Buzzfeed: Look at all the times the palace complained & explained for the Cambridges

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

Friend-of-the-blog Ellie Hall has put together another damning comparison post at Buzzfeed. Her previous “comparison post” was in January 2020, about the different ways the British media covered the Duchess of Sussex versus the Duchess of Cambridge, with all of the hypocrisy, double-standards and ingrained sexism and racism of the British press in full display. The current story is comparing all of the times Buckingham Palace or Kensington Palace went on the record to formally deny stories about Kate and William, versus all of the times those palaces did nothing to shut down the increasingly awful stories about Meghan and Harry (mostly Meghan). While Ellie doesn’t say this, if you’ve followed royal gossip for years (as many of us have), many of the nasty stories about Meghan didn’t get formally denied because it would have been difficult for Kensington Palace to leak a negative story about Meghan and then turn around and deny it.

I should also say this – all of these stories have been clear for a while, and we’ve called it out as it’s happened, in real time. It’s a lot like the previous Buzzfeed headline-comparison post – these are all stories which have been out there, in royal coverage and on social media, for years now. But as we’ve also seen – from the Oprah interview especially – it’s incredibly striking to see it collated and see the pattern of just how differently Kensington Palace’s communications office handled “Kate’s extensions” versus “palace staffers are calling Meghan ‘Me-gain.’” You can see the new Buzzfeed story here.

Ellie brought up the Rose Hanbury stuff too, and how William did the most to shut down any and all stories about his alleged affair with the Marchioness of Cholomondeley. Ellie notes that the Sun completely removed their “Royal Rival” story – which largely broke the Rose scandal – from their online archives “at some point after June 3, 2020.” While Hall only mentions the Tatler stories in passing, the Tatler “Catherine the Great” cover story was first edited to remove only the Rose Hanbury section. Then, months later, Tatler removed huge swaths of the article from its online archives too. Weird that the crazy AF Richard Kay piece – which was just William blatantly running to Kay to feed him different narratives – is still online.

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.

Related stories

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

81 Responses to “Buzzfeed: Look at all the times the palace complained & explained for the Cambridges”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Jane says:

    It’s amazing that no tabloid will run with the counter stories to their narrative. They must all have huge deals with House Cambridge not to cover what Celebitchy and Buzzfeed and Harper’s and other US outlets cover.

    • EllenOlenska says:

      I think maybe it’s that they’re gambling that Meghan and Harry will be a flash in the pan and that the Windsor’s are forever…figuring they’ll provide more stories over the long haul. I think they’re mistaken ( they are confusing them with the early days of Andrew and Fergie pre Pedo Andy) but I really think that’s it. And if theWindsors do fall ( and dear God they keep doing a terrible job of managing thru this) they’ll just pivot to savaging them and profiling them post downfall…

      • notasugarhere says:

        Crossing fingers that one of Harry and Meghan’s NetFlix productions wins a BAFTA. I’d love to see W&K eat crow publicly.

      • Yup, Me says:

        I would totally watch a behind the scenes show about how they launch one of their projects (and plan and coordinate the events around the launch). I used to wish that real housewives would really dive into something like that rather than dressing up, and caking on makeup to scream gossip at each other like demented cockatoos with surgery deformed faces.

      • (The OG) Jan90067 says:

        Nota, you can be SURE that will be a show the Cams will NOT attend and will give a *very* lame excuse. Didn’t KeenKatie use the one that she had to stay home because of the kids once (ie: no one to watch them)?? I could swear I remember that years ago.

  2. Andrew’s Nemesis says:

    I know we’ve kvetched, hoped and theorised that this, that or the other will bring down the House of Cambridge, but do we think the tide is finally turning? That Mrs Bennett’s constant puff-leaks to the tabloids and reports of PWT’s incandescent rages are evidence that the edifice is cracking, and that the tabs are going to declare war at some point soon?
    After all, what can PWT and Wiglet actually give the tabloids to keep them fed? Sans the scapegoat of H&M and drip feeding of vile and toxic untruths about the soi distant couple, what protects them from the same reign of terror?

    • Pétulia says:

      I don’t see the tide turning anytime soon. Their brand has been damaged globally but that’s it. In the UK the general public don’t actively like them but don’t hate them either.
      And as long as Liz is alive I doubt the press will go after them.

      • Eleonor says:

        Me neither.
        And I don’t know why in the UK people hate the Sussex so much.

      • notasugarhere says:

        People in the UK don’t hate the Sussex family. Don’t fall for the YouGov surveys, where they ask the same self-identified Meghan-hating tiny group of people the same questions every time.

    • mariahlee says:

      Not happening. While profit seeking is obviously their biggest priority, the UK tabloid press is just as invested in upholding class hierarchy and white supremacy, and the RF are the epitome of both (hence why Meghan had to go). They’ve put all their eggs in W&K’s basket as the lilly white and conservative future of the nation. I don’t see them tearing down an image they’ve so meticulously curated.

    • Rosie says:

      Definetly not.
      Here in the UK, most people still prefer the Queen and the Cambridges. Mostly older people (over 40 to 100), but still, they are the majority and the ones, who don’t care. And I know a lot of people, who dislike the Sussexes, just because the absurd amount of stories, that the press are writing about them. Theye are everywhere, the hate is everywhere, and at some point you can be so fed up, that you simply ignore them. I am like this, I like them very much, but too tired to follow the drama most days. Not their fault, but the BM.

      • JT says:

        H&M’s support, or lack thereof, in the uk. Is meaningless. It clearly hasn’t affected their ability to make deals and do business. The uk’s only concern should be the Maga 7 anyway, so I don’t know why it should matter that the Sussexes aren’t on the Brits radar.

      • Rosie says:

        Yes, thankfully it didn’t effect their ability to make deals. One of the problem is, that people love to hate (I am very familiar whit this because I am not a native british person). And it has a cultural aspect… The whole british nation was raised to admire the Queen, they can’t or don’t want to change something that is so fundamental for them. They used to royality, they want the drama and jewelry…. -.-ˇˇ

      • notasugarhere says:

        LOL ‘most people’. Don’t believe what tabloid and YouGov surveys tell you. Asking racist Little Englanders their opinions, then passing them off as being representative of all of the UK.

      • Rosie says:

        Sorry, I should have been more specific. Most people around me are like that. I work for an international organisation (education field), were half of us are foreign (like me) and half british. Most of them are younger and highly educated, and they are still so blind to this things …. That was why i have writed, that I think most people simply can’t or don’t want to change.

      • equality says:

        There was somebody on Twitter from the UK who said that her teenage daughter and friends thought that Charles was the Queen’s husband and had no idea of who the Queen’s children were.

      • Isabella says:

        It’s no wonder people in Britain feel negatively about the Sussexes with all the misinformation and nastiness out there. That Richard Kay story about Will’s affair lays into Meghan (yes, Meghan) as if she had anything to do with anything.

        This is how Kay segues into it. Then he goes full throttle. You’d think Meghan had cheated on Harry somehow or spread gossip about Wills.

        “They (William and Kate) have eschewed the celebrity friends that Prince Harry and the Duchess of Sussex appear to like to surround themselves with.

        No friends of Kate have gone chatting to gossipy magazines as Meghan’s have done to People and Vanity Fair.”

      • equality says:

        @Isabella Weren’t Kate’s friends chatting with Tatler and don’t their “sources” leak to trashy tabloids constantly.

    • Golly Gee says:

      And as long as Harry and Meghan remain in the public eye, which of course they will, the RF and their douchey boyfriend: the tabs, will happily continue to use them as punching bags.

      • Sam says:

        Even if they choose not to be in the public eye,the press would still be generating stories about them. Meghan said in her interview she wasn’t out for like 2 months and even when she was on maternity leave,yet there were thousands of stories written about them.

        Hating the sussexes is profitable and I dont see the tabloid stopping regardless of what options they choose.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Which gives the Sussex family more and more opportunities to sue. They’re doing pretty well in their legal cases thus far.

      • Golly Gee says:

        @Sam: being in the UK was a different situation because there were leaks coming about them from KP and whoever else even when Meghan was shut away, Since they’ve been in the US, there are no leaks. Information comes from them. Unfortunately, whenever they say or do anything publicly, the tabloids have a bone to chew on and the palace has feelings. It sucks for them. But at least they’re not surrounded by hate now. The media in the US has treated them well so far and has highlighted the racist misogyny of the UK tabloids I don’t see that changing.
        @nota: yes, now that they are no longer being muzzled by the royal family, they can defend themselves in the media and they can sue, sue, sue! And with a little luck they’ll be able to nail the US bureaus of the UK tabloids which will mean much bigger damages.( I think)

    • betsyh says:

      What can William and Kate give the tabloids to keep them fed? A baby.

      • Robin says:

        Pretty soon after M&H have their baby, KP will announce a fourth pregnancy, and if it’s a girl it will be Diana.

  3. Cecilia says:

    I was going through a royal rabbit hole yesterday and i found some old stories about the Cambs. And what became clearly obvious is that kate and will were protected at all costs. Sure they faced some criticism over being work-shy but even that was vanilla. They literally threw everybody under the bus just to make these 2 look innocent, from the york sisters to even the queen. Reading all that really doesn’t make the actions of the RF over the past 3 / 4 years that surprising.

    • Becks1 says:

      Yeah, even when they were criticized for things like not working, or their behavior on the India/Bhutan tour – it was a mild criticism compared to what Meghan experienced. And now no RR will admit that the Cambridges are slightly less than perfect, which I think is going to be a problem in the future – first because no one is perfect, and second because perfect is boring and does not sell.

      • Cecilia says:

        My question is why? What deal does KP have with the tabloids that somehow makes them untouchable? When meg arrived the bargain was obvious. Stories about meghan for glowing pieces about the others. But before that? What was the bargain? What did KP offer the tabs? Or with what did they threaten the tabs?

      • L84Tea says:

        I’m just curious, because I am a little fuzzy on the details at this point. What was the deal with their behavior on the India/Bhutan tour? I remember the awful clothes…Was it diva behavior?

      • Belli says:

        If I’m remembering the right tour, it was that they treated the India/Bhutan tour like it was their personal holiday rather than work.

      • Becks1 says:

        @L84Tea – its like Belli said, they treated it like their own personal holiday, they apparently weren’t very knowledgeable or interested at any of the events (remember this is the tour where Kate said something like “how interesting” when she was told how children maim themselves so they can earn more money begging).

        The big thing though was the hike to the temple in Bhutan, they made all the RRs and photogs hike up the mountain, Kate stopped half way so her hair stylist could redo her hair before any pictures were taken, and then they told the RRs they had to wait there and couldnt finish the hike bc they wanted it to be a “special moment” between the two of them or something (so the RRs had hiked up a mountain and then couldnt even see the actual temple.)

        Emily Andrews (Hi Emily!) was MAD after that and she had some strongly worded articles (for her) but they may have been scrubbed.

        Speaking of EA, she also was the one who had a tweet or article about Kate accepting freebies and then took it down after being contacted by KP’s lawyers. She said on twitter that she had been on maternity leave at the time and didnt feel like battling with the palace lawyers. I wish that tidbit had been included in this buzzfeed piece.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Cecilia – I think there are a couple of things. First, I think the Cambridges threatened to withhold their children (and did withhold them at the beginning), and I think that giving more access to their kids was part of the deal. When George was 2.5 we werent seeing him do things like formal performances or the like, but we are seeing that with Louis.

        I also think the Cambridges are not afraid to send their lawyers after reporters, something the palace was not willing to do for Meghan. Again, look at the Tatler article. That was snarky and classist but not really that bad, and KP got it significantly edited.

        I also think the RRs and the palace know that a lot of “hope” is riding on William as the future future king – Charles’s reign is viewed as a stopgap, William will be the next truly glorious and transformative monarch – and they need to protect that at all costs.

      • equality says:

        @Becks That seems crazy to me because I would look to Charles to do more meaningful work than William no matter how long either reigned.

      • Wiglet Watcher says:

        The bargain was access to the kids. There was a widespread ban on photographs of the kids being published and legal action was exploited even in public domains. All photos would be credited to Kate for legal reasons and the tabloids could get the pics if they wrote favorably to the Cambridge family.

        And of course stories throwing other royals under the bus. Kay tweeted about it.

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      Kate flashed the world at a solemn ceremony at the India Gate. She also said some dumb stuff about children made to work as beggars or somesuch. Baldimort and Keen basically acted like village idiots on a vacation.

      • notasugarhere says:

        ‘oh how interesting’ when a child told her they had been deliberately maimed so they could earn more as a beggar.

  4. Killfanora says:

    Excellent article in Buzzfeed! Pity no UK press or columnist will pick it up and run with it….

    • Amy Bee says:

      Why would they? This article proves Meghan’s point.

    • SarahCS says:

      At least it’s there. I had a zoom with some friends that happened to be just after the interview (we’re all liberal Brits) and one commented that ‘there’s no smoke without fire’ which shocked and disappointed me. I didn’t want to climb on my soap box and start a lecture so made a couple of points and left it at that. That’s why I’m so pleased we’re getting coverage like this, if you’re not paying attention it’s far too easy for the general noise to skew opinions.

      • Noodle says:

        Totally agree @sarahcs. I occasionally come across conversations about this at work or on Reddit. I used to link to the other Buzzfeed article quite a bit, just as evidence to support my points. Now we have a new source to go to. People who are anti-HM generally don’t realize how their views have been shaped by the UK tabloid media, nor would they ever admit it. They believe what they believe, without a lot of cognition about how those opinions were formed (or sometimes, denial that they would ever be influenced by such biased sources).

      • notasugarhere says:

        The handful of prolific Meghan haters have been invading Reddit and other non-royal associated discussion forums for years. Just like the rabid Trumpers they are, have to get their lies and hate out there in as many places as possible.

      • Noodle says:

        @notasugarhere, one loon told me I must be a 14 year old girl to care so much, after he spouted lie after lie and I called him on it. I stopped engaging at that point; he was going to only dig in his heels further. I wish I could have provided him my CV so he knew exactly with whom he was interacting.

  5. Myra says:

    I think it’s great that she pulled this together to dispel the notion that the palace doesn’t comment on idle gossip. They obviously do. It also shows that there is a huge conspiracy to allow negative coverage on Meghan to spread while correcting the most benign stories about Kate. That’s the kind of support that Meghan claimed she didn’t receive from the institution, which CNN’s Max Foster pretends otherwise. Meghan’s reference to being silenced was that neither she nor her friends were allowed to correct the negative stories about her, but the palace immediately did so for Kate and others in the family.

    • Wiglet Watcher says:

      It’s a good article breakdown, but ugh buzzfeed. It’s never worth clicking on their links.

  6. Becks1 says:

    I was so glad to see this last night, it really just makes it clear that the palace does complain, and it does explain, but only to save the white duchess.

    I dont think there is any way to explain how negative articles about Kate arent just corrected, but are completely taken down, compared to negative articles about Meghan, without the answer being, obviously, racism.

    • notasugarhere says:

      All of these articles being published, proving how different the treatment was? If Jason was leaking lies about her, not correcting other misinformation – but it can be proven he did it for W&K? I’ve seen rumours of Meghan going to sue Jason personally for defamation. And let’s throw in a lawsuit against the staff boyfriend who sold their secret Canada location to Wootten.

  7. Sofia says:

    This is why I’ll tell every monarchist/Cambridge fan who tries to do the whole “royals don’t complain/Kate never said anything!” with me that the royals certainly do complain a lot and they explain a lot too.

  8. Amy Bee says:

    It’s been pointed out that the Rose Hanbury story was first broken by Dan Wootton and that although the Sun pulled his story, he was the reporter getting all the scoops after that. It’s obvious that Wootton threatened to expose William’s affair and KP agreed to leak stories about Harry and Meghan in exchange.

    • February-Pisces says:

      Yes we wouldn’t even know rose existed if it hadn’t been for the sun and the DM. Clearly a warning shot.

    • Becks1 says:

      I think actually the DM was the first one to write about it, but then the Sun followed up, and that’s when the story got a little more traction. But, I do think there is a deal with Dan Wootton and feeding him information, we cant forget that he had the inside info about the Sussexes stepping back as senior royals.

  9. Lauren says:

    I’m still praying here that the Rosebush story will gain huge traction. If American news outlets pick that baby up, the tabloids will have to start talking and they know the dirty details.

    • Pétulia says:

      American news outlets can’t broke the story because there’s no concrete proof of the affair. And they don’t have the reach to try and get proof. If the affair is exposed it will come from British tabloids.

      • JT says:

        If it gets traction in the US, then they will dig. Most of the American press won’t just report unverified stories but they will look for smoke. They already know there is a media blackout and William threatened the press with a human rights violation suit, so there is something.

      • Lady D says:

        Lack of proof has never stopped the National Enquirer or it’s parent company TMZ.

      • notasugarhere says:

        As Lady D writes, ‘proof’ isn’t going to stop the US tabloids. William doesn’t have the ability to threaten them in to silence.

      • tcbc says:


        That’s just silly. Of course they have the reach. Money=reach. All they need is to get the people who the aristos always discount – the servants, the drivers, the waiters, etc. – to confirm off the record. Two off the record confirmations is enough to go to print. The only thing that’s actually stopping them is that the more reputable papers don’t consider the story newsworthy yet. To them it’s salacious, but not news. But if publications like the Daily Beast or Buzzfeed keep beating the drum and making the connections between burying the story and the rise of negative Meghan coverage, then it becomes a story about extortion and bribery between the British tabloid media and the royal family. If any other lawsuits, particularly concerning Jason Knauf go forward, it’s news. If the British Media goes further in attacking Gayle King or starts going after Oprah, then it’s news and also personal.

      • MA says:

        @TCBC speaking of the servants, let me drop some tea right here

  10. Merricat says:

    It’s become evident in the U.S. that Meghan was treated badly. The UK may prefer not to see it, but they are the only ones.

  11. LaUnicaAngelina says:

    Shout out to Kaiser for spelling out “Marchioness of Cholomondeley” every time the rose bushes come up. I’d just write “Chumley.” 😂

  12. Talie says:

    This will happen with George and his siblings as well as they age too. I wonder if William thinks he can somehow prevent it? But you can’t really prevent the same history from playing out over 1200 years. The spares rarely make it out happy and on their own terms. Harry is a very big exception.

    • February-Pisces says:

      I don’t think Willie even cares. If anything he probably believes his other kids should be there to serve the heir.

      • lanne says:

        I think so too. After all, it’s what he knows. His kids will be fodder for the tabloids, and Louis and Charlotte will be thrown under the bus for George. That’s the correct order of things, because of course, being the HEIR is the most important position in the world and everyone must bow to the HEIR. Sucks for those kids.

  13. Pétulia says:

    The royalists/monarchists will never accept that W&K are less than perfect even if it was in their face. People needs to make peace with that.
    But I’m glad the information is out there for sane people to see.

    • notasugarhere says:

      The royalists/monarchists are a tiny handful of people in the UK. If the racist old white people like the fictional version of W&K? So what? As long as the facts of his abuse of power, using his position to threaten press to be silent comes out. Their racist, abusive treatment of Meghan and Archie. That plus the Queen’s actions around Andrew, the off-shore Duchy of Lancaster funds, staff complaints about her dragging them across the country during the pandemic. These things add up to extremely damaging to the Windsors, for the ‘sane people’ who can take action.

      • Pétulia says:

        I agree with you. Change will come when the sane people will see how bad they are. My point is it will not come with these types of stories. The royalists will blame the staff not W&K.

  14. Savu says:

    It’s just like… the proof speaks for itself, fam.

  15. Over it says:

    Reading that buzzfeed made me angry all over again about the way Megs was treated because she is black

  16. Amy Bee says:

    Another thing, in the piece it takes about reporting on the cost of Meghan’s wardrobe. KP said that it was privately funded. Knowing now that the Royal Family didn’t want to provide funding to Meghan and suggested that she go back to acting, I think she paid for her clothes with her own money.

    • Becks1 says:

      I’ve been thinking about this since the interview. We always assumed that things that were “privately funded” – furnishings and decor for Frogmore, Meghan’s wardrobe – were paid for by Charles. But now I’m remembering how, I think after 2018, there was not a significant uptick in Charles’s spending per the duchy books when it came to wardrobes for his daughters’-in-law. I think we all used this as proof that Meghan was not spending as much as people complained. But now I wonder if Charles just wasnt paying for Meghan’s clothes at all, and she was paying for them with her own money.

      That would be so breathtakingly shitty if true, but now I wonder.

      • Amy Bee says:

        Yeah, the press were expecting a huge surge in spending taking into account Meghan’s addition to the family and it wasn’t there. I’m now convinced that she wasn’t getting any funding from Charles. Any time KP/BP said things concerning Harry and Meghan were privately funded it meant they were paying for it.

      • equality says:

        What I find fascinating is Camilla being able to fly under the radar entirely. She wears nice outfits but nobody reports on the cost of her wardrobe.

      • Becks1 says:

        @AmyBee – and if she wasnt getting any funding from charles for things like clothes (like Kate was/is), it would also explain their desire to be part-time royals and earn their own money bc they had to spend their own money. I know there were other factors at play, including the press, but now I’m wondering if that was a factor too.

        oh man I want someone to do a deep dive into this. If Charles refused to pay for Meghan’s clothes……..but they seemed to be on good terms with him, at least for the first year or so of the marriage, through Archie’s birth and christening, so I dont know.

        @equality – she wears a lot of Fiona Clare for formal events, which has to be $$$, but I dont know about her every day wardrobe.

      • Amy Bee says:

        @Becks1: You make a good point about the decision to be part-time royals and funding. Plus, if it’s true that Harry had a hard time getting funding from his father for his projects then it feeds into their desire to be financially independent.

      • Lizzie says:

        So they wanted her to remain an actress – wouldn’t that have meant part time royal all along?

      • equality says:

        They probably wanted Meghan working and Harry still full time royal tagging along after Will and Kate.

  17. Lyn says:

    I don’t care what the royalists or even the British public think of Meghan and Harry, their opinion is inconsequential because those two no longer live there or even base their business there. But they do need the good opinion of the USA and the global public and that’s why articles like this, Oprah interview matter. To make sure the negativity doesn’t spill over from the UK.

    And the UK media and royals know this and that’s why they are frustrated by their lack of traction and trying to counter it e.g. Max Foster interview yesterday on CNN.

    Also, even with all the UK hate I saw a poll where it was like a 50/50 split against them, and I thought that was bad for the RF because with all their propanganda they should have ALL the support. But there’s a sizeable part of the population who either don’t care about them or dislike them, and they gravitate to Meghan/Harry.

    • Robin says:

      Lyn, you’re right. Beyond the tabloid bubble, UK interest is limited. People here usually say something along the lines of, I like the Queen, but once she’s gone…If you look at DM articles solely about Kate and her spending, or William and Kate’s exhaustion, you will see comments flooding in about what a waste of money they are, or it’s about time we did away with the RF. The modern, the new and the energised came in with Meghan. And now it’s gone.

  18. MMadison says:

    I think Kate if FAKE.

  19. JJ says:

    Tangent: Does anyone know who designed that dress Rose Hanbury is wearing in these shots we always use? I can’t help but love it.

  20. Phoenix says:

    I would actually love to see a documentary exposing how the media treated Meghan and Harry and go deeper with the media relations of the RF and the tabloids.
    I would love it if someone expose the Cambridges and Jason Knauf for example.

  21. MangoAngelesque says:

    I hate to admit it, but I honestly love those photos of Will, Kate, and Rose together. The sequences of body language, the various side-eyes and smirks, Will’s smug little expression in the background between his two little Toffs…it’s so ridiculously passive and petty and obvious.