Some of the
most important people in fashion—Chanel, Alaïa, Yves Saint Laurent, Pucci,
Kenzo, and Missoni—are known for their public image and their iconic designs.
But what kind of world have they cultivated behind closed doors? From France to
Italy, from England to Morocco, come along on a private visit to the remarkable
homes of couturiers, stylists, muses, and fashion personalities. Photographer
Ivan Terestchenko shows the décor, works of art, and the personal collections
of these legendary designers. Some interiors, such as Chanel’s apartment at 31
rue Cambon, are mythic, while others like those of Giorgio Armani’s châlet or
Vanessa Seward, Azzaro’s head designer, are completely unconventional. From
minimal (Nicole Farhi) to exotic (Franca Sozanni), to a deceptively simple
French apartment (Loulou de La Falaise), this book explores the spaces and
places created by some of fashion’s biggest names.
Praise for
"Beyond Chic"
"Photographer
Ivan Terestchenko traveled the globe--from Ottavio Missoni's Venetian Manse to
Christian Louboutin's adobe home in Luxor, Egypt--to capture the more than 200
images in this lush and inspiring bit of voyeurism." -- Details "Photographer
Ivan Terestchenko is known for his work photographing the homes of some of
fashion's most notable names. Their iconic designs are well known, but what
kind of style do they have behind closed doors? Take a peek into some seriously
fashionable houses." -MarthaStewart.com
"Manolo
Blahnik's house is like a pair of his shoes: elegant, well-proportioned and far
more comfortable than it might appear. And it is appearances that are often at
stake in Mr. Terestchenko's 19 beautiful photo essays on the homes of designers
as varied as Azzedine Alaia, Vittorio Missoni, and Reed Krakoff." - Wall
Street Journal
"Terestchenko
opens doors to the homes of an extended collection of notable names in
fashion....Beyond Chic: Great Fashion Designers at Home invites readers into
the private homes of these very public tastemakers and a lustrous list of
equally-inspiring courteriers, stylists, muses, and fashion
personalities." -Veranda
"Terestchenko
draws parallels between the aesthetics of renowned fashion companies and their
creators' interior stylings. The visual study is more than just a discussion
about decor." -Lonny
"Beyond
Chic: Great Fashion Designers at Home by Ivan Terestchenko may just be the most
beautiful book of the past few years." -From the Right Bank to the Left
Coast
"People
love to see the homes of fashion designers. In Beyond Chic: Great Fashion
Designers at Home...Ivan Terestchenko takes readers into the private spaces of
the late designers Coco Chanel and Yves Saint Laurent, as well as Azzedine
Alaia and Vaness Seward, to name just a few." -Habitually Chic
"A
fascinating look into the private residences of some of fashion's most
influential designers, tastemakers, and stylists from photographer Ivan
Terestchenko. This volume of eye candy spans both the globe and a wide array of
décor styles, highlighting the diversity of the residents and their
corresponding brands." --Domainehome.com
Anthony J.
Drexel Biddle, Jr. could easily lay claim to being one of the most
fascinating—though often forgotten—figures of the 20th century. Now a new
exhibition at Drexel University, Citizen, Soldier, Diplomat: An Exhibition on
the Life and Career of Anthony J. Drexel Biddle, Jr., chronicles the
extraordinary life of the great grandson of Drexel University’s founder,
Anthony J. Drexel.
The
prominent Philadelphian was a favorite subject of society columns, receiving
regular recognition for his personal style and athleticism. In 1937 Biddle was
named among the best-dressed by the National Association of Merchant Tailors of
America, and by Flair in 1950, and Esquire in 1960. He was also a founding
member of the Palm Beach Bath & Tennis Club, and as a court tennis champion
won the Racquet d’Argent in France in 1933. But it’s perhaps his service to the
United States during the course of two World Wars, and several administrations,
that should be remembered as Biddle’s most meaningful contribution.
Born in
1897, Biddle was the son of the eccentric and wealthy Colonel Anthony J. Drexel
Biddle, whose unconventional life was immortalized in the 1967 Walt Disney
musical film The Happiest Millionaire, itself based on the book My Philadelphia
Father written by Biddle’s sister Cordelia. In 1955, in response to the book’s
publication, the New York Times reported that “What the Cabots are to Boston
the Biddles are to Philadelphia, and if the Biddle position with respect to
Deity is not quite as clearly defined as the Cabots, they have a distinction of
their own; they are known for their charm.”
Biddle
graduated St. Paul’s School in Concord, New Hampshire in 1915 and married his
first wife, tobacco heiress Mary L. Duke, a cousin of Doris Duke. In 1917, at
age 20, he enlisted as a private in the U.S. Army. After leaving the military
in the early 1920s, Biddle engaged in a number of ventures and was, at one
time, a director of 11 corporations simultaneously.
The stock
market crash of 1929 curtailed most of his earlier business interests, and his
marriage to Duke ended shortly after in 1931. Biddle married his second wife,
copper mining heiress Margaret Thompson Schulze, that same year. President
Roosevelt first appointed him minister to Norway in 1935, and then Ambassador
to Poland in 1937.
“In
addition to the many personal objects in the exhibition, we have a number of
pieces Biddle used in the U.S. Embassy in Poland including the desk he used,
the official embassy seal removed when he fled Warsaw in 1939, and a lot of
rare occupation documents,” says Lynn Clouser, director of the Drexel
Collection.
This second
appointment also led to his London-based commission in 1941 to the
governments-in-exile of Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Luxembourg, the
Netherlands, Norway, Poland, and Yugoslavia–making Biddle the ambassador to
more countries at once than any other person in history. The prior year he had
also served as the interim ambassador to France.
After
leaving the State Department in 1944 Biddle re-enlisted in the army, rose to
the rank of Brigadier General, and served in various high-level positions under
General Eisenhower until retiring in 1955. In 1946 Biddle married his third
wife, Margaret Atkinson Loughborough, a major also serving under Eisenhower.
The couple raised their two children between France, Washington DC, and
Pennsylvania.
“He passed
away when I was 12-years-old–it was a short but memorable period,” recalls
Biddle’s son, Anthony "Tony" J. Drexel Biddle III. “I remember being
two or three on the front lawn [of our house] in Paris and he stood me
underneath an apple tree, then stepped around back and shook it so hard that
apples were raining down on me–that was the first trick he pulled that I can
remember,” he laughs.
In January
1961 Biddle reluctantly took his final State Department appointment as
Ambassador to Spain under President Kennedy. “America and Western Europe were
having a difficult time with [Spanish dictator] Francisco Franco over possibly
losing [the territory of] Gibraltar,” says Tony. “So, Jack [Kennedy] implored
my father to return to the diplomatic core though, initially, he respectfully
declined.”
Kennedy
then approached Biddle’s close friend, General James Gavin–who Kennedy had just
appointed Ambassador to France–to help convince him to take the job. “Gavin
said to my father, ‘if you go to Spain, I’ll go to Paris–but if you don’t, I
won’t.’ Then, suddenly we were in Spain,” Tony remembers. “We must have landed
there a week after Jack was inaugurated and in a remarkably short period of
time Dad nullified the problem, and Franco was absolutely in love with him.”
Biddle
maintained three strong political relationships throughout his life and nearly
30-year career—those with Presidents Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Kennedy. “Ike
[Eisenhower] was being drafted to run for president and he asked my father to
consider running as his vice president,” says Tony. “Dad accepted that as an
enormous compliment but declined.”
When
pressed, Biddle offered two reasons: First he wasn’t cut out for campaigning,
and second he was a Democrat, to which Eisenhower replied, “Who cares!”
According to Tony, at one time both the Democratic and Republican parties in
Pennsylvania were after his father to run for governor.
Biddle’s
relationship with Kennedy began when the future president was a student at
Harvard. “Joe [Kennedy] was in London at the time and called up Dad in Warsaw
to say, ‘I have this vision my son is going to be Secretary of State one day,
and it would be good if he learned some of the ropes early.’”
The younger
Kennedy would spend a summer in Poland with Biddle, and the pair became fast
friends. “Jack always depended on him a lot for the rest of his life,” says
Tony. “When Jack ran for the nomination the first time—and didn’t get it—my Dad
was a very important morale-boosting supporter. He encouraged Jack to stay the
course, and the next time he won.”
By the time
they arrived in Spain, Tony recalls having, at 11-years-old, a “young person’s
understanding” of what his father did. “We were there basically a year, then
Dad became ill and died that November.” At the end of his life, Biddle spent a
month at the Airforce base outside Madrid before being transferred to Walter
Reed Medical Center in Washington DC, and ultimately succumbed to lung cancer
at age 64.
“One of the
most important things in life to Dad was a sense of humor,” says Tony. “Today
that would translate into not taking yourself too seriously. He loved people,
and the more he loved you, the more likely he was going to do something funny.”
Located in
Drexel University’s Rincliffe Gallery and A.J. Drexel Picture Gallery, the
exhibition runs through May 1, 2020.
The video
recording in which Catherine, Princess of Wales, revealed she is undergoing
treatment for cancer will be remembered as a moving personal testament and a
public profile in courage at a time of great challenges for the monarchy.
Catherine’s demeanour was calm, her clothes and appearance ordinary, her voice
steady, although the strain showed behind her eyes. Yet most of all, it was
Catherine’s bravery that shone through as she described the “incredibly tough”
two months that she, her husband and children have endured since her illness,
so shocking and unexpected, was first diagnosed.
All those
people across Britain who are afflicted by cancer – the total is about 3
million, with about 1,000 new diagnoses each day – and relatives and friends
whose lives are upended by the disease will identify closely with the feelings
Catherine expressed or intimated. Fear for the future, present pain, the often
distressing side effects of modern treatments, worry about the impact on the
children: such thoughts besiege and oppress the mind even as the body
struggles. Catherine spoke vicariously for all who suffer.
This
ability – to speak for and to speak to all of this country’s less exalted, less
heard, less fortunate “ordinary” people – is a quality that the monarchy, in
its uncertain, slightly anachronistic national leadership role, needs badly and
has often lacked. It is essential to its continued relevance and popular
support. Kate Middleton, the middle-class girl from the home counties whose
very surname smacked of ordinariness, has occupied that treacherous common
ground from the moment she and William married at Westminster Abbey in 2011.
Catherine’s
positive, smiling personality, obvious commitment to her role as a mother and
lack of airs and graces have helped make her the most popular younger royal
since Princess Diana. Her normalising presence has proved especially important
as the royal family experienced a string of difficulties. In hindsight, the
death of Queen Elizabeth II in 2022 and the close of the second Elizabethan era
triggered a period of turmoil. It has brought a cancer diagnosis for the late
queen’s son and successor, King Charles III, further disgrace of Prince Andrew
and damaging ructions over the maverick behaviour of Prince Harry.
Catherine’s
key role in keeping “the Firm” afloat means her prospective absence from public
duties for the foreseeable future will be all the more deeply felt in
Buckingham Palace. With the king also out of action – like Catherine, the type
of cancer he is suffering from has not been revealed – and with two princes in
self-imposed or enforced exile, an already supposedly “slimmed down” monarchy
begins to look depleted, overstretched and vulnerable. Yet this is not the
moment for republicans to re-open the debate about its future. That must come,
in time. But not now.
Right now,
Catherine and her family deserve and must be afforded the privacy, time and
personal space for which she has asked, in order that she completes a full
recovery. Cancer charities have rightly praised her openness about her
condition. Catherine has been laudably candid after weeks of unfair, sometimes
malicious, speculation on social media and the international press. We wish her
well over the difficult weeks and months ahead.
Catherine
became a fairytale princess – the girl with everything. And yet, so it turns
out, hers was not a charmed life after all. Her challenge
is everywoman’s and everyman’s.
Princess of Wales ‘enormously touched’ by
messages of support after cancer diagnosis
Kensington Palace says Catherine and Prince William
are ‘extremely moved by the public’s warmth and support’
The
Princess of Wales and her husband, Prince William, have been “enormously
touched” by the messages of support received since she announced her cancer
diagnosis, a Kensington Palace spokesperson has said.
Catherine
said on Friday she was undergoing preventive chemotherapy after tests done
following her major abdominal surgery in January revealed cancer had been
present.
The
42-year-old wife of the heir to the throne called the cancer discovery a “huge
shock”. The news came as a fresh health blow to the British royal family: King
Charles is also undergoing treatment for cancer.
Kate’s
statement via a video message, which was filmed at Windsor Castle on Wednesday,
triggered an outpouring of support from well-wishers.
“The prince
and princess are both enormously touched by the kind messages from people here
in the UK, across the commonwealth and around the world in response to Her
Royal Highness’s message,” the Kensington Palace spokesperson said in a
statement on Saturday.
“They are
extremely moved by the public’s warmth and support and are grateful for the
understanding of their request for privacy at this time.”
It is not
known how long Kate will be receiving treatment but it is understood she may be
keen to attend events as and when she feels able to, in line with medical
advice, although this will not indicate a return to full-time duties.
William
will continue to balance supporting his wife and family and maintaining his
official duties, as he has done since her operation.
The prince
is due to return to public duties after his children return to school following
the Easter break. He and his wife will not attend the royal family’s
traditional Easter Sunday service at Windsor Castle’s St George’s Chapel, which
the king is hoping to go to with the queen if his health allows.
It is not
likely to be a large family gathering or service, according to the Telegraph,
as Charles has paused public-facing royal duties.
The palace
said Catherine started her chemotherapy treatment in late February. It is
understood her public announcement of the news was timed to coincide with the
children breaking up from school for the Easter holidays.
The palace
said Catherine had wished to provide a medical update in order to put an end to
the speculation sparked by her admission to the London Clinic on 16 January for
major abdominal surgery. At the time, the palace refused to confirm what
Catherine was being treated for, but said the condition was non-cancerous.
The
speculation was only fuelled when the first official photograph of the Princess
of Wales to be released after her surgery was recalled by some of the world’s
biggest picture agencies earlier this month over claims it had been
manipulated.
With Reuters and Press Association
Analysis
Burden falls on Prince William to steer monarchy
through next few months
Harriet
Sherwood
With his father and wife diagnosed with cancer, and
himself estranged from his once beloved brother, the blows have come thick and
fast
For the
Prince of Wales, the blows have come swiftly one after the other. First his
father, King Charles, revealed that he had been diagnosed with cancer, and then
came the news from doctors that his wife, Catherine, the Princess of Wales,
also has cancer.
The stress
on the heir to the throne will be considerable. Not only must he support his
wife and father, he must also shepherd his young children through a family
medical crisis in the glare of global media coverage. And he must shoulder much
of the responsibility of steering the monarchy through challenging months
ahead.
In her
video statement released on Friday, Kate acknowledged her husband’s role in her
recovery from surgery and treatment for cancer. “Having William by my side is a
great source of comfort and reassurance,” she said.
Immediately
after Kate’s abdominal surgery in January, William took time off to support his
family. But on 6 February, he returned to royal duties as Kate recuperated at
home in Windsor.
Three weeks
later, he suddenly pulled out of attending a memorial service for his late
godfather, King Constantine of Greece, citing unspecified “personal reasons”.
That triggered frenzied speculation on social media. It is thought that Kate’s
diagnosis landed about this time.
King
Charles also missed the service, leaving Queen Camilla and Prince Andrew to
lead the royal party.
Now Kate is
undergoing chemotherapy, it is unlikely she will perform any official duties
for the foreseeable future. The king has resumed limited engagements in the
past month, such as an audience with Rishi Sunak and a privy council meeting,
but is not expected to travel or undertake arduous engagements.
William’s
priority over the next few weeks will be his family. The prince is able to take
as much time as he needs without financial worries or fear of losing his job.
Many spouses or partners in a similar position have to make hard choices.
“Balancing
working and caring” for someone with cancer “can be difficult”, says the
charity Macmillan Cancer Support. It advises trying to find a “balance between
the support you want to give and what you are able to do”, and talking to
employers about possible flexible working arrangements.
Many people
depend on the support – practical and emotional – of close relatives. Not for
the first time, William may be reflecting on the breakdown in the once close
relationship with his brother Harry, now living thousands of miles away and
largely estranged from his family.
While many
families pull together in a crisis, and strengthen mutual bonds, this seems
unlikely for the royals.
Analysis
Apologies for Kategate – but will the spirit of
restraint on social media last?
Vanessa
Thorpe Arts and media correspondent
The Princess of Wales’s cancer diagnosis has put a
stop to the internet’s wilder conspiracy theories, but it could be temporary
After
Friday’s filmed statement from the Princess of Wales, it is now TikTok,
Facebook, Instagram and X, formerly Twitter, who are in the dock. This weekend
thousands of individual users have expressed contrition over the conspiracy
theories they aired and the boss of X herself tried to reposition her platform
by urging compassion.
“A brave
message delivered by Princess Kate with her signature grace,” CEO of X, Linda
Yaccarino, posted, adding, “Her request for privacy, to protect her children
and allow her to move forward (without endless speculation) seems like a
reasonable request to respect.”
Speculation
about the whereabouts and wellbeing of Catherine, in the face of repeated
contradictions from Kensington Palace, took place chiefly on social media in
this country. While British newspapers showed restraint, phones lit up with
conspiracy theories – and foreign print and TV news journalists joined in.
“Kategate
became a cottage industry of clickbait online because it was a mystery, which
invites audience participation,” said writer Helen Lewis of the Atlantic. “One
of the rules of the internet is that people like to put themselves into the
narrative, and here, everyone got a chance to be the lead in their own version
of CSI.”
Rosie
Boycott, a crossbench peer and former editor of the Independent and the Daily
Express, sees it as “a very shabby episode”. “I hope people feel quite ashamed
because the internet hit a real low with poor Kate,” she said. “There may have
been a briefing for some British newspaper editors, telling them to take it
seriously, but we have zero control over social media – and then that viral
outbreak itself becomes the story.”
Forensic
analysis of the princess’s clothes was conducted online by amateur sleuths
arguing the edited royal Mother’s Day photograph was a total composite, while
others disbelieved the farm shop video of the couple that became public last
week. Although some of this spurious detective work was driven by misplaced
concern for Catherine, it also demonstrated a current distrust of “legacy”
media.
“It is the
wild west online, partly because of the anonymity,” said Boycott. “But Kategate
has been horrid and I don’t understand it, except that it reveals this strange
thing we have about feeling we own celebrities.”
Lewis
watched as the vacuum of real news spawned online content: “There was just
enough truth among all the speculation to make the conspiracy theories not
entirely absurd. By accident, Kensington Palace fed the fire rather than
quenched it,” she said.
“So you
could watch videos explaining how the photo of Kate and the children was
suspiciously edited – which it was. That legitimised the wilder stuff about
body doubles and AI generation. I even saw a 3D animated reconstruction of one
of the photos taken of Kate in the car.
“Some
people were doing all this with self-aware irony, but other people presented
themselves as trying to ‘save’ Kate, in a way that was reminiscent of the
stories around Britney Spears – and again, that’s someone who apparently was
sending coded messages about her conservatorship through her Instagram
captions. So the idea isn’t completely ridiculous.”
The new
tone of online sobriety might last a while, given the gravity and sensitivity
of the princess’s situation, even on digital forums that are built to
discourage moderate voices. But the appetite for status updates on her health
will not go away.
“What this
proves is that Kensington Palace can still control the British press to some
extent,” said Lewis. “But they can’t control the internet, or the American
media, who are hugely interested in our royal family but have very different
standards on privacy and libel.”
This is the only photograph I was able to find in my search in the Internet ...namely a group Photo of Young American Artists ( Wikipedia).The "blow up" of Laurence Fellows was made by the "blogger" Maxminimus, in Maxminimus.blogspot. Young American Artists of the Modern School, L. to R. Jo Davidson, Edward Steichen, Arthur B. Carles, John Marin; back: Marsden Hartley, Laurence Fellows, c. 1911, Bates College Museum of Art
(1885 - 1964) From the Gay Nineties up through the 1920s, American humor magazines played a greater social role than is generally appreciated. Their candor in recording the current events in a satirical weekly or monthly forum presented the contemporary American attitudes, prejudices, and mores in the guise of humor that was not found in the more sober mainstream periodicals. Publications such as Truth, Life, Puck, Leslie's, and Judge showcased the talents of such major illustrators as Charles Dana Gibson, James Montgomery Flagg, Orson Lowell, T.S. Sullivant, Peter Newell, Art Young, and many others who mirrored the country's foibles in their enthusiastic ridicule.
Joining the group in the early teens was an ultra sophisticated young artist named Laurence Fellows. A native of Pennsylvania, Fellows had received his training at the Philadelphia Academy of Art, with several follow-up years studying in England and in France at the Academie Julien under J.P. Laurens.
Upon his return to the United States, Fellows' fresh point of view, particularly reflecting a French/Vogue influence, found him a ready audience. His style was distinguished by a thin outline, flat tonality or color, with the emphasis on shapes rather than details. Just as quickly, however, he acquired many imitators. Before John Held, Jr., for instance, had invented his "flapper," he was clearly adapting much from Fellows' mannered drawing style into his own submitted gags. Other new converts were Hal Burroughs, Bertram Hartman, and Ralph Barton, who would each run with it in their own way. Fellows particularly liked to play with off-balanced compositions, even in the more conservative arena of illustration for advertising.
One of his early commercial clients was Kelly-Springfield Tires, which gave him the opportunity to combine his elegant draftsmanship with the clever, humorous copy depreciating the competition, thus often violating the rule against "negative" advertising. But Fellows' drawing and the copy had an edge of good humor that attracted a national following and the successful campaign lasted for many years.
In the thirties, Fellows gradually shifted his emphasis to fashion art, including both men and women, finding clients in Vanity Fair, Vogue, Cosmopolitan, The American Magazine, and McClure's. He also became a regular contributor to Apparel Arts magazine.
With only a limited number of men's fashion artists available, Fellows was most in demand for the male-focused subjects, particularly by the newly launched Esquire magazine in the thirties, where he was regularly featured in full-color spreads for many years.
Although Fellows considered himself a commercial illustrator, he was also a painter who exhibited periodically, later concentrating on abstractions. In reviewing his entire career, however, it is his early work, when he found a fresh viewpoint in a sophisticated spoof of the social upper crust, that makes us admire his audacity and leaves us with a smile of appreciation.
Walt Reed
"Fellows was born in Ardmore, Pennsylvania in 1885. He was trained in illustration at the Pennsylvania Academy of Art, and honed his trademark “continental” style studying in England and France. But the real story begins when he returned to the States in the early 1910s and burst on the scene as an eager and talented young artist. Fellows found work contributing to satirical magazines like Life and Leslie’s, and his European-influenced style was fresh and new, reflecting the sleekness and stylization that led to Art Deco. His work was so fresh, in fact, that he found many of his better-known contemporaries, including John Held, Jr. and Ralph Barton, were adapting his stylistic elements for their own use. Fellows’ style during this period was very mannered and graphic, with thin black outlines enclosing flat expanses of tone and compositions that emphasized graphic weight and balance over fussy illustrative detail. His bread and butter throughout the 1920s was his work for the Kelly-Springfield Tire company. He brought an idea to the Kelly advertising manager for a series of magazine ads featuring “smart cars and smart types of people.” It was the beginning of an assignment that lasted for nearly a decade. The ads are still smart and fashionable today (and becoming collectible, by the way). But it was in the 1930s that Fellows found the niche that would shape the lives of dandies for the next 80 years: fashion illustration. Though he contributed to Vanity Fair, McClure’s, and The American Magazine, among other publications, it was men’s fashion where he was most in demand, and Apparel Arts, aimed at the tailoring trade, and Esquire were his showcases. Fellows’ technique as a fashion illustrator was more painterly and detailed than his earlier commercial work. The man could draw fabric, plain and simple. His fabric had weight, heft, drape, texture, and sheen. His flannels, worsteds, tweeds, and linens, his barathea and velvet and twill were all fabulous. He also defined a very specific, very masculine world. Unlike today’s fashion magazines, Apparel Arts didn’t dictate fashion trends by using underfed models in unwearable suits. It showed what was already being worn by the well-heeled, trend-setting folk. Fellows’ genius as an illustrator lay in his ability to depict them in their everyday activities. Whether they were traveling the world, hosting dinner parties, hunting grouse, or just lounging around the penthouse or club, Fellows somehow made their rarified universe accessible. Ordinary folks could look at the illustrations and say, “I could wear that.” Rather than looking overdressed and stuffy, or merely human shapes on which to hang clothes, Fellows’ subjects are men for whom dressing splendidly comes naturally. They’re having a good time, smiling, and enjoying themselves in their relaxed, party-filled sphere, and all of them are illustrations of casual, well-tailored elegance. Laurence Fellows died in 1964, and in 2009 was named to the Society of Illustrators Hall of Fame. His immortality in the world of men’s fashion is assured simply because he had the ability to illustrate real men in their real lives and make those lives ones we all want to live." — BILL THOMPSON in Dandyisme.net
It seems
that everyone has recently become fixated on one question: where in the world
is the Princess of Wales?
We’ve long
known the world is watching the royal family, but the visible absence of
Catherine has sent social media and US news outlets into a tailspin – driving
even those ordinarily not interested in the royals to pay attention.
The latest
saga surrounding the royal family began when Kensington Palace announced on 17
January that the future queen consort was due for a mysterious abdominal
surgery at the London Clinic. The world was told that she would be in the
hospital and out of commission for “10 to 14 days” – therefore out of the
public eye until Easter. Prince William postponed some engagements that same
day.
Then a
series of coincidences made internet sleuths suspicious.
Victoria
Howard, a royal commentator and founder of a website devoted to the royal
family called The Crown Chronicles, offered some clarity on the princess’s
recent accidental entrance into the global spotlight.
“The length
of Kate’s absence is unusual which suggests a significant procedure, but the
lack of details is what is driving the rumor mill,” Howard said. “For those
abroad, who don’t have a royal family and liken them more to celebrities, they
can’t quite understand why the details aren’t being shared.”
Shortly
after, on 5 February, it was announced that King Charles was diagnosed with
cancer. Now, two leading figures in the royal family have health issues around
the exact same time but only one of them has been seen.
“There is a
bit of a vacuum in the royal family right now, because of both ongoing health
issues, so this lack of news and public visibility of royals is driving some of
this narrative,” Howard said. “The timing is unusual being so close together
but for me it’s an example of how the offices do not communicate that well, and
equally their different approaches with the level of detail provided.”
But Howard
cautioned coincidences can happen and that “health often doesn’t align with
your schedule”.
“As Kate is
not monarch there is no cause for concern. Charles has counsellors of state who
can be appointed and step in should he be incapacitated,” she said.
Still,
rumors are swirling and many outside the UK, particularly in the US, have
become obsessed with this Middleton mystery.
Theories,
or “Katespiracies”, about the princess’s whereabouts range from Kate being
revealed as the newest contestant on the TV gameshow The Masked Singer to
getting a Brazilian butt lift (or some other cosmetic work).
Howard
called some of these conspiracies “quite frankly ludicrous”.
“To not be
away for so long due to real health issues would be highly risky and take
advantage of public goodwill,” she said. “No sensible communications team would
allow them to do that.”
Middleton
was reportedly seen on 4 March in a car with her mother, but the poor quality
of the photo has not convinced some of her fans.
On 10
March, things reached a bit of an apex when it was revealed that a family photo
of Catherine and her three children posted by the princess on her Instagram
account was Photoshopped. Various discrepancies in the image led to even more
speculation, prompting major news agencies such as the Associated Press to pull
the photo from distribution “because at closer inspection, it appears that the
source had manipulated the image in a way that did not meet AP’s photo
standards”.
This proved
cataclysmic for gossip, which seemingly pushed the princess to issue a rare
statement explaining the situation: “Like many amateur photographers, I
occasionally experiment with editing. I wanted to express my apologies for any
confusion the family photograph we shared yesterday caused. I hope everyone
celebrating had a very happy Mother’s Day. C”
The
metadata of the file shows that the image was processed in Photoshop first on 8
March at 9.54pm local time and again on 9 March at9.39am local time, per an ABC
News report.
The very
next day on 11 March, William and someone who appeared to be Catherine were
seen leaving Windsor Castle together in a car. But faces were obstructed so
it’s not clear if it was actually the princess.
Still, the
princess’s spokesperson doubled down on Catherine’s perfectly normal condition:
“We were very clear from the outset that the Princess of Wales was out until
after Easter and Kensington Palace would only be providing updates when
something was significant.”
The
spokesperson underscored the princess was “doing well”.
The US,
which has no royal family, is giving the princess the “celebrity-in-crisis”
treatment previously seen with the likes of Britney Spears or Amanda Bynes. If
not by those on social media like TikTok, the media coverage of Catherine’s
every move has shown no signs of letting up.
US news
outlets like the Washington Post, ABC News and NPR have even weighed in on the
altered photo debacle. The Los Angeles Times likened Kate and sister-in-law
Duchess of Sussex’s drama to that surrounding Diana, Princess of Wales, who
dominated international news headlines in the late 80s and 90s.
The royals
expert and former BuzzFeed News reporter Ellie Hall told Nieman Lab last week
that she believed the obsession with Catherine stems from “distrust” people
have of the royals – in no small part to Diana’s legacy.
“People
have started to really distrust not just the royal family – as an
institution/bureaucracy, not necessarily the individual members – but the
reporters and outlets that cover the royal family,” Hall said, adding: “A lot
of people still hold a grudge against the royals because of Princess Diana and
wonder about the circumstances of her death. I also feel like a lot of this
distrust stems from what Harry and Meghan have said since leaving working royal
life. Their descriptions of a back-stabbing, machiavellian organization in
interviews and Harry’s memoir Spare have definitely made an impact on the
public’s perception of the monarchy and the royal reporting beat.”
So, what’s
really going on and who has the answers?
Howard
noted that “Kensington Palace has been very reactive”, which is unusual because
they mostly don’t “comment or respond in other cases”. She says it’s “the wrong
approach if they wanted to ease people’s worries” and “doing so shows real
concern about the conversation and indicates their level of panic essentially”.
Perhaps the
former Guardian editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger said it best in 2020, pointing
out: “It is unusually difficult to judge the reliability of most royal
reporting because it is a world almost devoid of open or named sources.
“So, in
order to believe what we’re being told, we have to take it on trust that there
are currently legions of ‘aides’, ‘palace insiders’, ‘friends’ and ‘senior
courtiers’ constantly WhatsApping their favourite reporters with the latest
gossip. It has been known to happen. Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t. We just
don’t know.”
Conspiracies and kill notices: how Kate’s edited
photo whirled the rumour mill
With Princess of Wales out of sight for health
reasons, impact of altered family photo has been magnified
On Tuesday,
as the crisis in Gaza continued, turmoil built in Haiti and Joe Biden and
Donald Trump were confirmed as their parties’ presidential candidates, the
White House press secretary was asked a question by a journalist that caused
her, briefly, to laugh.
“Does the
White House ever digitally alter photos of the president?”, Karine Jean-Pierre
was asked by a reporter.
“Why would
we digitally alter photos? Are you comparing us to what is going on in the UK?”
she replied. “No – that is not something that we do here.”
When
Kensington Palace released an apparently candid photograph last weekend of the
Princess of Wales and her children, timed to coincide with Mother’s Day, it no
doubt expected the usual warm reception, perhaps with a few approving front
pages.
One week
on, it is fair to say things have not gone to plan. After multiple clumsy edits
to the photo were identified, five leading photo agencies issued an almost
unprecedented “kill notice” of the “manipulated” image.
Since then,
not only the White House press corps but large sections of the world’s media
have been fascinated by the photograph – and what it may say about the
princess, who has been recovering from surgery – putting the royals at the
centre of a dangerous crisis of credibility.
If you’re
caught being untruthful once, after all, why should anyone ever believe you? In
Spain, some outlets have repeated claims, rubbished by the palace last month,
that the princess is in a coma. On US talkshows, longstanding if highly
libellous rumours about the royal marriage, similarly denied, are being openly
aired and mocked.
And on
social media, needless to say, the unfounded conspiracies are wilder still.
Kate has had a facelift, or she is in hiding, or has been replaced by a body
double. Most are easy to dismiss, but when even the ITV royal editor, Chris
Ship, one of the select handful of “royal rota” journalists who are briefed by
the palace, posts a tweet that begins: “I’ve never been much of a conspiracy
theorist but …”, the Firm undeniably has a problem.
Who would
be a royal? According to the palace, lest we forget, the 42-year-old mother of
three has undergone major abdominal surgery and is not well enough to appear
publicly. When the operation was first revealed on 17 January, Kensington
Palace said she was not expected to make any appearances until at least Easter.
That, they insist, has not changed. So why the frenzied conspiracies?
Perhaps
because Catherine remains media catnip, and is incredibly important to the
royal public image; three months without her was always going to be a
challenge. Things would arguably have been more manageable were it not for the
unhappy coincidence of King Charles’s announcements of his prostate treatment
and cancer .
While
Catherine had requested privacy over her diagnosis, the king and his Buckingham
Palace press team opted to be more open, though the type of cancer has not been
revealed. Most were happy to accept this as the princess’s right, yet the fact
the king has remained somewhat visible, even while undergoing cancer treatment,
made the absolute silence from Catherine all the more evident.
What tipped
online mutterings into febrile speculation was when the Prince of Wales pulled
out of the funeral of his godfather on 27 February, citing only a “personal
matter”. The Mother’s Day photo was evidently an attempt to settle the mood;
instead, its inept handling turned an uncomfortable drama into a full-blown
crisis. Even a brief apology, signed in Catherine’s name, did not help. Either
palace advisers had not grasped the gravity of their mistake, or – just
possibly – the royal couple, so protective of their children’s privacy, were
resisting their guidance.
Can they
recover from it? Only if they change tack, says Emma Streets, an associate
director at the communications agency Tigerbond who specialises in crisis PR.
There remains a lot of empathy towards the princess, she says, adding: “I think
[the episode] proves that she’s only human. But it’s crucial that the palace do
not repeat a [mistake] on this scale.”
They will
have to provide some form of update on the princess’s health by Easter, says
Streets, whether or not Catherine is well enough to resume normal public
appearances. “I think they really need to maintain that timeline to avoid any
further controversy. So the pressure is on for the comms team to handle that
without putting a foot wrong, and really, meticulously, plan.”
Streets
says the royal family’s long-practised strategy of “never complain, never
explain” is outdated. “That doesn’t work today, given the speed that this story
will spread online, and I think that massively needs addressing from a
strategic point of view.”
That view
is echoed by Lynn Carratt, the head of talent at digital specialists Press Box
PR, who says she has been “racking my brains” trying to understand why
Kensington Palace did not simply release the undoctored image. “They could have
put this to bed straight away,” she says.
“There
needs to be an overhaul of their comms strategy and a bit of honesty and trust
with the press. I kind of understand why there isn’t – but they need a whole
new approach to PR, to bring it into the modern world of the media.
“We’re not
just talking about print press and broadcast, when it’s now social media and
the digital space where people are consuming the news. It’s very different, and
you need to do PR differently for that space.”
Pranksters dupe Tucker Carlson into believing
they edited Princess of Wales photo
Josh Pieters and Archie Manners posed as ‘George’, a
Kensington Palace employee, in interview with former Fox News host
Pranksters
claiming to be a Kensington Palace employee fired over the Kate Middleton
edited photograph fiasco say they duped former Fox News host Tucker Carlson
into interviewing them for his streaming show.
In a video
posted on X that has already received more than a million views, Josh Pieters
and Archie Manners explained how they concocted a story about being released by
the Prince and Princess of Wales for “not doing a good enough job” in
manipulating a photograph of Middleton and her children that has stoked an
international furore and endless conspiracy theories.
The
“disgruntled former employee” act was apparently convincing enough to fool
production staff at the Tucker Carlson Network (TCN), who invited Manners,
posing as the royal couple’s former digital content creator, to a London studio
and an interview with the rightwing personality.
“That was
great, and really interesting too. I didn’t expect to be as interested in it as
I was because you told a really great story,” Carlson tells Manners after
listening to a made-up tale about how the infamous photograph was actually
taken by Middleton’s uncle in December, and that a Christmas tree in the
background had to be edited out.
The
pranksters, whose YouTube channel Josh & Archie showcases a series of
celebrity hoaxes, told Deadline they “stroked Carlson’s ego” by offering their
story as an exclusive because “mainstream media in the UK wouldn’t touch it”.
They
convinced TCN researchers of their authenticity by creating a fake contract of
employment that featured the words Every Little Helps, the motto of the British
supermarket chain Tesco, in Latin on a Kensington Palace crest, and a clause in
which the royals reserved the right to “amputate one limb of their choosing” if
Manners failed a probationary period.
“If Tucker
Carlson’s people read this, why on earth would they let you on the show?”
Pieters says in the video.
Manners
told Deadline that following the interview, TCN told him it would be aired
early the next week, but that he and Pieters decided to break cover now to
avoid misinformation being broadcast to the network’s 530,000 followers on X.
“We didn’t
want to cause any more rumors, that are not true, to go out to lots and lots of
people,” he said. “We just didn’t want to be too worthy about that in our
video.”
In the
interview, Carlson questions Manners about the photograph, which was recalled
by several photo agencies when numerous anomalies were discovered. A subsequent
palace statement explaining Middleton was experimenting with editing “like many
amateur photographers do” failed to offer reassurance, and set in motion a
chain of headline-dominating events that even prompted questions at the White
House.
“When
William and Kate put that photo out, they knew that photo was taken at
Christmas, and they put it out alongside a statement wishing everyone a happy
Mother’s Day, and told the world that William took it,” Manners tells Carlson.
“He didn’t
take it. Gary Goldsmith [Middleton’s uncle] took it.”
In their
initial emailed approach to TCN, the pair posed as a palace employee named
George, who said he was “about to be scapegoated” for the furore and “in the
process of being let go”.
“I am all
too aware of the Royal Family’s ability to throw people like me under the bus
in order to protect their reputation,” the email states.
.webp)
