Telegraph: Robert Jobson’s Princess Kate biography is ‘grimly fawning’ & ‘ridiculous’

As we’ve discussed this week, Robert Jobson has hacked out a new royal book: Catherine, the Princess of Wales: A Biography. The book was excerpted in the Daily Mail, and People Magazine and other sites have been picking up some of the stories, even though the tea is quite stale in most cases. The narrative was actually set by sources close to King Charles and Queen Camilla, and Kate mostly comes across as a dejected peacemaker, constantly trying to calm down her rageaholic husband. What is the market for this? Is anyone buying the actual book? Well, the Telegraph tasked someone with reviewing Jobson’s book and the guy HATED it. Despised it. Critic Alexander Larman even sounds like a royalist, but even he wasn’t into Jobson’s BS. The headline/subhead are: “The Princess of Wales never claimed to be perfect – this biography is ridiculous” and “Catherine, The Princess of Wales, by Robert Jobson, is grimly fawning, embarrassingly written and devoid of insight into the real woman.” Some swipes at Jobson and Kate:

Airless Kate: The difficulty faced by Robert Jobson’s new biography of Catherine, now 42 and Princess of Wales, is that it must fill its 300-odd pages with an account of a life that has been both eventful and strangely airless. Brought up in an affluent middle-class household and privately educated at Marlborough College, Catherine met her future husband in 2001, while the pair were studying at the University of St Andrews. The relationship briefly foundered, but recovered after a reconciliation at a party – “She arrived dressed as a nurse,” Jobson tells us, “and William made a beeline for her” – before they became engaged in 2010, and were married in 2011.

Kate’s one controversy: The Princess of Wales has continued to be one of the most discussed, and photographed, women in the world. She has largely avoided controversy – save what has been portrayed as an uncomfortable relationship with her sister-in-law Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. Camp Sussex have levelled accusations, albeit through proxies such as the downmarket biographer Omid Scobie, that Catherine made Meghan cry during preparation for the latter’s wedding, was generally cold and aloof before the Sussexes’s self-exile to America, and even – in a tortuous development that involved a mysteriously revelatory Dutch translation of Scobie’s 2023 book Endgame – had asked what skin colour Harry and Meghan’s first child was likely to have. There has never been much evidence for any of this invective or innuendo.

A “histrionic” sermon?? Yet Catherine can’t possibly have as composed a personality as the one we see in public. You might recall her wry smile and side-eye to the now-Queen during Harry and Meghan’s wedding, as the American bishop Michael Curry delivered a histrionic sermon. (That wedding is still, somehow, only six years ago.) If there are more such human moments to share, Jobson doesn’t include them here, although he does spend plenty of time on the innumerable other occasions that Catherine has been in the public eye.

LMAO: Were it not for the events of 2024, Jobson’s book would be nothing but a desperately dull and often comically overwritten hagiography, which portrays Catherine as little less than a secular saint who was put on this earth to steady the troubled House of Windsor and to make a stuffy monarchy appear more compassionate and sensitive. Jobson clearly admires Catherine enormously, and always seeks to present her in the best possible light. (Less so her husband, who emerges as grumpy and petulant.) From the perspective of a dutiful subject, this may be admirable, but it makes his role as an impartial biographer rather suspect.

The Wales marriage: If you’re looking for gossipy detail about how loving those arms were, forget it. Jobson gives the prurient short shrift – “Catherine and William have sadly been subjected to many vile and unjust attacks and false accusations, particularly from the so-called Sussex Squad” – and instead prefers to refer to people by single-word descriptions.

[From The Telegraph]

What I’m reminded of, yet again, is the undercurrent of eagerness within the British media to finally push Prince William and Kate off their pedestals. It’s happened with more and more frequency in the past year especially: the Middletons’ business collapsing and people openly calling them frauds and liars; the constant discussion about hot, single-dad William; the catastrophic mismanagement around a missing princess, and on and on. Many people know that there’s a lot going on behind the scenes and that the images being presented are far from the reality. It feels like a vibe shift when Jobson’s sycophancy is met with disgust. Also: this reviewer is absolutely part of the problem, but hey, at least he’s pointing out that no one wants another bland hagiography.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images, Backgrid. Book cover courtesy of Amazon.

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

96 Responses to “Telegraph: Robert Jobson’s Princess Kate biography is ‘grimly fawning’ & ‘ridiculous’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. aquarius64 says:

    This book is going to tank. Rehashed gossip.

    • Indica says:

      I don’t think it’s necessarily gossip, I think it’s rehashed fantasy. Of COURSE she’s the perfect princess possible, we can only extoll her virtues.
      And in this fantasy world, along comes the ogre that she must vanquish to maintain her perfect life… (I need chocolate or something)

    • Tiny says:

      Chronicles of a C Scammer

    • StillDouchesOfCambridge says:

      It’s gonna tank yes. We all know whatever’s in there isnt true, it’s romanticized to oblivion and what’s true and impartial just isnt in there. This book is newspaper copy paste, why make it a book?

    • Cara says:

      “American bishop Michael Curry delivered a histrionic sermon”

      Did anyone else catch that part?? The reviewer wrote those words. I am incandescent with rage at this moment.

      • SarahCS says:

        Historic? Sure.

        Your racism is showing there Torygraph, better tuck that back in.

      • Lorelei says:

        Yes, I did and it was disgusting. But so was every single BRF members’ behavior at that wedding, so it’s not surprising.

  2. Anna says:

    Writing biographies of living person in her 40ties, especially when she did absolutely nothing worthy is her life, is weird. Let’s call it what it is : a PR piece.

    • Caitlin says:

      Exactly what I was thinking. She has zero accomplishments and is not the least bit interesting. Diana by contrast had numerous accomplishments under her belt when she was in her 30’s and was far more interesting and engaging.

    • sevenblue says:

      The most interesting thing she did was disappearing from the public life and the weird events ensued. But, I don’t believe there is a living royal reporter who has the balls to give us this story.

    • Liz -L says:

      I’d agree with his assessment that it’s devoid of insight into the real woman.

      But then again the real woman is devoid of insight.

      • StillDouchesOfCambridge says:

        No one actually has any insight on her. It is so bland and empty. I can’t find any achievement or anything she said that changed the course of the world. Nobody ever discussed her thoughts. This is who she is to me:

        1. Her wedding dress was beautiful
        2. She wears Diana’s ring
        3. She disappeared

        Let me know what I missed.

      • Where'sMyTiara says:

        @Still you forgot:

        1a. She was upstaged by her younger sister’s fake butt at her own wedding – Pippa’s bum was talked of for WEEKS afterward

        I mean…:cracks up laughing: …they keep trying to make fetch happen with Kate… but lol… she was literally upstaged by a block of foam. FOAM.

        But sure, she’s the one that’s gonna save all the monarchy’s (self-induced) problems. :infinite eyeroll:

    • Jane says:

      Totally in agreement with you— it’s a PR piece.

  3. This is just some subtle (very subtle) shots across the bow to let the lazies know people are unhappy with their poor performances as royals.

  4. Proud Mary says:

    Lol! Jabba actually mentions the Sussex Squad? Are you kidding me??? And the reference to Omid as “down grade.” Omid is a NY Times best selling author. What has this royalist schlub ever written that has garnered even remotely that level of success?

    • Lucy says:

      The downmarket comment made me laugh. Meow.

      The only khate focused book I want is the real tea about December through today. I mean, maybe more background, but there’s zero chance of interest in this book other than it most clearly reflecting C&C desired story to put out. From the excerpts, W is mostly contrasted poorly with his dad.

      • Smart&Messy says:

        I agree on wanting real tea about the past 8 months, but also about the true story of the Middleton/Goldsmith family. Idiot Gary let some breadcrumbs fall previously about their first millions with Carole and I’d love to see someone follow that trail. And what kind of money went into snagging and keeping Egg. Like organizing the rival Christmas shooting party. What caused their rift around the pandemic years, and most importantly, why have the Middletons been back in Egg’s circle recently (if so)?

      • Unblinkered says:

        Agree wholeheartedly.
        Suspect any brave journalist with a nose for what would be a hell of a story would be quietly discouraged by the Establishment. May already have happened.

      • Where'sMyTiara says:

        Charles constantly running down his sons in the press – with or without help from his Favourite Nag – speaks to one thing.

        Charles is not interested in preserving the monarchy.
        Charles is interested in preserving HIS reign only, and F everyone else.
        He’s a selfish twisted clown not a king.

    • Jais says:

      Right? He’s called downmarket. Which means less prestigious. Is any royal writing really prestigious though? It’s all gossip. Not to denigrate gossip. It has an important place and snobby Telegraph writers really shouldn’t be throwing stones. Besides scobie now has a tv deal so downmarket is not some terrible place to be.

    • Joanne says:

      He only dreams of being as “downmarket” as Omid Scobie. How frustrating for him to realize his book is as much of a loser as he is and Scobie’s was a best seller.

    • Amber says:

      I thought the same thing. “Downmarket biographer” WHO?!

    • Christine says:

      He’s so pissed that Omid rose to be the cream at the top of the royal biographer heap. They are all so jealous, and it shows.

      • Becks1 says:

        And the thing is, one of the ways Omid got there was because he was willing to go against the official party line. He notes at the beginning of Endgame that he knows he’s burning a lot of bridges with that book.

        Someone like Jobson or Palmer – people who I believe DO actually have a lot of insider info, they just don’t print it – could probably make a killing if they wrote a book about what they actually know about the royal family. I get they’re trying to protect their livelihood and their connections, but if you write a bestseller that sells enough copies maybe you don’t need to worry about being on the rota anymore.

      • Nic919 says:

        I agree. Palmer could definitely write a critical book of W and K. He muted himself once Meghan entered the picture, but he knows way more than he’s saying. Why stay quiet at this point? He may as well go for the gold and have a big retirement fund.

    • Nic919 says:

      It was Meghan who directly stated that Kate made her cry. Why they try to say it was Omid and not the person directly involved is mystifying. I mean the Oprah interview was watched by millions.

      Jobbo could have made the book more interesting had he written about how Kate was nasty tot he York girls during the dating years, and nasty to Meghan, with obvious examples like the commonwealth service and the funeral. The reviewer knows this too.

      It’s a sad day when Katie Nicholls is the only one who has written a somewhat informative book which came out around the time of the engagement. Sickening the marriage there has been a shield placed over Kate despite her obvious laziness from day one and her jealousy of women she perceives as a threat.
      (She was a snob to Letizia too)

      • Jais says:

        Apparently Meghan’s own words are not enough evidence and are called invective. They consistently paint Meghan as a liar and she is not one. The reviewer actually does talk about Kate’s side-eye at the funeral. There is so much that could be written from just vids of Kate if they wanted to do some photo-assumption in the other direction. But they won’t even touch that. Imagine if they did.

  5. FancyPants says:

    Can we talk about how strange the alternating italic font is on the cover of that book? It’s making my brain put emphasis on “the” and “of” when I read it to myself and I’m hearing it as the way William would probably introduce her (through gritted teeth).

    • Chrissy says:

      LOL, I noticed that too Fancy Pants. Especially The THE before POW, which emphasized to me that Kate was the ultimate POW, not the better-in-every-way POW, Diana. Or maybe I’m showing my disdain and disgust for lazy, lying, boring and scheming Kate Middleton.

    • SarahCS says:

      The cover is AWFUL, font choices included.

      Do they know there are people whose job it is to design book covers and make them look good?

    • Smart&Messy says:

      and there are countless much more flattering pictures of Kate out there

      • Nanea says:

        … but it had to be *sapphire* blue, to remind people of Big Blue — and the real Princess of Wales and Queen of ♥️s.

        Because Keen can’t shine on her own, despite buttons, tiaras and whatever else of the stolen jewelry found in the vault she drapes herself in.

        Nizam of Hyderabad necklace, anyone?

  6. Tessa says:

    Ironic that Kate and Camilla were both mocking the Sussex wedding and acted like good pals and Camilla can’t stand Kate. Kate needs to watch her back. I remember the stories of kate going to a barracks party where William was and she showed up dressed as naughty nurse. Maybe Carole planned out that strategy

    • Jais says:

      That humanizing moment of a side-eye during the sermon actually gives credence to Kate being one of the royal racists. But considering this Telegraph writer called the sermon histrionic, being late aviation is considered humanizing. Seriously, wtf?

      • Jais says:

        Lordy. Being “late aviation” is a typo. It should read being racist is considered humanizing by this Telegraph writer. There is a new puppy in the house and my typing is now combined with avoiding puppy bites😂

    • pottymouth pup says:

      I just re-watched it due to the use of the word histrionic. It was a typical Black sermon, nothing weird at all but the only member of Harry’s family that seemed to be politely listening was the Queen. Both the Queen and Prince Philip looked very serious so probably uncomfortable with a sermon so alien to the very mundane services they were used to but Camilla, Chuck, Kate and William were making faces, laughing at the sermon and seemed to be making derisive comments between them (I’d be willing to bet the exchange between Kate and Camilla were overtly racist)

      • Unblinkered says:

        Shameful.

        The Queen and Philip were class acts.

      • Kat says:

        Kate’s behaviour in church when Meghan was present was absolutely disgusting.
        At Harry at Meghan’s wedding I noticed her making remarks behind her hand to Camilla, and the sneering looks at the Commonwealth Service.The worst was at QE11’s funeral.Also her turning up in white at the wedding of Harry and Meghan.
        Of course the sycophants said it ”pale primrose”!.
        She has no respect at all.

      • ChildlessAndHappyCatLady says:

        At the Commonwealth ceremony, Meghan looked like true royalty, showing dignity and poise whilst Kate looked like the bitter jealous witch that she is. She looked ugly, because she’s ugly on the inside and it doesn’t matter how she dresses up her Barbie doll silhouette, she’s mean and petty and it shows.

      • Beverley says:

        Zara behaved appallingly also. She tried to blame her rude and boorish behavior on her pregnancy, citing discomfort. But really, she just seemed like a classless, trite bigot would deride a sermon just because they haven’t been exposed to such.

        What a tiny, close-minded bunch these royals are! So provincial, so isolated. So ignorant.

  7. Pinkosaurus says:

    Is that the actual cover?!?! OMG it looks like something self-published using graphic design tools from 20 years ago. You cannot convince me this is an actual printed book that will be for sale in hard copy.

    I think desperate Jobbo is just claiming it’s a book to sell excepts so the Fail has a reason to rehash stale gossip from the past 20 years.

    • Hypocrisy says:

      That is the cover they chose for the self proclaimed “most photographed woman in the world”🫣 I had to laugh because Amazon had it listed as a preorder “best seller” I think the last preorder best seller Royal book sold a few thousand copies. Looks like they got their Omid dig in also, his success must burn their bums. I have a feeling the one ⭐️ rating was being generous.

    • Jay says:

      I had the same thought! It looks cheap, and the off choice to “match” the shade of blue to her outfit makes her appear as a bizarre floating head! Why is the font for her name bigger than her likeness??

  8. Tessa says:

    William did vile and unjust attacks deploying knauf to prepare a fake report about Meghan. And William tried to interfere with harry s plans to marry meghan

  9. Wagiman says:

    If anyone analysed who Kate REALLY is/was, her entire fake persona would crumble. They can’t afford for that to happen. They can’t tell the truth, they need this fantasy.

  10. aquarius64 says:

    Another rumor coming up is going to damage St. Kate’s image: William is going to the Paris Olympics next week and Kate is eager to go with him. Kate’s well enough to go to high profile events but not well enough to come out and do her “work”? No wonder the Kate doesn’t have cancer narrative is sticking.

    • Tessa says:

      William might take George instead. I don’t think he wants Kate there with him

    • Nanea says:

      Paris is a Corona hotspot.

      No one being treated for cancer, either ongoing or recent, should go.

      And if people are still too lazy to mask in crowded and/or indoor spaces when a virus with a biosafety hazard level of III that is damaging absolutely everything inside a body is floating around the world freely, it’s on them.

    • Nic919 says:

      The daily express has an article about it.

  11. sevenblue says:

    Isn’t it interesting that all the royal reporters said “Everybody knew it” when Kate & Charles were revealed as the people who had worries about H&M’s unborn baby’s skin color and what that would mean for the monarchy? They said it on record behind news desks. Now this guy is saying, only Omid said it and there is no evidence for it.

  12. Amy Bee says:

    My problem with the reviewer is he’s bashing Jobson for doing the same thing that the Telegraph always does which is portrary Kate as perfect.

    • Jais says:

      Exactly. The Telegraph has regularly published articles from Tominey and others saying Kate never puts a foot wrong. So why is Jobsen being criticized for doing what their very publication does. And to take it further, Kate and her team have pushed this perfect princess narrative. So really take it up with Kate. To say it’s unfair bc the POW has never claimed to be perfect is a joke. That’s exactly what she portrays herself as to the public. To the point where it’s claimed she created a frankenphoto bc she just wanted to get it as close to perfect as possible. Come on. Even if she didn’t do that frankenphoto, she has Chris Jackson airbrush her photos to the point that there are no imperfections.

  13. Royal Downfall Watcher says:

    The “the” in italics is a doing a lot. As if Camilla and Diana and all others before them were not the real Princesses of Wales. No. Kate is the ultimate level.

    It’s really bizarre. I’ve done more and know people who have done more in 1 year than this woman has her entire life. And yet she is spoken about like shes Princess Zelda or Galadriel from LOTR. Like she’s some warrior saint who sacrifices herself for the good of others. It’s really messed up. They are living in a Mirror universe with this mess

  14. Harla A Brazen Hussy says:

    Just have to say that Meghan personally rebuked the claim that she made Kate cry, Meghan stated that Kate made her cry, not “albeit through proxies”! Can’t anyone in Britain get their facts straight? Are there no proofreaders on that island?

  15. Becks1 says:

    This is part of the issue with how Kate has been portrayed in the media for the last 10+ years, or how KP wants her portrayed. She’s boring. Perfection is boring. Never putting a foot wrong is boring. She’s a blank slate so people can kind of project whatever they want on her.

    Diana’s popularity was for many reasons, but one of the reasons was because she showed her personality and her humanity.

    People can like Charles or dislike him, but he’s not a blank slate. We know his numerous flaws, we know what he likes, we know that he apparently yells at gardeners with a bullhorn at Highgrove. Where are the anecdotes like that about Kate?

    We know she’s supposedly competitive, that she likes tennis, and that she and William like to throw pillows at each other when they fight. But everything else just seems so forced – oh she’s always doing arts and crafts with the kids, oh she’s always cooking every night, oh she’s such a keen photographer – it has never felt genuine and I think that’s part of the reason no one really missed her when she went missing for months. People thought it was weird that she just disappeared, but no one really missed her – there is nothing to miss.

    A good biography of her would fill in some of these gaps, for better or for worse, and give us a picture of who Kate actually is. Instead, this just feels like more palace propaganda.

    • Jais says:

      There’s an interesting book somewhere. But it would have to tell the truth which goes against the practically perfect in every way narrative. And that’s something that Kate and KP don’t ever want getting out. Bc they don’t want it known that the future queen is a hyper-competitive and racist mean girl.

      • SarahCS says:

        I think (I have covid this week so thinking is not my forte right now) that I made a similar comment a few days back. If we were able to get an accurate and largely unbiased telling of her story I’d actually quite like to read that. I find it fascinating that in this day and age they’ve managed to create this empty persona and while anyone actually looking knows it’s not real that’s still the official line, parroted by the tame press.

    • Nic919 says:

      I think the problem is that if the real elements of Kate were shown she would be revealed as a pretty shallow and jealous person. The bits she has revealed in public especially toward Meghan show someone who isn’t very nice. And the side eye during the sermon makes her look racist. Not a great look for her.

      • Tessa says:

        The mask slips off from Kate and is caught by cameras. Like when she was caught glaring and snapping at someone at a garden party

    • Eurydice says:

      Well, we know she likes drinking Crack Baby cocktails and has always dreamt of having an AGA stove.

      The thing is that a person can’t have been in the public eye for 20 years, as she has, without revealing some personal preference. And unless her hobbies are cannibalism and torturing small animals, there’s no reason why the royal experts wouldn’t have written cute stories about her childhood dreams of becoming an astronaut or a ballerina or how she always wanted to be a concert pianist or take a balloon ride across France or a barge down the Nile – something, anything. The press would gladly grab on to any of these to spin a story.

      The fact that all these hagiographies don’t include anything specific about her as a person, but only in relation to others, must mean that there’s nothing more to write about. I think Kate is exactly what we see, an ordinary person with limited tastes and interests who married into an extraordinary situation.

      • Nic919 says:

        Hillary Mantel nailed it from the outset. Kate is a mannequin to have things placed upon her. It isn’t who she is but who she wants to be.

    • StarWonderful says:

      “Throw[ing] pillows at eachother” = domestic violence (imv).

  16. Noor says:

    Who authorized this review.. Camilla, William?

  17. Cerys says:

    This is likely to be one of the most boring books that has ever been written. Kate has accomplished nothing in her life. Her position is solely due to marrying a royal and she has done nothing of note since her wedding.

  18. Lady Digby says:

    Agreed @Cerys. When was this book commissioned and why? She’s 43 and been PoW since 2022 why would you commission this book when there is nothing special or noteworthy to commemorate?

    • SarahCS says:

      Because it’s summer and all the royals are on holiday. They have to write about something.

  19. JanetDR says:

    The Future Queen subtitle really bugs me. She’s not going to be “Queen” but possibly married to the KIng.
    Maybe I’m overreacting?

    • Tessa says:

      Every time I see the queen referenced I think of the late queen Elizabeth

    • Alix says:

      A queen consort is still referred to as “queen.”

      • Tessa says:

        Queen consort not queen regnant.the next queen monarch would come if George’s first is a girl or if Charlotte stays George’s direct successor if he has no children.

      • Becks1 says:

        Of course a queen regnant is different. but the wife of the king is still referred to as “queen.” People are hung up on it because Camilla was supposed to be Princess Consort and they eased us into the Queen title by saying she would be queen consort.

        But the wife of the monarch is always the queen consort and the consort is never used. Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth, Queen Charlotte, etc.

    • Tessa says:

      If Kate becomes queen she would be the laziest one ever.

    • JanetDR says:

      I appreciate the clarification @Becks1 😃 I guess I knew that but when I see the next queen, future queen, etc. It seems so wrong! I need more time apparently 😂

    • kelleybelle says:

      Nope, you’re not. She’ll be queen consort should the monarchy survive. And that’s all Meghan’s detractors can say, “she’ll be queen one day!” because there is nothing else to this woman besides that. Absolutely nothing between her ears.

    • FlamingHotCheetos2021 says:

      I think everybody has gotten very used to the idea of ‘the Queen’ defaulting to the meaning of ‘the monarch’ because of QEII and this technically being the case for 70-some-odd years or so. It’s normal for people to be used to the way things have been for their entire life.

      Also, western society is a little less okay with male-preference primogeniture and the general misogyny inherent in hereditary aristocratic titles. A Queen Consort is to be assumed when saying ‘the Queen’ and a Queen Regnant needs to be specified as such for she is the aberration in the system, but a King can only be BORN to it because men do not receive any title or honors from their wives (and only SOMETIMES can they receive this through their mother), and women ALWAYS derive their social status from first their father and then their husband and if their husband dies sometimes then from their sons but more usually they either stick with their late husbands’ status or they might go back to their fathers’ status depending on the country.

      Is nonsense, is what it is.

  20. Digital Unicorn says:

    That cover pretty much some Kitty up – bland and blue (she does love that colour), the fact that it blends in with the jacket colour hurts my eyes.

    How many of these hagiographies have we had about her – they are all the same, rehashing the same bland gossip that even the rota rates keep writing about. She is literally the most bland and dull royal ever!!!!

    • kelleybelle says:

      That dark blue jacket and the long trousers were clearly inspired by Meghan, and also her choice of minimal jewelry. To coincidental to be anything else. The the photo chosen for the cover is also unflattering. Pretty is not a word that comes to mind with this woman.

  21. Lizzie Bennett says:

    I’ll read a bio on Kate when Kitty Kelley writes one investigating every rumor. Idk why Jobson bothered.

    • Liz -L says:

      Those were the days Lizzie. No one seems to have the guts to write books like that anymore.

  22. Tessa says:

    I was horrified at Kate lunging at Meghan yet she gets a,free pass for it.

  23. QuiteContrary says:

    “Strangely airless” is a perfect description of Kate’s life.

  24. Tessa says:

    Was it Tina Brown who praised Kate for having a male child as first born. How shallow.

  25. Chaine says:

    She doesn’t seem to have any relationships or interests outside of her immediate family and exercising. Nor has she had any real career or accomplishments, just lots of empty “listen and learn” opportunities and busy work. So there is nothing really interesting there, except how she bagged William and how crappy he has treated her throughout. She is not a remarkable or charismatic consort whose memory will live on in ages hence, like Princess Diana or Queen Charlotte or Eleanor of Aquitaine.

  26. Grimly Fiendish says:

    That awful photo being used for the cover of a book about a vain, 2-dimensional woman cannot be unintentional.

  27. Lulu says:

    Well, if anyone should recognize ‘grimly fawning and ridiculous’ it’s the British tabloids.

  28. Lady Digby says:

    Rather than this dragfest which should have been called The Dull Monty, I would love to know the true story of Waity and Ragey, maybe Kaiser could write it? Jabba wobbling on about how they are both devoted to their Guinea Pigs just isn’t cutting edge enough for me!

  29. Pork Belly says:

    I would’ve called the book, “You Can’t Polish A Turd, But I’m Going To Give It A Red, Hot Go Because I Need The Cash” by Robert Jobson, or whatever his name is.

  30. Alix says:

    And of course the title is an error in itself. Kate is, technically, “HRH The Princess of Wales,” full stop, no name. Putting her name first suggests that she’s divorced (aka “Diana, Princess of Wales.” Note: no “the.”) . Her own freaking OFFICE gets this wrong!

  31. Izzy says:

    “ Camp Sussex have levelled accusations, albeit through proxies such as the downmarket biographer Omid Scobie, that Catherine made Meghan cry during preparation for the latter’s wedding…”

    No, sorry, no proxies were used. Meghan has the spine and the guts to say it straight out and she did (which is more than the family of chinless inbred wonders can say), when she was interviewed by Oprah.

    • Tessa says:

      Meghan has receipts about kates rude behavior. Letter of apology and those text messages.