by Have you heard the latest conspiracy theories about Princess Kate? Of course you are. But in case you’re still lost, here’s a heads up: back in January, Kate underwent planned abdominal surgery with an extensive recovery period at the palace, which meant she’d have to step away from public duties until after Easter.
On Mother’s Day (if you’re a US reader, don’t worry: the UK and US celebrate Mother’s Day on different dates), the Palace released a photo of Kate with her three children. This would be a great burger, if it weren’t for the fact that the image appeared to have been digitally altered, prompting news agencies like AP and Reuters to issue a “kill” notice and take it down.
Speculation ran wild about Kate and her whereabouts. In an apparent attempt to calm everyone down, the Twitter/X account for Kate and her husband William shared a statement, the tone of which can only be described as “what happens when you’re kidnapped and your captor doesn’t update your Facebook status to do. it looks like you’re still alive”.
“Like many amateur photographers, I experiment with editing from time to time,” the statement reads. “I wanted to apologize for any confusion regarding the family photo we shared yesterday. I hope everyone who celebrated had a very happy Mother’s Day.” It is signed “C”, as in “Catherine”, as in Kate.
To say that statement missed the mark is an understatement of epic proportions. Speculation doubled. by three. Quadrilateral. It was a giant snowball of speculation rolling downhill to consume us all.
The Palace has clearly been less transparent about what is going on with Kate. Whether or not you think we’re entitled to it is another problem entirely—and precisely the kind of intractable issue that arises when dealing with an institution like the British monarchy.
The deal is terrible for everyone involved, right from the start. You also believe that the royals are banking public money and therefore the public are entitled to every detail of their lives – that they cannot functionally have any private lives at all. Maybe fair in theory, but unmanageable in practice. Or, do you believe that the royals are entitled to the same amount of privacy as any regular citizen with a luxurious lifestyle no funded by British taxpayers’ money – which doesn’t quite work either. The entire stated purpose of the royal family is about public work, and image maintenance.
In this particular case, Cáit is probably someone with normal human problems – but she’s doing so in the context of an institution whose incompetence has been proven to such an extent that people can’t wrap their brains around it. Apparently, it’s easier to believe any rumors that have arisen about Kate’s whereabouts than to believe that an institution that runs on PR can, in fact, be so bad at PR.
The monarchy does not work for the people – never has, of course; that is literally not what the monarchy is designed for. But it has become abundantly clear that it doesn’t work for the royals, either. You don’t have to take Harry and Meghan’s word for it – although I don’t see why you wouldn’t.
Consider that, regardless of Kate’s current situation, the institution that is supposed to ensure her well-being has descended into a shameful nightmare on an international scale. Then, zoom out a bit and think about what it means to be a royal: to be committed from birth to a life you don’t want, to a kind of work you’d have no affinity for, all while being a public figure with no chance of returning to anonymity.
Certainly, the royals are financially settled, and they can rest easy knowing that their material needs are more than covered for the rest of their lives. That’s a huge privilege—that, again, is the point of monarchy. But what about other needs? What about the right to have a private life if one chooses to do so? How about an opportunity to shape the results of your life? Being born into a royal family involves restrictions that would not be acceptable in most other contexts. It is clear that the institution is not adapting to the modern age, either. (See: “Like many amateur photographers…”) It’s time for him to retire.
But what about tourism? What about the economy? The idea that the royal family is a net positive for the UK economy has been debunked time and time again, and—to mention. The Independentthe then economics editor Ben Chu in 2018 – “we should treat even estimates of economic activity involving the royal family with considerable skepticism.” As Chu said at the time: significant financial benefits accrue to the royals ; major royal events such as weddings and coronations can displace economic activity rather than create it; and there is nothing to suggest that tourists will stop visiting the UK’s historic institutions without royals at the helm. Tourists visit less often former palaces in countries that used to have a royal family, and never before has an audience and a monarch led tourists to the UK.
What I do know is this: if an institution can’t be trusted to talk publicly about photo editing software without sparking a scandal, then it shouldn’t be trusted with millions of pounds in public funds—nor should a prominent institution granted to her. power. If ever there was a time to drop the monarchy, it is now.
