People Mag is doing a (sugary) new quarterly magazine focused solely on royalty

royal quarterly people

People Magazine has announced that they’re introducing a new quarterly magazine “focused exclusively on the royals.” People Mag already covers the British royals extensively and with a truck full of sugar, so I’m not sure what the quarterly magazine will cover really? Don’t get me wrong, the royals are good business, for print media and blogs alike. The Sussexes alone could keep a lot of publications in business. So is this just People Magazine milking one of their most popular subjects, royalty? Perhaps. Here’s what we can expect:

In addition to this week’s cover story on Queen Elizabeth’s private life, PEOPLE has several other royals-focused projects in the works, including a new quarterly publication and two TV specials. PEOPLE Royals will showcase glamorous new photos and inside stories fans haven’t seen or read elsewhere – from lavish celebrations and cocktails fit for a Queen to the luxurious lifestyles of the world’s real-life princes, princesses, kings, and queens.

“PEOPLE has reported on the royals since its debut in 1974,” says Dan Wakeford, Editor-in-Chief, PEOPLE. “We felt it was only natural to launch a stand-alone beautifully crafted quarterly magazine that will inspire and entertain with deep stories and lush photography.”

Each cover story will focus on a different member of the royal family and will offer a rich look into his or her untold story. The 100-page premium issue also includes a first-person essay, written by Duchess of York Sarah Ferguson and an exclusive interview with Prince Albert of Monaco, who talks about his life in quarantine during the pandemic.

PEOPLE’s vast audience has had an insatiable appetite for the royals over the years. In fact, Princess Diana appeared on the cover of PEOPLE more than any other subject in the brand’s history. William and Kate’s wedding in 2011 and Harry and Meghan’s wedding in 2018 remain among the best-selling issues. One of PEOPLE’s most popular digital verticals is dedicated to the royals at people.com/royals, which satisfies readers’ interest in up-to-the-minute, 24/7 content.

This week’s issue of PEOPLE featuring the Queen also highlights a letter from Wakeford about the new quarterly publication: “Kate and William and Meghan and Harry bring glamor and excitement to many around the world,” he writes. “The family has had its ups and downs, but the Queen’s strength of character and calm leadership have helped steady the monarch, and her grandchildren and great-grandchildren have ensured that the royals will captivate us for years to come.”

[From People]

See, if it’s just Katie Nicholl-esque hagiography on the Windsors, I’m going to have to pass. And I wonder how much Fergie is getting paid to write and consult? Good lord. This feels like it could be especially messy. Think of the Windsors going to People Mag and making them do all of the heavy lifting of fluffing up the Keens’ images, not to mention the petty-ass Queen. I wonder if People Mag will even bother to call out the Keens for their shenanigans now that they need even more access for their stupid quarterly magazine?

People has also announced that they’ve got two more royal specials coming out on the CW. Harry & Meghan’s American Dream will air on Tuesday, March 30 at 9pm ET/PT, and PEOPLE Presents: William & Kate’s Royal Anniversary will air on Thursday, April 29, at 8pm ET/PT. Lordt.

Anyway, any excuse to reuse these photos of Kate at the 2019 Royal Ascot. She was especially lively because the Windsors forced Meghan and Harry to stay away from Royal Ascot that year. Kate had center stage all to herself, so she celebrated by wearing a Victorian doily.

Royal Ascot 2019

Royal Ascot, Day 1, UK - 18 Jun 2019

Royal Ascot 2019

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, WENN.

Related stories

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

161 Responses to “People Mag is doing a (sugary) new quarterly magazine focused solely on royalty”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Kitty says:

    The royals know they are becoming irrelevant by each passing day.

    • L84Tea says:

      I’m starting to feel like the media is beating us all with a royal stick. I’ve never seen these people try so hard in my life.

      • Lorelei says:

        They can wield that stick all they want, but they will never be able to make the Cambridges or the Queen as interesting or appealing as the Sussexes are here, so they may as well give up.

        I’m also LMAO at the little tagline on the top left…yes, Kate’s cruelty to her SIL was so “inspiring”

    • Elizabeth Regina says:

      It simply confirms to me that all the palaces are in full blown panic mode. They realise that the world is seeing them for what they truly are irrelevant, ineffectual, boring and of no use.

      • Nina Simone says:

        I caught up with a British friend recently. She said that anti monarchy movements are on the rise there. A lot of it has to do with the pandemic and the suffering with that. But she also mentioned W&K’s Choo choo tour as particularly upsetting. The gist is that they live off the public but can’t follow any rules. I was surprised because this is someone that doesn’t follow the Royals at all. And for her to have such strong opinions was notable. That coupled with the fallout from Brexit.

      • Elizabeth Regina says:

        @ninasimone that is quite true. The pandemic coupled with a useless government is making everyone jittery. The RF were tolerated but just barely as long as they pretended to at least do the minimal impactful work. But Prince Charles’ covid jaunt to Balmoral (his staff allegedly infected some people in the village), Alwaysleaks laziness, inappropriate joke, his hiding his own covid diagnosis and the choo choo train of doom was the last straw for many.
        If they had done something symbolic and gone out to work properly in the front lines as essential workers like one of the European royals, that could have put them in a tolerable light. Instead we had new frocks, wiglets, pie charts, lots of vanity and PR photo ops and useless podcasts. So yes the vast majority of the British public have no use for them.

    • Carmen-JamRock says:

      I hv a strong feeling that this new quarterly is being underwritten by bp. The agreement is, if it doesnt meet its advt revenue target each quarter, bp will supplement. in fact, i wouldnt be surprised if bp has contracted to pay for the advertorials.

      • Still_Sarah says:

        I would agree except People magazine is known for going soft on everyone (the publicists have final say or what goes in – just look at whatever they write on Jennifer Garner and similar celebrities). And you can see from the cover page that is also putting in similar puff pieces about the Sussexes. And remember that MM’s five friends went to People magazine to defend her.

      • Beach Dreams says:

        People was under the previous American editor when the 5 friends article was published. His British successor took the reigns a month later and the tone of the royal reporting has been notably different since then.

      • Isabella says:

        I’m so confused. The palace has been pushing the “we’re just folks” line for months. Now this:

        PEOPLE Royals will showcase glamorous new photos and inside stories fans haven’t seen or read elsewhere – from lavish celebrations and cocktails fit for a Queen to the luxurious lifestyles of the world’s real-life princes, princesses, kings, and queens.

    • RoyalBlue says:

      You can smell the desperation. A magazine so people can adore them, their clothes and their children? What do they think they are, celebrities?

    • Missskitttin says:

      This is why PEOPLE had to mention Harry and Meghan on the cover to be able to sell something…

      • atorontogal says:

        Exactly what I was going to say! And who buys magazines anymore?

      • Wiglet Watcher says:

        My dentist office had People and Highlights, but now no one can touch them so it’s just a table with hand sanitizer. I would imagine sales are declining and these issues will be frowned upon.

  2. Becks1 says:

    This feels….unnecessary. Who out there is asking for this? there is so much royal coverage elsewhere, I cant imagine anyone is thinking “let me buy this magazine once every 3 months so I can see what the royals are up to.”

    The cover alone makes me never want to buy it – Kate the Great? ick. can they stop with that already?

    • Sofia says:

      Plus we live in 24/7 news cycle. People who want to keep up with royal gossip have access to it instantly so they don’t have to wait once every 3 months to hear something. So they’re not going to be spending extra cash on a magazine telling them old news.

      • Becks1 says:

        AND, the only reason most people even buy mags like People or Hello with royal coverage is to look at the pictures, to be honest, lol – and like you said, now its all online instantly, and usually a lot more pictures of any one event than a magazine would have and usually for free. So why is someone going to buy this?

    • Nic919 says:

      I agree. Why would someone buy a magazine when all the content is available elsewhere. No one cares enough about the remaining white royals to bother, especially not a North American audience.

      Maybe the Fergie essay gets a few clicks for the car crash factor, but they will only have so many of these types of gimmicks they can use.

    • Elizabeth Regina says:

      Khate couldn’t even shift copies of Tatler or British Vogue. Plastering her face on People will not do much for their sales as I assume that most Americans could not give a toss about the RF. This is once again a British editor of an American publication towing the party line of embiggening the laziest member of the family. Sadly Keen’s sister wife routine that landed her the ring is not landing her the interest and relevance her mother is desperate for 10 years later.

      • L84Tea says:

        Kate was a big sensation 10 years ago in America, but that’s because we enjoy the fantasy that comes with watching royal weddings. After that, between the boring clothes, William’s looks going down the drain, and their lack of star quality, nobody here cares about them anymore.

      • Lindsay says:

        You’re right that most Americans don’t care about the royals. But a sizable subset of American women do, and I’d guess that subset almost entirely overlaps with the subset of American women who are interested in celebrity gossip generally. Now here’s my question for you: the Cambridges seem increasingly invested in embiggening themselves to the U.S. market. Is my perception true, and if so, why do the Cambridges care about the U.S. (aside from petty competitiveness, obviously)?

      • Lorelei says:

        @Lindsay: I do think your perception is true, and I don’t know what the answer is, except what you said, petty jealousy. I can’t think of any practical or meaningful reason why the Cambridges would care so much if Harry and Meghan weren’t here.

      • GRUEY says:

        @L84tea your comment made me realize how much Will’s looks have to do with the young royals losing their luster. The princess fantasy is about the wedding to the golden prince, not a grim unhappy marriage to a bald, skinny fat, yellow toofed, cheating bully. And deep down even kates “fans” couldn’t say they would hit that with a straight face. Seriously the fact that he won’t even put in the work to lift a few weights. You gotta give the ladies…something!

        Have you seen that old video of Charles licking his lips that’s been making the rounds on social media and allllll the girls vomiting over how gross he is and saying Diana forever? It really doesn’t help their image that the sympathetic admirable ones are also the hot ones lol.

      • Nyro says:

        L84Tea, it wasn’t “Kate” who was a big sensation ten years ago. It was “Diana’s daughter-in-law” who made a splash in the media for a few months in 2011. The fact that she got completely overshadowed at her own wedding by Pippa’s non-existent booty spoke volumes. Once folks saw that there was no “there” there, and that she was boring and was nothing like Princess Diana, everyone quickly moved on.

    • Lorelei says:

      People like us are definitely not the target demographic for this nonsense. IMO it’s more for the casual royal watcher, the “minivan mom” type who just wants to look at pretty pictures, think that Kate has great hair and the Cambridge kids are cute, and that the Queen seems like a nice little grandma, but don’t care enough to find out what these awful people are actually like. I know a few of them IRL and it’s fine, obviously not everyone gets as, um…invested as we are, and once I explained what really happened with Meghan, they got it. But most people probably don’t have obsessive freaks like me in their lives to set them straight, lol. Anyway all just IMO!

      ETA: I don’t even think the people I referenced care enough to actually buy a physical magazine when they know they’ll see most of it online or while they’re in line at the grocery store, so I REALLY don’t know who People thinks this is for.
      The only person I can think of who would possibly buy this is my MIL as a birthday gift for me or whatever because she knows I like the royals…she means well, but, no thank you.

      • Nic919 says:

        20 years ago there was a market for physical magazines that trafficked in gossip. Now most people won’t spend money for these magazines, especially not people under 50. So this quarterly is designed for an average reader age of 65 and they are likely not leaving the house that much right now for the pandemic. It’s a bizarre business decision.

      • Rita says:

        Question What really happened with Meghan please explain

      • Becks1 says:

        I have a minivan! I’m not that kind of “minivan mom” I swear lol (I freaking LOVE my minivan though.)

        But I agree, that many people who People may think are the audience here, actually arent – the super casual royal watchers, who may think Kate has nice hair and the kids are cute etc, probably arent going to buy this magazine a few times a year. the more serious royal watchers, whatever their opinions, will have already seen all the pictures etc. sooo -what is the appeal? I guess time will tell.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Becks I almost deleted the minivan part because I didn’t want to offend anyone, lol, but on this site it’s often used to describe a specific set of people and you know who I mean. The ones who still love Jennifer Aniston like it’s 2005. I knew you’d realize it wasn’t a personal insult!

        @Rita: Seriously? If you genuinely don’t know what I was referring to, I suggest clicking the Meghan Markle tag here on CB and starting from the beginning.

      • Ann says:

        They are always right there by the cashier at the grocery store, begging you to look at or buy them while you are bored in line. Sometimes I will flip through one if the subject interests me (Kate does not), but I don’t buy them.

      • Still_Sarah says:

        @ Becks1 : When my sister had her two kids, she refused to get a minivan but got a tricked-out SUV instead that she used as her “minivan”. I think minivans are great and I’m always on Pinterest looking up stuff for minivan camping. It’s not hard to temporarily convert your beast and take off for the weekend.

      • GRUEY says:

        @lorelei while I think you’re right, I personally would have never ever read an article about the RF before Meghan. Like I vaguely thought the Cambridges were fine, but if a Gossip site published anything about them I would always opt for the article about Affleck’s latest drama or whatever. Didn’t even really bother with them when Harry was dating Meghan. Then suddenly after Oceana the Meghan hate got loud enough for me to notice it from within my bubble and I became totally horrified and obsessed. I bet there are a lot out there like me who didn’t give a shit and only do so now because of Meghan. There’s an audience for royal gossip now in the US like never before. I wonder though if ithwres a similar audience for this treacle.

      • betsyh says:

        Becks1, I love my minivan too!

        Still_Sarah, Many years ago we camped in our minivan when we didn’t have a tent. I felt safer locked inside while sleeping than I would have in a tent (at a public campground).

        Lorelei, I didn’t find your comment about minivans offensive at all! I knew what you meant.

  3. Sofia says:

    I said it in the other post that Meghan caused an explosion and renewed interest in royal gossip. This is the effect of that.

    • ennie says:

      They should thank her and leave them the h*ck alone. Let them live their lives.
      They’ve done enough damage to them to last a lifetime, but they took the lemons and made lemonade.

  4. Wiglet Watcher says:

    Huge pass unless they start throwing shade.

    Kate is an eternally keen bore that does nothing. This should and will backfire on people…

    • Quaint Louise says:

      I don’t know, that wonky eyed cover selection seems like a little shade to me 😂. She’s certainly looked…better?

  5. BayTampaBay says:

    I saw the original dress ‘Look Book” photo on a Tom & Lorenzo post. The original dress was designer pretty and designer interesting. I wonder why Kate decided to bespoke it by way of “Victorian it up”. Kate took an above average designer dressed and “dowdied” it down to its ugliest level.

    • Amy Bee says:

      Yeah, the original looked much nicer and more modern.

    • harla says:

      She has done this with so many designer dresses. I can picture designers cringe when they see how she’s styled their lovely designs.

    • February-Pisces says:

      I used to own a vintage shop so I do love old clothes and fashion through out the decades, so I have no problem with people being inspired from the past. But with Kate she does it in such a deadly serious way, she isn’t even aware that her looks are a thrown back. She takes elements mostly from the victorian period and the 1940s and isn’t even aware that she does it. Most people who love vintage styles have a certain quirkiness to their personality. Kate doesn’t, she genuinely thinks her style is modern and all the girls are wearing grandma dresses. Also if she loved looks from the past why doesn’t she wear vintage?

      • Lindsay says:

        As a royal, I bet she could borrow AMAZING vintage pieces, both from the other royal women and from design houses. It could be awesome, and the UK public would eat it up. But I bet wearing vintage on the regular would require a lot of research, legwork and personal style, none of which are Kate’s MO.

      • Ann says:

        I’ve always loved vintage. I was very Pretty In Pink, shopping at thrift stores and being inspired by the 20s and 30′s, etc. I don’t wear it as often now because honestly, it gets harder when you get a little older, at least for me, and I live in a warm place where there isn’t much need for coats and jackets (the vintage coats are my favorite). I can’t stand what Kate is wearing there. She looks like an Easter egg.

      • Amy Too says:

        Lindsay, like when Beatrice wore her grandmother’s dress for her wedding. That was a huge story that lasted days with pictures of the Queen in the dress (reminding everyone that the Queen used to be a young and beautiful woman and tugging at those nostalgic “regal, royal monarch” strings that the public like to indulge in), in depth articles about how the dress was altered and why and when and if it worked, articles that focused on how close bea and the Queen are (which had the bonus effect of reminding everyone that the Queen is just Bea’s grandma and that they’re an actual family). Kate would definitely benefit from the positive press she would get if she wore another royal’s vintage dress or shirt or gown, and the spin about how close she is with said royal if said royal is allowing her to borrow clothes, and it would be a good way to keep reminding us that this is a family who actually must speak to each other enough to make this happen and who must see each other enough to browse through each other’s closets. The only thing I would never ever want to see is Kate wearing clothing that belonged to Diana, because then it’s all about making Kate into diana and inferring that Diana would love Kate like a daughter and want to share clothes with her when she’s actually not here to make that decision on her own. But put Kate in something Anne has worn, or even Camilla. That would be fine.

      • February-Pisces says:

        @amy too, I don’t think Willie would even want kate to wear his mothers clothes as well. I don’t think she ever would were anything vintage, she seems like the sort of person to turn her nose up at that. She doesn’t have any real passion for vintage fashion which makes her Victorian cosplay so confusing. I think she genuinely doesn’t see the Victorian/ 1940s elements in her style, she just wears these buttons, frills and bows in a deadly serious none kitsch way.

    • Nina says:

      Thanks for introducing me to this amazing site! I searched on it for this dress and it’s an Elie Saab. Oh my…
      What was kind of interesting was the praise she got from most of the commenters. Only a minority like the original design better.

      • JT says:

        I don’t think the queen cares enough about Kate to allow her to wear her vintage pieces. Bea wearing the queen’s dress made sense as that is her granddaughter from her favorite child. Kate’s relationship with the queen is PR and who would want keen to ruin a fab piece of clothing with her old lady style?

  6. Brit says:

    This push to force the Cambridge’s and Queen is super intentional and the problem is that no one cares. It’s not going to force interest off Harry and Meghan and make people dislike them. I don’t get it. If the Royals were so interesting and dynamic, the BM am international media wouldn’t still be obsessing over the Sussexes and short of begging them to return. All I see is desperation because that Rota is going close to turning on them and you can’t tell me no different.

    • L84Tea says:

      I agree ( I said something above too). I have never, ever seen the RF push and nag and push and nag the public so much like this. They’re groveling at this point.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        Yes, Sussexit (and Andrew) has done more damage to the main RF and the Cambridges than anyone would like to admit to.

        The reality is that, internationally, the Cambridges are pretty much as interesting as days old dirty dishwater.

      • Becks1 says:

        Yup, they are definitely pushing the Cambridges in the US right now (and the royal family in general) and its desperately obvious they want us to forget about the royals based in California. But it shows a complete misunderstanding of American culture. Yes, some royal fans are still royal fans and not Sussex fans, but that’s based on the Queen for the most part. The reason Americans are still obsessed with Diana is because of the fairy tale aspect of her life – good and bad – the highlights and the overall tragedy – the beautiful princess who stood up to the evil prince/queen and forged her own path. And we saw her as HUMAN. Its the same with Harry and Meghan – we see them as HUMAN and as forging their own paths. Kate and Will just seem so flat and boring in comparison.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Becks you are 100% right!! It really is that simple. We loved Diana because we actually saw her flaws and it made her relatable. Kate is the exact opposite in every way, and as a result, will never be a fraction as interesting, likable, or sympathetic as Diana was.

        They absolutely do completely misunderstand what it is that Americans liked about them. They’re seeing it repeated with Meghan and they STILL don’t get it.

      • Amy Too says:

        Becks and Lorelei, and it first happened with Margaret, so they’ve seen this happen 3 times now, across multiple generations, and they still don’t get it. Margaret, Diana, and Meghan came off as human beings with real emotions, flaws, and struggles and those emotions and struggles were allowed to be seen and written about. The remaining working royals seem like the don’t ever want anyone to report on anything that even hints at the fact that they might ever feel emotions, be flawed in any way, or even struggle with anything mentally, physically (even childbirth is brushed off as super easy with perfect princesses posing perfectly hours after giving birth), or career/family-wise, and that’s why they’re A) boring B) completely dehumanized and non relatable and C) seem very aloof, cold, distant, and full of themselves. If they’re always, always self-satisfied and always, always have everything completely under control to their exact liking, and every single project they do is landmark and the biggest, best project ever, then they must either robots or they must be so privileged and pampered and catered to and disconnected from reality. Messy is relatable. Struggle is relatable. Identity issues are relatable. Broken hearts and dashed hopes are relatable—sad, but relatable. When will they get it?

        By continuing to keep a strangle hold on their image and what’s reported about them, and by getting rid of anyone who might challenge their perfectly controlled image and press, they’ve been slowly yet consistently damaging their own brand’s interests. And the damage is being done at an exponential rate now that social media and the internet is increasing how often we see them and read about them. We’re able to sense patterns of bad behavior much more quickly. The more they insist that people write about them (like with this stupid quarterly magazine) and yet at the same time insist that everything written is highly sanitized and controlled and all about how perfect they all are, the more often we are hit over the head with how fake and self-satisfied and entitled and delusional they all must be. The fact that we can Google old articles and press coverage and make connections between what happened then, and what happened next, and what is happening now, hurts the BRF narrative which has for decades relied on spinning a new narrative after the fact, gaslighting the public, and hoping that they can just “start over” and appeal to a new generation who won’t know what happened before.

      • Becks1 says:

        @amytoo agree completely with your points. The perfect image that Will and Kate try so hard to put out there – the perfect family, perfect parents, perfect house, perfect everything – is just boring. (and also most of us here know its not true, but its what they try to convey.) Perfection is boring. I know I’ve said it before but that’s how I found this site – I used to be a big Kate fan and followed What Kate Wore etc almost religiously, but I was getting so bored and the over the top praise was just ridiculous. So I think I literally just googled “is kate middleton perfect” or something lol and this site popped up, and here I’ve been ever since lol. Sorry you all cant get rid of me at this point. But yeah, its just…..all their flaws and issues aside, the Cambridges are BORING and the more they push these over the top fawning articles, the more boring they seem, and boring does not sell.

        And your point about the gaslighting is so very true. We saw that happen with the Crown – all of a sudden Diana’s narrative was put back out there, and the public remembered how she was treated (or a younger generation learned about it for the first time) and the royal family could.not.cope. They could not rewrite the past like they’ve always been able to.

    • Lorelei says:

      @Brit I was wondering the other day who the first ROTA reporter to defect will be. The crap they’ve been pushing about the “review” and the trial can only go so far, and they all know that the $ is in covering the Sussexes. They’ve seen the numbers, and they know they cannot sustain a career and support their families by embiggening the Cambridges for the next decade.

      • 809Matriarch says:

        I bet it will be Shipwreck. He tweeted that the staff changes looked like a “clearout” next thing you know, he had deleted the tweet. The Royal Mafia is getting a bit heavy handed and they really have no bargaining power any more. No more leaks about the California Royals and not much interest in the others.

      • Brit says:

        I’m thinking Palmer or Andrews. These reporters all know that Harry and Meghan are where the money is and this is why they keep hoping and praying they return to the UK and I feel some of them know they screwed up by backing that boring and dull family. I think when the Sussexes start to really work and those papers aren’t invited to the party and they see them thriving even more, they’ll go off. They need to keep the Cambridge’s close because they need access to their children but that’s not going to last long. Harry and Meghan are that obsession that they can’t let go of.

      • February-Pisces says:

        The ratchet rota can only hang on for so long. They can’t feed themselves of willies false promises forever. They have to get used to the fact they only have the Keens left to try and make a living out of. The problem they all have is that most of them have ruined their own reputations by showing how nasty they are so I doubt any of them will be hired as journalists again in other areas. They all sacrificed their credibility for Willie and kate and will be left with nothing.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Brit I agree and I honestly believe that ALL of them know they fcked up, but now they’re stuck with the Cambridges. And they’re pissed. Agree that Andrews might actually admit this and leave for greener pasture$.
        Hopefully it will all come to a head at some point and force some sort of reckoning about the entire ROTA system, which is horrible for everyone involved.

      • Becks1 says:

        I think its going to be Andrews. She was actually somewhat objective about Will and Kate before Meghan came along, and she’s also the one who had that tweet about how she actually likes Meghan but people in the palace dont and its her job to report on that. I’m also convinced she’s the one who tipped off the bit about the Sun paying christian jones or whoever they were paying for stories. Also, now that she is at the Mail, I think they would back her if she had a big enough story with enough sources – like a big enough negative story. Right now the papers are all running scared of William and his threats but at some point those threats are going to grow old and someone is going to spill the Cambridge dirt. and when I say the Cambridge dirt, I’m including the threats – I can see the interviews now, on GMB and heck even GMA if its big enough – “we’ve had this story for years now, but the future king of england has been on a mission to block the freedom of the press and our editors have bowed to his legal threats and pressure, but now we say NO MORE!” That becomes a story in itself.

        I think it could be Palmer because while he has no love for Meghan, I dont think he’s the biggest fan of Will and Kate either, so maybe he would do it.

        What I expect to happen is that someone who is NOT part of the rota is going to start sniffing around some of these stories and once it gets out to the rota that that person is about to print/post something, they’re going to try to be the ones to break it. I also think its going to be an avalanche – one story will come out and the rest will fall like dominoes.

      • JT says:

        @becks I can see a story about a reporter sitting on news out of fear. Remember that news woman on ABC who had on a hot mic and said she had the prince Andrew- Epstein news years ago and the palace made her bury it. I guess the royals threatened to take away access to W&K if she reported it. Now that access to the Cambridge’s don’t seem to mean much anymore, those RR might not care about hurt fee fees in order to break a story about them and it’s not like the RF can offer up news about H&M. With the uk leaving the EU, William’s human rights violations will be moot.

      • Mustlovedogs says:

        Becks, AmyToo, and Lorelei: please please co write a proper book on the royals with Kaiser!? I for one would buy that for sure ;)

  7. Feebee says:

    Feels forced. Like both sides know they need each other to keep whatever this is alive. The Windsors need the positive coverage and People want the clicks and sales.

    Who buys these 1/4ly glossies though? I did 25 years ago before everything was at your fingertips online. But now?

    • Chris. says:

      Nobody buys this People Mag anymore. People go directly to their favorite celebrities Facebook , ig, or tweeter accounts to get pictures or info. The magazines are in decline in the US’. As far as the RF, there is little interest in them . The excitement came back when Meghan joined the RF. They messed up. They should have allowed them to do half and half. We are more interested in the Sussexes now. Those type of headlines” Kate the Great” are not helping. We already viewing the RF as racist!

  8. Andy says:

    I have forgotten the story of how Meghan and Harry were kept away from the Royal Ascot in 2019… can anyone refresh me? Thanks!

    • harla says:

      Meghan was on maternity leave and I don’t imagine that Ascot holds a lot of excitement for Harry unless Meghan’s there.

    • Amy Bee says:

      I don’t know if they were kept away but Meghan was on maternity leave at that time. Before Meghan, Harry barely went to Ascot so he probably didn’t mind missing it.

  9. Islandgirl says:

    This sounds like a collaboration.
    Is People becoming the Royal Rota in the US.
    Is this the BRF’s way of trying to control the narrative of the family in the US?
    Will we now be able to see the BRF’s preferred narrative in People’s.
    Will we get to know if the BRF will continue to be blindsided, if they want to continue to smear Harry and Meghan or if they have made peace with the fact that they are gone and not coming back?

  10. Hell Nah! says:

    People – just STOP already! The cover photo of “Kate the Great” makes me want to retch up my breakfast, no joke. Enough with promoting lazy mediocrity for cash.

    Kudos on capturing the essence of the Keen in the second photo – is she constipated or simply trying to squeeze out a laugh?

    #AbolishTheMonarchy

    • kelleybelle says:

      Came here to say the same thing, *retch* Kate the Great … who can barely read good morning off a piece of paper. Definitely won’t be buying this publication, nope. And queen consort, not queen. Fixed.

      • RatchetMa says:

        Unfortunately a QC is a Queen and she will still be a Queen. Like Queen Letizia.

      • Dollycoa says:

        She did a zoom call complaining about how ‘ exhausting’ home schooling and working was, and how she cuts the kids hair. Honestly they take us for fools. It was a zoom call to parents. I would have logged out of the call if I’d have had to listen to that bullshit from her. My you gest son is at a state primary and is the same age as George. He gets 3 online lessons a day and homework to keep him occupied the rest of the time. George and Charlotte’s exclusive private school are not doing less than that, guaranteed. On top of that, she is doing it out of choice. If she is so exhausted by doing an hours work a week the poor lamb could call on the nanny to supervise homework. And why is t she getting her hairdresser that is clearly coming round to cut and colour her hair to cut the kids hair? Why lie as if people are as stupid as she is? Everything the Royals do, from Prince Andrew’s interview to this rubbish is basically summed up as ‘ Dont you know who I am? Suck it up and swallow any old nonsense we tell you’. Dont get me started on William, who is doing nothing at all but apparently being ‘supportive’ by doing what? Is he too dumb to even pretend to be able to an 8 and 6 year olds school work?

    • Amy Too says:

      And this picture and outfit is from 2019. Why would I want to buy a magazine that purports to have all the news and pictures about the royals if even the cover photo is 3 years old? And the headline “Kate the Great” has literally been used over and over again already? What is new about this? What is interesting? It almost seems like it’s meant to be a “collectible” issue that just reprints all of the old pictures and stories in one place so you can see it all at once.

    • Ann says:

      I know, it is very cringey. There is nothing great about her. It’s embarrassing.

  11. Snuffles says:

    How is this going to be different than the thousands of other glossies?

    The only thing I see is the Royal family desperately trying to regain some relevance in the US because they know that Americans are 100% Team Sussex.

  12. Kalana says:

    That is in the top ten worst outfits she has ever worn. It’s the epitome of her love of doilies.

    • JT says:

      I know. This outfit was bad. Surely they could have chosen a better picture of Kate for the debut of this. If it’s a preview of things to come, it’s already a snooze.

    • Lorelei says:

      I remember how much I hated that thing on sight and then got a text from a friend with a photo of Kate in the doily and a bunch of “😍😍😍😍😍.” I just didn’t reply.

  13. Maliksmama says:

    The BRF don’t appeal to white Americans. They look down on those folk. No one here (black or white) wants hereditary heads of state. That’s why we have elections every four years.

    We also don’t understand what they actually do. What do they do that shows they deserve to live for free off the taxpayer? Americans would never agree to spend tens of millions of dollars spent every year on one family. Which is also another reason these issues makes no sense.

    Anyone know if “People” is going to do a spread on Andrew? If not, why report on any member of that family?

    • Nic919 says:

      If they would publish articles that point out the similarities between Kate and Melania, I might read that. But if they try to pretend that the British Windsors are somehow any better than the Trumps, well good luck to them. There are far more similarities between these families than differences.

    • harla says:

      I have to respectfully disagree Malidsmama, I think that the BRF and Kate in particular appeal to the conservative, traditional American woman who feels that producing babies and looking pretty are major goals. This is why the Royal Foundation and the Prince’s Trust both have American arms that raise quite a bit of money plus the Queen used to make private visits to the States to look a horses and attend the Kentucky Derby.

      • CC2 says:

        I agree harla. I remember watching The Real a while back, and even Adrienne who was never really interested in the RF, thought that Kate does charity work. Americans remember the glamour of the wedding and the build up of Kate back then. Many of them still think she is a style icon even if they don’t care about Kate.

        Many Americans are obsessed with the fairytales, especially the more conservative or image obsessed folks.

        Side note, does anyone side-eye Fashion blogs or ‘Elegant/Feminine’ influencers when they bring up Kate and never Meghan? I remember Mrs M*dwest did that and i got a racist vibe. Feelings aside, Meghan does nail the modest not frumpy look most of the time. More than Kate. Sure enough, someone did a deep dive of mrs’ socials and she follows/ed and supported, imo, wildly racist and sexist people like the guys behind Return of Kings. Blegh.

      • Donna B. says:

        There are conservative, traditional American women who are not white (homemakers) & do not see themselves in Kate or the BRF; maybe Meghan, but not Kate; & have much respect for Prince Harry because he doesn’t shun work or service to his country. The BM or RF doesn’t understand that out of all of them, many of us here in the US have a high regard & respect for Harry, especially us veterans. To have Harry’s picture, being seen globally in the aftermath of Biden’s Inauguration, his picture in the background showing him placing a wreath on the unknown soldier’s grave lets the UK know, which of the Windsor’s (i.e. Harry) seem more significant in the US circles. Mind you that event was done when Biden was Vice-President (how ironic).
        P.S.: Truth be told, many of us supported Diana & her sons, not the Firm (this support came from diverse groups).

  14. emmy says:

    Okay. Why? A quarterly magazine in general is not a bad idea but focus on either really dishy gossip OR how about something that is light entertainment but also interesting and more …. 2021? I don’t know, how about beauty trends and industries in different cultures and countries? Just as an example of something that can be educational and absolutely still light. Guess that would require actual work though. I know this is People but guys, broaden your horizons. These people are often good for gossip (or awful, depending on your point of view) but nobody asked for this.

    • Mika Rekai says:

      I used to work for a Canadian news magazine, and let me tell you…. the Royals fucking SELL. Magazine subscribers are already pretty old – Canadians who like the royal family are super old, and not only do they like to buy the hard copy of the magazine, there is a big market in “special editions” that people like to collect. The Royal family is a meal ticket for a lot of people in the industry – Celebitchy writers included, I’m pretty sure – why wouldn’t People get in on that action?

  15. S808 says:

    Feels they’re trying to follow H&M into the American market tbh. We all know Meghan breathed life back into royal watching (I’m a testament to that). Whole podcasts, news segments, etc. centered around the royals (Meghan) when she popped up. I remember one podcast going on maternity leave when she did even though the other royals were still active. Anyway though she doesn’t need the royals or the press surrounding it, they need her so I’m not surprised by these moves to ride her and Harry’s coattails in America.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      Yes, the Cambridges in particular have a new and sudden interest in the American market.

      • Nic919 says:

        I don’t think there is an increased interest in the Cambridges. They have been around since 2011 and have done nothing. The boost in trolls supporting them and attacking anything pro Meghan is not going to translate into actually buying a magazine.

      • harla says:

        I think that they are trying to appeal to the more conservative, traditional American woman who doesn’t expect anything from Kate except to wear tiaras and gowns and look pretty. I would be so embarrassed if people only liked me because of who I married instead of what I personally had to offer.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Harla I said basically the same thing upthread, but you worded it better than I did!

      • Amy Too says:

        Harla “ I think that they are trying to appeal to the more conservative, traditional American woman who doesn’t expect anything from Kate except to wear tiaras and gowns and look pretty” I agree. And the fact that Kate works so little, and therefore we see her in clothing so little, is probably part of why this magazine is going to be quarterly rather than monthly. If this was a magazine about any of the other royals, they would be able to have enough content to release it monthly if they covered every engagement and outfit. But I’m imagining that even when the cover story is about a different royal not Kate, the majority of the fluff articles and pictures will be about the Cambridges. And they just do not provide enough content.

        I might actually find a magazine that was based on the court circular interesting. Something that came out once a month and had pictures and a write up about every single engagement each of the royals did. I bet I’d learn about a lot of cool charities that way. And I wonder if knowing that people were going to expect this magazine each month would drive people like will and Kate to do more so that the magazine isnt like 45% Charles, 45% Anne, 7% other royals and only 3% Cambridges. It would also be a great way of seeing how their projects were actually progressing. Like if will launches earth shot in January and then we don’t get to see or read anything about it again in the magazine until November, that would stick out. Having this monthly magazine come out would, I hope, push them to want to at least do one thing every month around their big projects like earth shot, heads together, and early years.

      • 809Matriarch says:

        @Nic “… The boost in trolls supporting them and attacking anything pro Meghan is not going to translate into actually buying a magazine.”

        Very true. After several very successful SM fund raisers like the Global Sussex Baby Shower, it became obvious that Harry & Meghan have a once in a lifetime spark of charisma and inspirational glow that cannot be copied. The Global Sussex Baby Shower organizers asked participants to screenshot their receipt from the charity they donated to and provide their location in the world. It was truly global and monies raised was a huge surprise and blessing to the charities. Well Child had to quickly figure out a way to accept international donations because so many tried to donate and couldn’t.

        Nothing ANYONE in the Windsor family has EVER made such an impact from regular grassroots supporters. No matter how the RF tries to make inroads in the US market they won’t find that kind of support. The main reason is many Sussex supporters only became supporters after witnessing the digital lynch mobs unleashed on Meghan. This Royal quarterly issue will be a big bust.

      • Lorelei says:

        🙋🏻‍♀️Motion for CB to start crowdfunding for the exact magazine that Amy Too just described

      • Amy Too says:

        809martriarch: I remember making a donation to one of the charities suggested during the global sussex baby shower and they had a question that was like “how did you hear about us/why are you donating?” And one of the answers you could click was literally “global sussex baby shower” because apparently so many people were donating for that exact reason that the charity actually updated their form to include that response. It was amazing! It made me feel like I was a part of something huge and meaningful and that the Sussexes were obviously beloved and inspiring so many people to do something good.

    • Amy Bee says:

      Many podcasts went on maternity leave with Meghan, especially those that were run by people in the royal rota.

      • JT says:

        Yeah most of the Cambridge’s “popularity” is bought and paid for. If it was real than their fans would be supporting their charities and buying magazines with their faces on them. W&K’s Twitter engagement is so low and their instagram numbers have not grown in nearly a year. Before Meghan they only had 2 million followers, the same as Meghan did incidentally, and it only increased when Meg married in before they started buying followers.
        @amy and the RR podcasts still heavily cover Meghan obsessively.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Amy Bee that is so true about the podcasts. I subscribed to a bunch of them a while back and just never bothered to delete them, so even though I don’t listen to them, they still pop up in my feed.
        I laughed so hard recently because this was the first episode of Chris Ship’s show that didn’t cover the Sussexes in some way, and the description alone was boring enough to put me to sleep:

        “ Chris and Lizzie discuss The Queen and Duke of Edinburgh’s coronavirus vaccination.

        Buckingham Palace shared the news over speculation whether or not her Majesty would receive the jab despite being in the second highest priority group to get the vaccine.

        Prince Charles also announced his new Earth charter ‘Terra Carta’, which he hopes will encourage businesses to reduce their carbon emissions and commit to sustainable investment.

        Chris and Lizzie also discuss The Duchess of York’s racy new novel, Prince William’s chat with NHS workers and the rumours Prince Harry has grown a ponytail.”

        And the most interesting topic is still the asinine story about Harry’s non-ponytail 😂

        Their numbers must have fallen drastically because what they’re left with to cover now is sparse and boring.

      • Brit says:

        @lorelei, That family is so dull that Lorraine and GMB and all those papers/podcasts have to keep interviewing anyone who is associated with them to try to get information like Bryony Gordon, Luminary Bakery or Patrick Hutchinson. Tom Bradby gave an opinion and they put it on the front pages and it still wasn’t enough. I don’t know why the media just don’t admit the truth that those other family members don’t make them any money and they want and need the most interesting royals back. It’s so bad and the well has dried beyond belief that they get the Markles out again and delusional obsessive people like Angela Levin or Piers Morgan to rant, which is boring at this point.

  16. Lily P says:

    “Kate the Great”. I think I just threw up a little.

    Also, if we’re going to be told how amazing our stupid monarchy are, at the least just use their antiquated titles. She’s Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge; not Kate who you met down at Tesco sneaking in a third bottle of wine. Royalty is about hierarchy – they can’t have it both ways. They’re not one of us.

  17. Cecilia says:

    I sincerely hope that this wil be a fail. And they have to scrap it after the first edition.

  18. ClaireB says:

    I’d forgotten about that dress! Swiss dots and lace and a pussybow, oh my!

    I do generally like Kate’s hats, though, especially the floral numbers like this. Still wouldn’t buy this stupid magazine.

    • kelleybelle says:

      It’s an Elie Saab dress too, a designer I usually like. The dress would’ve looked good on Anne, but it only ages Kate.

      • Lorelei says:

        I always forget that it’s an Elie Saab. I feel like Kate is the only person on earth who could manage to make Saab’s clothes boring or drab.

      • HeatherC says:

        She added long sleeves. That took the look from cute to grandmother. $3700 before all the tragic bespokedness.

      • February-Pisces says:

        I had a look on their website and their dresses are unreal. Totally stunning. How on earth did kate manage to find the least cute dress on there and make it look even worse? Seriously designers needs to tell her to stay the f*ck away. She’s adds about 2 decades onto the clothes she wears.

  19. JT says:

    I wonder how this will go over with the BM? This can’t be good for the royal rota if People magazine is going to be getting exclusive news about the royals. The fact that it’s an American outlet means that it will overshadow any British news. And since this is supposed to be about the regal royals H&M should be spared from being feature in this. No need to cover the “irrelevant” ones right?

    • Amy Too says:

      I feel like the royals pitched this or planted the idea so that they could compete with Harry and Meghan in the American market and especially embiggen the Queen, Charles, and the Cambridges, and People came back with “okay but only if it can also include Harry and Meghan and random stuff by the duchess of York.” It seems like while the royals were trying to take a step forward on differentiating themselves as the special, super duper, regal focus of US royal coverage in order to cement their position as “the real, actual, important, high class, exclusive members of the royal family,” they ended up taking two steps back by having these quarterly mags include personal essays by the Duchess of York (who is no longer a working royal, HRH, or even married-in royal anymore) and cover stories and coverage of Harry and Meghan (who are also no longer working members of the royal family and are not using their HRH and seem to hardly even be related to the British royals anymore.) By attempting to get this magazine to publish even more propaganda about how the “real royals” are so special and different and providing a unique service that they’re only able to provide because they’re the “real royals,” they’ve actually just ensured that their names will continue to be entwined with Harry, Meghan, Archie, and even the Duchess of York—all people who are successfully doing royal-like charity work while somehow not being part of the exclusive, publicly funded “real royal” family—which sort of disproves their thesis that the royals are special and unique and important enough to have their own magazine.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Amy Too even the idiots at People must know that agreeing to not cover the Sussexes would be financial suicide.

        And I love your entire analysis. They really shot themselves in the foot with this one!

    • bloemheks says:

      have a sneaking suspicion whatever is written about H&M will be positive or at least neutral. That seems to be the new narrative. They weren’t harassed out of the country. The RF is happy for them and they’re all getting along great!!

      • JT says:

        The actively racist coverage of H&M just won’t fly here. Nobody is going to want that type of negativity in a magazine. They want the glamour and pretty pictures. But what sort of content can the royals bring? They’ve been dry all year and nothing they’ve done has made a dent in the news. And if the RF is cooperating on this, it cannot bode well for the press relationship back home. The BM is starving right now and the royals are going to go and feed the American press? Things might get interesting.

  20. Amy Bee says:

    I’m guessing the Royal Family is cooperating with this venture. They need the positive PR, especially in the US. The TV special on Harry and Meghan is being timed for the one year review. The one they did after the wedding was terrible and was full of information from the tabloids that was incorrect. In it they talked about Harry and Meghan moving into Apartment 1A which at the time was only a rumour made up by the tabloids and later disproved when they went to live in Frogmore Cottage.

  21. Carmen-JamRock says:

    royal ascot 2019 was held in june. baby Archie was barely 6 wks old. why on gods green earth would a new mother take her newborn to a place where a bunch of gamblers were gathered?! i’m sure H&M made that decision for themselves. BTW, the first time kate attended royal ascot was 2016!!!

  22. MissF says:

    I’m confused as to who the audience is here. The only country that really matters in terms of opinions of the royals is the UK and People magazine really isn’t that widely read here. If it were OK or Heat or Hello that might make more sense but People?

  23. harla says:

    Desperation spill on aisle 5, bring a big mop!!!

    I would only be interested if they cover royals from the European and Scandinavian royal houses, like Mary, Victoria and Maxima. But since M&H left, I too am done with the BRF.

  24. MsDiMeanOur says:

    so Kate is STILL defining herself?

  25. February-Pisces says:

    Would this pull out existed before Meghan, hell no. She and harry are the only superstars in that family and Americans do not give AF about Kate, Willie or the queen. I don’t really understand how People mag go about covering both the Sussex’s and the Keens, cos the Kate get her sugary advertorials in there on a regular, but I haven’t seen people trash harry and Meghan much either. It’s strange cos no publication is ever on ‘team both’ especially when they have close contacts the the Keens as we all know content from them usually comes under the condition the they trash harry and Meghan.

    Anyway for what it’s worth of all the people I know in the real world who either like or are indifferent to Kate, it’s because they don’t consume any content about her at all. The more I tell people about Kate and the more they know about her, they can’t believe how awful she comes across. So Kate needs to be aware that the more sugary articles there are about her, the worse she looks.

    • harla says:

      I think that Kate appeals to the more conservative, traditional (read Trump supporting) American woman who don’t expect anything from her but to look pretty.

      • Chris. says:

        I don’t even believe the Trump Trolls care about her . They were just anti Black Duchess, who also happened to be leaning Democrat. That’s what it was all about. The trolls to even care about the Cambridges. Look at the engagements under their articles: NONE , Check their videos on YouTube: Dead, but when they post about Meghan, they come out in force and spread their hate! Ha ha ha They are not going to buy this Mag, cause they don’t care about Kate. They know she is mediocre.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Chris ITA— you nailed it. A huge percentage of the Cambridge fans are not actually Cambridge fans, they’re racists who cannot abide the fact that Meghan married into the BRF.

        Once Meghan came into the scene, all of a sudden the white duchess was elegant and regal and a ton of people who’d never cared about her before became her biggest supporters. It was so transparent.

      • Nyro says:

        Chris, Kate really is just a duchess version if Melania, another basic who has no real fan base. They all just hate Michelle. They’ll complain about Melania not being on the cover of magazines yet none of her videos on the WH YouTube move numbers. None of conservative media invite her on their shows. None of the conservative blogs feature her, etc. Neither Kate nor Melania realize that none of these Brexit/MAGA people care about them beyond using their whiteness to try to attack black women who shatter their notions of supposed white supremacy.

    • Lorelei says:

      @February Pisces that’s exactly my experience with people IRL, when the topic comes up. They think Kate’s pretty and will text me, “Harry and Meghan are leaving the royal family?! What is happening?!”

      But they absolutely don’t care about any of the other royals besides W/K and H/M (aside from the Queen and maybe Charles, I doubt they could even *name* anyone else…Edward and Sophie could stroll through their front doors and they wouldn’t have a clue whoTF they were) and would definitely not spend money on this sort of thing.

  26. Lemons says:

    I’m going to give this a hard pass. We have royal gossip blogs, so why would we need a quarterly publication that regurgitates what we already know? It doesn’t even seem like anything new is coming out. Old photos for the cover, lackluster headlines we’ve seen before…

    They can have it. Good luck! I’ll stick to Celebitchy.

    • Nyro says:

      If they get exclusive behind the scenes/ personal photos and interviews, that would pretty much be confirmation that BP is behind this all the way, including financially.

    • Amy Too says:

      “Our content is so exclusive we have to use a photo of Kate from 2019 on our cover and a headline that we and others magazines have printed word for word many times before: Kate the Great!”

  27. harla says:

    I’ve noticed that articles here about the royals tend to have the most comments. Personally, I don’t usually comment on articles except for ones about the royals.

    • Nic919 says:

      But no one is paying money to make these comments. The activity on social media defending the Cambridges is very troll like and is quite different than spending hard cash for a paper magazine. While there is a white supremacy conservative audience for this, it is not a large one that is willing to spend a lot of money, as they have not really done this until Meghan showed up, and that was because an entirely new audience that was younger and more diverse came in to buy things. Prior to Meghan, Diana was the only Royal who sold a ton of magazines, but that was in the 80s and 90s. Kate at her youngest and most popular has never attracted the same attention, even around the time of the wedding.

      • Becks1 says:

        Wait, you mean Celebitchy is NOT going to send me a check any day now for my work here? Damn it CB……we have something to talk about…..

      • Lorelei says:

        @Nic agreed, I feel like there was about ten minutes back in 2010-2011 that Americans loved Kate, thought she was beautiful and had the best hair ever, watched the wedding, etc.

        But unlike Diana, interest in her only declined after the wedding, to the point that I don’t think that many Americans even really remember that she exists anymore.

      • Likeyoucare says:

        Wait @BECKS1
        What do you mean you didnt get the check yet.
        I have been receiving checks from CB each weeks😝

  28. Watson says:

    Wow, they really are afraid of Harry and Megs’ popularity in America eh? I’m convinced the Royal Family went to People with this suggestion after months and months of kiss ass articles about Kate. Guess the public’s love of H&M is giving them Diana PTSD.

    • Nyro says:

      It’s definitely coming from them. Only the royals would be stupid enough and so behind the times to think that a glossy quarterly magazine would be enough to sway public opinion. It’s so 1970.

  29. Over it says:

    How can someone so young look so old already? All the Botox she is getting is not helping her at all. I would buy people when the titles say things like Karen is so keen to be queen and queen Betty is tremendously petty.

    • Beach Dreams says:

      Excessive tanning and extreme dieting/weight loss will do that to you…smoking too, though no one knows if she still smokes these days.

    • Ann says:

      I was thinking she looks old too, but agree with Beach Dreams that tanning/sun and being very thin will do that. I read once that at some point a woman has to choose between her face and her…..behind. When you are very skinny as an older woman, your face can look haggard. It would be one thing if that was just sort of her ideal weight, but it’s not. She looked better when she had more weight on her, healthier. And she was plenty thin enough then. She needs a sandwich.

  30. Nyro says:

    This magazine won’t survive two years. They’ll be lucky to get eight issues to print because there’s no audience for this. Dedicated royal watchers are a dying breed and the ones left are taking in all the curated content online, Instagram especially. There’s one “both duchesses” clown who even does IG live streams where she interviews royal adjacent folks and former courtiers like Dickie Arbiter. Why pay ten bucks for magazine when you can get all the same pretty pictures plus video and a sense of community in the comments section all for free? If they didn’t have this during the Diana years, what makes them think it’s going to work now? I thunk this is some kind of deal that’s been struck with the Firm. They are desperate to prop up Doormat and Baldy and make them relevant in America, especially with the Sussex juggernaut going full throttle once covid is under control. I can totally see Queenie bankrolling this nonsense to save the future futures and the crown.

    • Watson says:

      @NYRO: “I thunk this is some kind of deal that’s been struck with the Firm. They are desperate to prop up Doormat and Baldy and make them relevant in America, especially with the Sussex juggernaut going full throttle once covid is under control.”

      YUP. SAME. H&M are too popular for KP’s comfort, and after the crown’s depiction of Diana’s treatment this is their way of doing damage control. We’ve been seeing the articles about Kate the great for months now in People which were never there before sussexit. That was People’s way to gauge interest and to justify the quarterly issue. KP was always leaking info to People but now get a special Royal issue. One step up from the daily fail!

  31. Liz version 700 says:

    Kate dresses like a grandmother already. I mean her Mom is vile but Carole dresses about 20 years younger than Kate. I’m gonna pass on a quarterly magazine from people with even more kissing up than their normal magazine.

  32. Jay says:

    Since it just says “royals”, maybe it will also use content about other royal figures, like Queen Rania of Jordan or Maxima of the Netherlands, or Princess Elisabeth (just giving examples that have both public works to highlight and also fashion content possibilities).
    I always enjoy the royal roundup the fug girls do, as there is little coverage of non-Windsor royals here, so maybe that would be a good niche? Doubtful, but maybe that’s the thinking? To be honest, if I were Kate, I would not be eager to invite these comparisons.

  33. Lizzie says:

    It will be interesting to see if interest falls after the initial edition who soon before Meghan is on the cover.

  34. MA says:

    The bar is in hell. This is greatness?

    I can’t think of a single person in the public eye as hyped up even the ones that deserve to be. The Pope, Dalai Lama, and Obamas don’t get a fraction of the fawning coverage that this personification of mediocrity and blandness gets for merely existing in her whiteness and privilege.

  35. Donna B. says:

    I think seeing the image of Harry placing a wreath on the unknown soldiers grave at Arlington National Cemetery, when Biden was vice-president (how ironic) has shown the firm who has more sway & more significance from their Windsor clan. Truth be told, during the time of Princess Diana (while actively married & separated); many in the US were pro-Diana & her sons; & this is coming from a diverse group of people.

  36. Prairiegirl says:

    If I need a puff piece about royals, well, that’s what Majesty magazine is for!

  37. Eulalia says:

    I just cannot with Kate anymore. The way she allows herself to be infantilised like this is embarrassing – HUN, YOU’RE 40 YEARS OLD!

  38. Tessa says:

    One thing I’m not buying. She is not the next Queen, she will be Queen Consort but only after William becomes King (Monarch) which could be for many years yet.

  39. Christine says:

    I am new to this site, and I found it after despairing of all the Meghan and Harry comments on sites like Blind Gossip, and somehow bumbled into this one. Happily!

    My question is, HOW are so many people still advancing the dialog that (in short) Meghan ruined Harry’s life? I’ve had to stop going to those sites, and I absolutely cannot read the comments sections. They are so disgusting, and I cannot read one more comment that basically suggests Meghan is no better than a teacher who seduced a minor in her car in the school parking lot.

    • Nyro says:

      It’s the anger, hatred, and vilification that women of color get when they’re with a highly desired white male. It’s what almost ruined Jennifer Lopez’s and Ben Affleck’s careers. It’s what was behind the abuse FKA Twigs got for being with Robert Pattinson. It’s especially bad if she’s black. And Meghan got it the worst because not only was a highly desired white man, an actual Prince no less, in love with her but, like Michelle Obama, she was stepping into a role that is seen as a bastion of elite white womanhood. Black women aren’t supposed to be princesses or first ladies. That’s what all of this has been about, no matter how much people want to deny it.

    • Christine says:

      I understand that, albeit grudgingly, on the part of average people, it’s basic, grotesque racism, but what of the British press? How are they so short-sighted that they didn’t see that Meghan caught fire, and inspired people all around the world, almost from the beginning? They chased the one woman out of the country that could have lead to decades of profit, for them. I am old enough that I remember Diana and her popularity well. Meghan was CLEARLY touching on some part of the public that has missed Diana for decades. Hell, I wanted the inspiration, and I’m just some chick from LA. Why are they continuing, when it has spectacularly failed? Does the royal family underwrite aspects of the British press?

  40. Kristin says:

    If one more publication honestly calls this worthless mannequin “Kate the Great” one more fucking time I swear to all that is holy that I’m going to take a nosedive off the Empire State Building. This ridiculous family HAD a truly great duchess, but they decided to run her out of the country and bet all their cards on this stupid, lazy woman. If I ran my business the way these morons run their so-called “Firm”, I’d have filed for bankrupcy and slunk away in shame decades ago.

  41. SenseOfTheAbsurd says:

    Untold stories? Like every boring detail of their pointless lives hasn’t been rammed down our throats already.

  42. Karmak says:

    Title should read “Kate the Karen” . Fixed it.

  43. SenseOfTheAbsurd says:

    That desiccated bitch who edits Majesty must be incandescent with rage. All this competition.

  44. Ravine says:

    “the Windsors forced Meghan and Harry to stay away from Royal Ascot that year”

    …citation needed…?

  45. Linda says:

    This magazine will sell well because there is a huge audience in America for Royal news. Any journalist who cover that beat knows it’s true. Royal news and all things Royal is huge business. Even on this site Royal stories particularly of Meghan and Kate gets the most comments and it’s been this way for nearly a decade.

    • Becks1 says:

      The articles about Meghan and Kate get the most comments but they’re not sycophantic, and that’s where I think the interest in this article is going to fall flat after the initial interest. Constant praise and embiggening is boring and I think the average royal watcher isnt going to be interested enough to buy a quarterly magazine when the royals arent really doing anything.