Kate Photoshopped onto magazine cover ... again

Another day, another magazine cover featuring Kate Middleton. Except of course that the Duchess of Cambridge doesn't pose for magazine covers. And certainly not in such bizarre attire.

But that hasn't stopped Marie Clare South Africa. Their August issue, at right, features the Duchess wearing what they say is local designer Clive Rundle. Here's what the editors have to say about their cover:

We were so inspired by her fairytale wedding and her life as a modern-day princess, which is why we elected Kate Middleton as our cover star for the August issue. She’s wearing local designer Clive Rundle on the cover. But upon closer inspection, the cover is – much like her life – more fantasy than reality. The cover is actually a hyper-real illustration of Kate, meant to be a fan art tribute to fashion’s new royal icon. Click on the cover above to see her up-close.

Fan art. Um, okay. Anyway, some readers were having none of it. Here are a couple of the comments on MC's website:

So she didn’t actually pose for the cover? How is that a good thing? Aren’t you cheating your readers as well as your cover subject?

You are basically putting words in Kate’s mouth, when you do not have the right to. I agree that you are cheating the readers. It almost sounded like an insult when you said; “Of course she doesn’t. But she should.” And I don’t have something bad to say about everything, this magazine is actually the one who has done wrong.

Others didn't seem to mind.

I love the cover and thought you guys did a pretty good job here. Unfortunately you will always find people that have something bad to say about everything. But well done Marie Claire, I love cover and magazine.

An article in South Africa's Mail & Guardian tries to assess whether this is foul of fair play.

But Dr Julie Reid, a Unisa lecturer who has done research in pop culture and visual communication, said the entire affair was a storm in a teacup, and that this use of Middleton's image – which did not portray her in an undignified or demeaning way – was not the worst thing that could happen in the media.
"Of course, it raises the Baudrillardian idea that everything produced by the media is just a simulacrum, and that nothing that we see in the media anymore is real. It's a very postmodern phenomenon and mode of thought. But really, audiences have been accustomed to that notion for at least 20 years now, so it's not new and not surprising."

Is it just us or is this a defeatist and nihilistic view? There are so many liberties being taken by the media but that's okay because we collectively understand that much of what we see is just trickery and commercial exploitation? So it's fine to put somebody on the cover of your magazine who didn't pose for you, and wearing something (we're confident in saying) that she's never worn and never would wear, because everybody understands it's just for fun? And just in case, we'll include a small disclaimer under out headline "Fashion's royal icon wears local designs" that reads: "Of course she doesn't. But she should."

Or maybe this is expecting too much from a fashion magazine? 

Now back to some frivolous fun: Now Daily has a story about what it took to bring Pippa back into the Royal fold. Apparently, Pippa's partying had caused a rift between the two sisters, culminating in the infamous day in Paris a couple months ago when she was photographed in a car in Paris with a gun-toting driver.

The two sisters watch the Wimbledon final in London on July 8.

In order to heal the rift, Pippa has supposedly agreed to a few conditions:

Pippa, 28, who caused the problem after hitting the headlines with her partying, has now promised to curb her raucous nights out.
And she's agreed to undergo coaching from Buckingham Palace on how she should behave during her forthcoming US tour to promote her party-planning book Celebrate.
Pippa's also agreed to let the Palace 'advise' on her future boyfriends if her recent reunion with Alex Loudon, 31, doesn't work out.

No word on whether there are any double-dating requirements.

Finally, on a more serious note, the Telegraph has a story about how the Kate effect is giving a huge boost to a royal charity. According to the story, the newly renamed Royal Foundation of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry raised 4.8M pounds in 2011, a huge increase from the 629,000 pounds raised the year before.

The success of the charities has enabled the three young members of the Royal family to give almost £1.2m in grants to charities helping military veterans, disadvantaged children and wildlife.
The biggest boost to the charity, which was set up in September 2010, came from the Royal wedding in April last year, when more than £1 million of donations were made in the form of wedding gifts to the Duke and Duchess.



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"... £1.2m in grants to charities helping military veterans, disadvantaged children and wildlife."

And people say there is no role for royals in this day/age.

Do you think these kids will ever help the hungry? Why don't they follow their mother's footsteps and help some landmine victims? Instead of parachuting them into some high ranking military role where they are just going to get someone else killed why not push them to help polio victims like their mother did? I am getting tired of reading just how wonderful, how rich, how wasteful they are. It is tough sending them our tax money to watch them buy hats, why not buy food for those who need? You would be higher respected, like your mother. Peace be with her.

The comments to this entry are closed.

The Royals Watch

Royals on Twitter

Royals on Facebook