could have asked them to remove a few of the Sussex bashing stuff. But they didn’t. That was what KP wanted: a Sussex bashing piece with praise for Kate.

    Anyways, I wonder how the aristos feel. They’ve made it clear they don’t like Kate so I can’t see their opinion of her improving if they feel she got “their magazine” to bend the knee to her.

    • Jaxonmeh says:

      @sofia – I’m sure the Turnip Toffs are slightly annoyed that the Cambridge’s got their retractions, but they accomplished what they wanted to, which was saying don’t mess with us because you will never be one of us and publicly laughing at Kate and the Middletons. They won when the piece was published and such a big deal was made about it. That doesn’t take that victory away at all. I’m sure I’d hate that crew if I met them in real life, but I do have to say well played Turnip Toffs, well played.

      • Sofia says:

        I mean yeah they got what they wanted but these people also hold themselves to such high esteem and are quite the followers of Tatler so I can absolutely see their egos bruised over the fact that Kate is removing “their” magazine’s content

      • notasugarhere says:

        I think Rose got the retraction about the ‘intimate dinners’, not W&K.

      • Becks1 says:

        Nota – I wonder if Rose got that retracted, and then KP followed up and was like “well if you can remove THAT you can remove these other paragraphs….”

      • notasugarhere says:

        I think the Rose removal was simply Rose calling up the editor, saying, ‘Really, darling we all know everyone knows, but did you have to print it?’ and it was removed. W&K’s was more likely legal threats.

      • Harper says:

        If I were a Toff I’d think this all so funny. The retractions add to the drama. You know the piece got the exact reaction they were hoping for from Will/Kate/Ma Middleton when you see sections being removed. If the royals stuck to their never complain, never explain mantra, the Toffs would still be left wondering if their hit piece did the trick. Now they know it did.

        And, Tatler paired that famous pic of Will/Kate/Rose from the EACH fundraiser with the headline about the royal mistresses article on Twitter, briefly, before taking it down and using another photo. Dennen has okay’d having fun at the Cambridges’ expense, and I’m hoping there is more to come. Perhaps a fawning cover story on Rose may be upcoming?

    • Merricat says:

      Honestly, I think the aristos are laughing their well-toned arses off about it. Obviously Kate doesn’t care how her character comes across, which is why she was okay with leaving everything else in. What came out had to do with her ego, how she sees herself. She insists on a narrative that everyone knows is an invention.

    • Silas says:

      I think the people at Tatler had a deadline to edit the article and were pissed off about it so they removed the Rose part and leaked it. When they got everyone’s attention, they made more references to Rose and royal mistresses. Then they met their deadline and did all the edits. Malicious compliance.

      Both Tatler and the DM thumbing their noses at Will and Kate.

  8. S808 says:

    Man, the meltdown when this article came out must’ve been EPIC. Man, to be a fly on the wall at KP during that time…..For them to still be fighting over this article months after the fact is crazy. I wonder what was said to get Tatler to cave cause there was never any legal action taken.

    Though it’s now been reduced to the usual Kate good, Meghan bad bullshit, the impact of the original piece can’t be taken back or forgotten.

  9. Digital Unicorn says:

    These 2 dimwits don’t realise that the full article HAS BEEN OUT THERE FOR 4 MONTHS, it’s a bit late now to demand things are removed. Makes me think that there was been a lot of fighting over that past few months between KP, the Middleton’s and Tatler.

    The damage is done and having paragraphs removed 4 months after the original publication is not going to magically repair the damage to the snowflakes images. This only makes them all more of a laughing stock. Am sure they think that they have ‘won’ over Tatler but the toffs will only rail against them all the more.

    • Becks1 says:

      Also, Emily Andrews is definitely back to being snarky about the Cambridges. she listed every single paragraph that got removed! It’s hilarious.

  10. equality says:

    What? Kate is supposed to rise above everything and ignore it. That’s what all the Meghan criticizers think she should do because supposedly Kate does.

    • Sofia says:

      “She knew what she was getting into when she married him”, “She wants constant praise all the time” and “All royal women get criticised. She needs to suck it up and deal with it” were all things Meghan was told so therefore they should be told to Kate too.

    • Tessa says:

      THe stans make her a national heroine for “standing up to the media. Yet trash Meghan for it because the Cambridge Stans say she “deserved it.” Shameful.

  11. Aurora says:

    They removed a lot of the stuff about Pippa and Carole Middleton too.

  12. Nic919 says:

    When I read Emily Andrews’ article basically reprinting all the paragraphs that were removed, I died laughing because of course Andrews was trolling them with this. None of the paragraphs were libellous because they wouldn’t have been reprinted at all by the DM if they were, so we know for a fact this was just billy and Cathy having hurt fee fees over being told what people really think of them.

    And yes it’s interesting to note that the Rose reference even in the DM article was never published in its original form.

    Top CEO is forever in the lexicon now, along with work shy and do little. Their overreaction over a mild article shows how insecure they are. And they will never be able to toss out “never complain never explain” ever again after this.

    • Wiglet Watcher says:

      They will always and forever toss out never explain, never complain. These 2 are not self aware. The rules never apply to them and can and are made up on the spot for their direct benefit.
      They can’t see the forest for the trees

    • Becks1 says:

      Ha I made a similar comment above about Emily Andrews. She wasn’t a Meghan fan, but she has had some snarky things to say about the Cambridges as well. She (and her editor) knew what they were doing with this article. It’s kind of hilarious in its way. “the paragraphs were removed from Tatler so HERE THEY ALL ARE SO YOU CAN REREAD THEM!!!!”

  13. tee says:

    Of course they left all the bad stuff about Meghan and Harry in. Every day I’m glad that H&M decided to bolt. The double standards are blatant and shameless, and I’m so happy Meghan no longer has to accept being gaslighted by that hypocritical family and their vindictive press.

    • L4frimaire says:

      The author of that piece loathes Meghan but she obviously has a lot of disdain for the Middletons as well, as does the aristocratic set Tatler reports on. However, the Cambridges are there in UK, are the heirs to the throne, so Tatler will fall in line and play ball to continue access to the royals. I suspect this wasn’t just the magazine’s decision but CondéNasts as well. However, the original text are out there and was talked about enough. Everyone knows the true story and that Will and Kate are lazy and petulant. However, they don’t care about double standards and as much as we’d love for the Cambridges to have a well deserved comeuppance, it’s not going to happen because too many people are invested in protecting them and their veil of “ goodness”, fake and performative as it is.

  14. Amy Bee says:

    This begs the question why Meghan wasn’t allowed right of reply when all those stories came out about her. Another thing is how come the media isn’t screaming about censorship? When Harry and Meghan said they weren’t going to talk to the four tabloids, the rota and editors said it was censorship but Will and Kate are applauded by the same media people for censoring Tatler.

    • Shirley Gail says:

      Every time I read “Meghan wasn’t allowed right of reply” I wonder two things: 1. how did they stop her? Stuff a sock in her mouth? I mean, how did they stop her? and 2. WHY wasn’t she “allowed”. WHY wasn’t Harry “allowed” (though he spoke up for himself and his wife clearly more than once. I mean, he thoroughly told them they were a team and he would leave. He told them over and over). I don’t understand who told her she couldn’t respond. I don’t understand how they thought they had the “right” to tell her she couldn’t respond. I just don’t get it. Why would Meghan even think ANYONE had the right to tell her she couldn’t respond to what were CLEARLY LIES! So, did the Queen say: Harry, Meghan as your Queen I tell you thusly: you are forbidden to respond to lies about you. ? Because otherwise, WHO did they Obey??? Couriers? Would Prince Harry have more ‘power’ than the employees? I just don’t get it.

      • Melissa says:

        I never figured that one out either – at the very beginning, Harry wrote that very clear message to the press and no one locked him in the Tower.

      • notasugarhere says:

        He was attacked for that letter in the press, by the courtiers, and by his own family. When you are a member of this Firm, you do as you are told, which is shut up and take it. Unless you’re the heir to the heir, then you’re allowed to bitch about whatever you want because your granny and papa are afraid of your temper.

  15. Mina_Esq says:

    Top CEO – lost from the article but forever in our hearts haha

    • Mel M says:

      So true. My aunt dropped off a bunch of magazines this weekend that I’m supposed to hand off to my mom and omg! I never read these things but I went through them and saw an US weekly that was all about “Catherine the great” and the article inside was freakin hilarious. The way they spoke about how much work Kate is taking on because TQ isn’t coming back to BP anytime soon and their was an entire section of nastiness about the Sussex’s. They even had a photo of her curtesy to TQ and a blurb about how perfect it was. It was unreal.

      • Nic919 says:

        Kate is actually really bad at curtseying…. Anne is much better at it. I’m sure Kate doesn’t really bother because she expects everyone to bow to her anyway.

  16. Myra says:

    Question, is the bit about the medium/psychic still in? Because honestly, that’s the most interesting part of this piece.

    They are okay with the parts bashing Meghan, but not the parts which mildly made fun of Carole and Pippa. They are really shitty human beings.

  17. Silas says:

    Is the DM walking away from kissing Cambridge butt?

    The BRF wanted to go back things as they were before Meghan and here we are.

  18. Sarah says:

    PLEASE DON’T PAY ATTENTION TO THIS THING WE KEEP SHOUTING ABOUT.

    Wow they are slow on the uptake aren’t they?

  19. Emily says:

    The story was printed months ago, well read it. What’s the point of updating it?

  20. Lizzie says:

    Thus ensuring any search for Tatler & Kate leads straight to this article (and others) and ensuring the reader sees the removed paragraphs. Well done.

  21. Lucylee says:

    Tatler article about influential royal mistresses was a shady clap back. You can’t argue with history.

    • Becks1 says:

      Yup. Tatler was prepared to take the paragraphs out but they weren’t going to go quietly into the night. Between the inclusion of the portrait of Rose in the list of top artists (including the line, “variety is the spice of life”) and then the royal mistresses article – which seemed so random – it was definitely a pointed message to KP.

  22. Laura says:

    Fun fact, did you know that the real Catherine the Great bought the art collection at Houghton Hall, where Rose now lives and manages the current art collection?

    • SomeChick says:

      No, but I do now. And I bet Tatler knew it all along. Now THAT is some high test shade right there. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

  23. Sunday says:

    As bumbling as they are, I do not think even the cambridge team would think it effective or wise to retroactively remove content bit by bit from a months-old article. If this was removed due to legal pressure it all would’ve been done in one edit.

    Tatler does not need anyone’s permission to edit a piece in their own magazine. By removing the infamous sentence a few weeks ago, they succeeded in driving an entire news cycle about its removal, including a wave of new traffic to their site in general and their latest articles, one which happened to feature Rose prominently (in the artwork as part of the beloved artists piece), and one which happened to refer to royal affairs. I mean, come on.

    Take one second and go to Tatler’s site and see how many pieces are related to the royals in general and Meghan in particular. With a hefty boost of traffic from “investigators” looking to see what menial phrase has been removed this time, they can expect a nice helping of traffic spread across all these related stories.

    This is not a coincidence. It’s cunning, ingenious marketing that doesn’t cost them a penny and leaves the aggrieved party (the Cambridges) with zero recourse because, after all, they’ve “fixed” the article now haven’t they, so nothing to complain about. Another point to Tatler for this one.

  24. CindyP says:

    Will & Kate aren’t very bright & seem to employ the worst PR people ever
    The story came out in May; interest in it was waning
    Now, they’ve made it front & center again
    Incredibly stupid; now everyone knows how vindictive & small they are

    • bamaborn says:

      Yes, these are some really dumb people (Cain and Unable). No one was discussing the story publicly, but now it’s trending in the news again. And Tatler doesn’t appear to have completely put away the knives. Lol!

  25. aquarius64 says:

    The damage is done. No apology from Conde Nast and the reporter who wrote the article has not been fired. KP is afraid of a trial because Tatler would have brought receipts. And with other publications printed the retracted it keeps the story alive and keeps W and K on the press lease. Should have used never complain never explained on this Cambridges.

  26. Ginger says:

    Kate is such a weak person.

    • Tessa says:

      Kate knows exactly what she’s doing. She never liked Meghan and wanted her out IMO. And she is a trouble maker. William is no better.

  27. The Duchess says:

    The Tatler piece was published months ago. The damage has already been done, as far as I’m concerned. The fact KP are echoing ‘victory’ calls over this is the most tragic thing I’ve ever seen. What victory? H&M have bolted out the door to success, the Toffs are laughing harder than ever before and the British Media have W&K exactly where they want them. KP have been backed into a tiny corner and I’m loving every minute of it.

  28. CC says:

    How dumb are they? If they kept quiet, only the Sussexsquad and the aristocrats would giggle about it. The cover story was honestly nothing we haven’t heard before. Literally nobody outsides the deranged fan base and I guess us, lol, keeps an eye out for Kate. All of this would have blew over.

    Now that they removed Rose and top CEO, it’s clear that they never gave a damn about protecting the Sussexes.

    Also the fact that it’s now clear as day how entitled the royals are to good press coverage annoys me. KP knew there was going to be a cover story on Kate. And then fought to take out the parts people focused on the most because it made her look less good. and they still expect us to believe in never complain never explain?

  29. HeyJude says:

    So this basically, singularly is enough proof to confirm they 1000% are the petty little nightmares that they’ve been portrayed as without question now.

    They are the indeed monsters in the palace.

  30. L4frimaire says:

    I took screen shots of the original article and the hard copies with all the original words are out there. Also, if the Mail is showing the excised paragraphs, it is getting a much wider readership than the original article did on Tatler. This isn’t going to exactly endear the Cambridges but they need a flex. The Cambridges hold grudges and can’t let go. Will be interesting to see what type of fawning coverage they get from Tatler in the future.

  31. RoyalBlue says:

    oh shit. they are never going to let Kate forget her middle class roots and the infidelity are they? this will forever be her consequence for freezing their own out so they are putting her in her place. damn.

    • Merricat says:

      Instant karma is a bitch, I guess. If only Kate hadn’t been so keen on snubbing her black sil and devoted to putting said sil “in her place.”

  32. Lizzie says:

    It sounds like the full article could be restored if Tatler chose.

  33. Mariane says:

    lol they practically gave tatler their biggest most selling issue. I never bought their mag before but I had to see what all the fuss was about.
    The keenbridges are so clueless or too dumb to not realise that they gave the rumours life. Its practically a repeat of chuck and camilla.
    The only thing this little display of power achieved was prove that they could’ve protected harry and meghan but choose not to. The fact that the nasty paragraph about Meghan is still there is telling

  34. Tessa says:

    Kate knows exactly what she’s doing. She never liked Meghan and wanted her out IMO. And she is a trouble maker. William is no better.

  35. Super SIPAT says:

    We Don’t know this.