I have been following Emily for quite some time. She is one of my trusted sources of news - along with Sharon McMahon, Jessica Yellin and Betches. You are my source for all things Royal and they are my sources for all things government/political. Notice how all are female? ❤️
I have seen a number of people criticize your coverage of this whole situation and I find I so strongly disagree with this take personally. It is always so helpful for me to have a few trusted sources who will tell me what is going on and help me make judgments about whether I need to engage with the information. I found this true with the Covid pandemic, where I deeply needed some calm and rational sources to tell me when the media and social media were taking flights of fancy following disinformation. I found that with your account, I could read your analysis, process your thoughtful take on what was worthy of discussion (the media strategy of the RF) and what was not (ridiculous speculation that Kate was in danger). It also allowed me to very carefully not encourage this speculation when anyone I follow started to engage with this. I feel like the criticism ignores one of the key points of your discussion here (finding reputable sources you can trust in this era of conspiracies and disinformation). You never once encouraged us to believe or engage with the ridiculous conspiracies regarding affairs or her safety, and always reminded us that she was exactly where she said she would be. Especially where mainstream media has shown itself willing to follow social media down the rabbit hole, I thank you for being one of my trusted sources so I can avoid fueling the conspiracy fires.
Elizabeth: I could so relate to this post! During the entire Catherine in recovery time - I only read from one source - YOU. I knew you would be positive, balanced, AND do your research (the important bit).
Stacey, that's very kind. Thank you. I keep coming back to this word dizzying, because that's how I feel after all of this. But writing the newsletters and post on Instagram, doing so carefully and sparingly, helped me feel more grounded about what was happening and what I thought about it.
This was so fascinating to read. As a journalist, I can relate to so many things in this article! Thank you for the interview and for the insights Elizabeth and Emily!
At some point, I feel as though you need to reflect and address the part you played in bringing attention to the rumors and gossip. Maybe you are reflecting and that’s why you haven’t addressed it yet. Multiple people have pointed it out and it feels like you are ignoring those who feel that way.
I feel like as someone whose job is focused on commenting and following the British royal family, it makes perfect sense to me that she essentially reported on how the internet and conspiracies were going wild. There’s a nuanced difference between feeding into conspiracies and gossip vs reporting on the fact that it’s happening.
This is an account run by a journalist, not a fan page. Even the New York Times covered this. Elizabeth in no way contributed to any speculation and I honestly don’t feel that this opinion requires a response from her; simply unfollow/unsubscribe if you are uninterested in what is happening with the BRF. When they are the top story at a global scale you can reasonably expect that *any* journalist is going to cover that phenomenon.
Really, I am here for the various perspectives and opinions. But it's hard for me to get past lines like this "“But it was beautiful in watercolor and in the aesthetics and vernacular of the platform.” I mean come on, social media gossip not art- it's the gutter. Please, it can't be elevated with wording like from a college liberal arts essay. Let's call it what it is...gossip. It's not art.
The point of that statement is that disinformation is now being packaged in a “cool and trendy” aesthetic on social media, which makes it more palatable. People aren’t reading it on a seedy 4chan or sub-Reddit, it’s coming in a form that makes people more comfortable with the message, and that’s a real problem.
That phrase isn’t a description of how Emily perceives this kind of discourse - it a literal description of the way this conspiracy theory type of gossip is now presented to the public.
A few years ago you would only see this kind of talk on specific sites like Reddit which are not at all aesthetic and don’t suck a lot of people in. Emily is pointing out that nowadays, this discourse is wrapped up in pretty packaging and expressed in a way that is familiar to users of sites like instagram, tiktok and facebook.
Perpetrators are using visuals like pretty watercolour backgrounds and discussing the topic in the vernacular commonly used on social media to make it feel normal, mainstream and familiar.
That means it’s reaching a much wider audience, and immediately appears to be more reasonable and plausible to the average user of those platforms.
Thank you for this, Elizabeth and Emily. I’ve really appreciated both of your commentary on this whole situation and this was a great read. In following this debacle, I’ve been much more interested in what this all reveals about our present moment than in any of the conspiracy conversations. What does it mean for the trust we have in institutions? What does it say about where we are getting our news? What does it mean in terms of royal watching, perhaps even in terms of how much we read into clothing, etc? What does it mean for the media landscape and the potential use of deep fake images? And so I really appreciate Emily addressing this in the larger context of conspiracy theories, influencers, and viral takes. At the same time (and I truly mean this more as an “and” than a “but”) I think the manipulated image is a huge deal in that regard as well. Emily does touch on that in terms of the credibility of KP, but I think if we are critiquing content creators for engaging in this type of thing, we also need to seriously critique a powerful institution that gave manipulated photos to the media. That will certainly further conspiracy theories for a long time to come. (For full transparency: I shared a Substack article of book recommendations during the conspiracy frenzy. It was sharing royal histories, biographies, and fiction, not conspiracies, but I’m still questioning with my role as a writer and content creator here. What is the line between engaging in the cultural conversation and furthering something harmful?)
I really love the question of the bandwagon. In the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing, I got sucked into an all-night Twitter/Reddit binge trying to find the bomber. Multiple people - innocent people - were doxxed and dragged through the night. And as morning dawned and the authorities actually found the bomber (nowhere close to the conspiracy), I was horrified by my actions. I had to take serious time with myself to figure out how I got dragged in.
I really appreciated this post-mortem on the Kate-gate; I think this kind of thoughtful reflection is so important in a “post-truth” world to assess and reflect on all our roles in perpetuating deeply problematic conspiracies. I’m grateful that Elizabeth has served as a North Star in this craziness and that people like Emily are brought into this space to provide a dose of perspective.
I am so tired of the pitting of women against each other. As Emily mentioned there is a lot of Team Kate vs Team Meghan and has been since the Duchess started dating Prince Harry. Society seems to love to pit women as enemies, from soap opera characters to celebrities to all of the women who have married into the British Royal Family. And the press, now inflamed by social media get clicks and monetization from this narrative. With the sad diagnosis of the Princess of Wales' cancer you would think there would be a pause....wishful thinking. From those who think the video was AI and Catherine is in prison in Guantamano Bay (seriously) to those who believe it was all Meghan's fault and she paid to get Catherine's medical records (seriously) this will not end. If we don't engage with the nonsense it would, but the media and the public is insatiable for this rubbish content.
And even in some regards, things like this keep it going! It’s engaging with the nonsense in an educated and calm way, but it’s still rehashing all the same things. I had no idea who ballerina farm was before this but now I’m resisting the urge to google it and the whole trad wife thing.
Hi Kat, just wanted to say that I hear you. Choosing what to share here and how is not something I take lightly. I learned a lot from my conversation with Emily that I thought would be helpful to share. But wanted you to know this is not something I do lightly, as I know any coverage at all amplifies all of this.
I think you do a wonderful job of holding space for both sides. And I love how you bring your political glasses to Royal coverage as well (the parallels between this and Lloyd Austin’s disappearance are something I think a lot more people should be discussing.) it’s just more a lot of this “don’t fall down the conspiracy theory hole” feels a lot more like virtue signaling than anything else.
I agree. It feels like an attempt to retrospectively analyse the analysis and put a more positive spin on it than it was just more “gossip” that fed into the whole frenzy. I started following SMT for the fashion chat, as it morphed into analysis of the institution of the monarchy I’ve been less interested. I think there is space for one without the other.
Hi Eliza, thanks for the feedback. I know there is a meaningful portion of SMT readers who are here for the fashion — and I hope to get back to that soon!
I have many friends who don’t think the royal family should exist (UK based) and the general tone of the in-person gossip wasn’t really conspiracy theory driven so much as observing that if you let a vacuum form, theories will appear to fill it, and a mild amusement at the memes. Interesting though is the turn towards “what is the truth”? I think people feel lied to and let down particularly by politicians and the royal family feels an extension of that?
In recent months I've thought a lot about conspiracies, wondering why we humans are so willing to believe the unbelievable. While I acknowledge that this has grown far more serious in the social media age, I also remember as a college freshman in 1969, all of us pursuing a conspiracy about the death of Paul McCartney (as I remember, if you played one of the tracks on the Sgt. Pepper album backwards, you could hear "Paul is dead"; further evidence was that Paul was barefoot on the Abbey Road album cover--but I can't tell you how that was evidence.) In any case, we seem to have a predisposition for following conspiracies, and we need to amp up the need to verify before we spread.
I have been following Emily for quite some time. She is one of my trusted sources of news - along with Sharon McMahon, Jessica Yellin and Betches. You are my source for all things Royal and they are my sources for all things government/political. Notice how all are female? ❤️
I have seen a number of people criticize your coverage of this whole situation and I find I so strongly disagree with this take personally. It is always so helpful for me to have a few trusted sources who will tell me what is going on and help me make judgments about whether I need to engage with the information. I found this true with the Covid pandemic, where I deeply needed some calm and rational sources to tell me when the media and social media were taking flights of fancy following disinformation. I found that with your account, I could read your analysis, process your thoughtful take on what was worthy of discussion (the media strategy of the RF) and what was not (ridiculous speculation that Kate was in danger). It also allowed me to very carefully not encourage this speculation when anyone I follow started to engage with this. I feel like the criticism ignores one of the key points of your discussion here (finding reputable sources you can trust in this era of conspiracies and disinformation). You never once encouraged us to believe or engage with the ridiculous conspiracies regarding affairs or her safety, and always reminded us that she was exactly where she said she would be. Especially where mainstream media has shown itself willing to follow social media down the rabbit hole, I thank you for being one of my trusted sources so I can avoid fueling the conspiracy fires.
Thank you, Elizabeth and Emily, for being the voices of reason! I love following both of you!
Elizabeth: I could so relate to this post! During the entire Catherine in recovery time - I only read from one source - YOU. I knew you would be positive, balanced, AND do your research (the important bit).
Thank you.
Stacey, that's very kind. Thank you. I keep coming back to this word dizzying, because that's how I feel after all of this. But writing the newsletters and post on Instagram, doing so carefully and sparingly, helped me feel more grounded about what was happening and what I thought about it.
The was my introduction to Emily - so thoughtful and intelligent - looking forward to following her now!
Emily is such a great follow on IG and substack. So glad for this crossover.
This was so fascinating to read. As a journalist, I can relate to so many things in this article! Thank you for the interview and for the insights Elizabeth and Emily!
Thank you, Elizabeth, for the introduction to Emily and her writing. I’m eager to read more of her work.
At some point, I feel as though you need to reflect and address the part you played in bringing attention to the rumors and gossip. Maybe you are reflecting and that’s why you haven’t addressed it yet. Multiple people have pointed it out and it feels like you are ignoring those who feel that way.
I feel like as someone whose job is focused on commenting and following the British royal family, it makes perfect sense to me that she essentially reported on how the internet and conspiracies were going wild. There’s a nuanced difference between feeding into conspiracies and gossip vs reporting on the fact that it’s happening.
This is an account run by a journalist, not a fan page. Even the New York Times covered this. Elizabeth in no way contributed to any speculation and I honestly don’t feel that this opinion requires a response from her; simply unfollow/unsubscribe if you are uninterested in what is happening with the BRF. When they are the top story at a global scale you can reasonably expect that *any* journalist is going to cover that phenomenon.
It’s ok to have a different opinion.
Here’s the post: https://open.substack.com/pub/somanythoughts/p/kate-middleton-health-speculation?r=1egif&utm_medium=ios Please tell us precisely which line(s) you take issue with and why.
House InHabit was very clear to leave Kate alone & let her heal. I disagree with whoever Emily is on her judgement of that account on conspiracies
I agree and disagree with you. I think House in Habit handled the Kate situation well and typically think she does push a lot of conspiracies.
Really, I am here for the various perspectives and opinions. But it's hard for me to get past lines like this "“But it was beautiful in watercolor and in the aesthetics and vernacular of the platform.” I mean come on, social media gossip not art- it's the gutter. Please, it can't be elevated with wording like from a college liberal arts essay. Let's call it what it is...gossip. It's not art.
The point of that statement is that disinformation is now being packaged in a “cool and trendy” aesthetic on social media, which makes it more palatable. People aren’t reading it on a seedy 4chan or sub-Reddit, it’s coming in a form that makes people more comfortable with the message, and that’s a real problem.
Appreciate this, EWood! You've said it better than I could!
That phrase isn’t a description of how Emily perceives this kind of discourse - it a literal description of the way this conspiracy theory type of gossip is now presented to the public.
A few years ago you would only see this kind of talk on specific sites like Reddit which are not at all aesthetic and don’t suck a lot of people in. Emily is pointing out that nowadays, this discourse is wrapped up in pretty packaging and expressed in a way that is familiar to users of sites like instagram, tiktok and facebook.
Perpetrators are using visuals like pretty watercolour backgrounds and discussing the topic in the vernacular commonly used on social media to make it feel normal, mainstream and familiar.
That means it’s reaching a much wider audience, and immediately appears to be more reasonable and plausible to the average user of those platforms.
Thank you for this, Elizabeth and Emily. I’ve really appreciated both of your commentary on this whole situation and this was a great read. In following this debacle, I’ve been much more interested in what this all reveals about our present moment than in any of the conspiracy conversations. What does it mean for the trust we have in institutions? What does it say about where we are getting our news? What does it mean in terms of royal watching, perhaps even in terms of how much we read into clothing, etc? What does it mean for the media landscape and the potential use of deep fake images? And so I really appreciate Emily addressing this in the larger context of conspiracy theories, influencers, and viral takes. At the same time (and I truly mean this more as an “and” than a “but”) I think the manipulated image is a huge deal in that regard as well. Emily does touch on that in terms of the credibility of KP, but I think if we are critiquing content creators for engaging in this type of thing, we also need to seriously critique a powerful institution that gave manipulated photos to the media. That will certainly further conspiracy theories for a long time to come. (For full transparency: I shared a Substack article of book recommendations during the conspiracy frenzy. It was sharing royal histories, biographies, and fiction, not conspiracies, but I’m still questioning with my role as a writer and content creator here. What is the line between engaging in the cultural conversation and furthering something harmful?)
I really love the question of the bandwagon. In the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing, I got sucked into an all-night Twitter/Reddit binge trying to find the bomber. Multiple people - innocent people - were doxxed and dragged through the night. And as morning dawned and the authorities actually found the bomber (nowhere close to the conspiracy), I was horrified by my actions. I had to take serious time with myself to figure out how I got dragged in.
I really appreciated this post-mortem on the Kate-gate; I think this kind of thoughtful reflection is so important in a “post-truth” world to assess and reflect on all our roles in perpetuating deeply problematic conspiracies. I’m grateful that Elizabeth has served as a North Star in this craziness and that people like Emily are brought into this space to provide a dose of perspective.
I am so tired of the pitting of women against each other. As Emily mentioned there is a lot of Team Kate vs Team Meghan and has been since the Duchess started dating Prince Harry. Society seems to love to pit women as enemies, from soap opera characters to celebrities to all of the women who have married into the British Royal Family. And the press, now inflamed by social media get clicks and monetization from this narrative. With the sad diagnosis of the Princess of Wales' cancer you would think there would be a pause....wishful thinking. From those who think the video was AI and Catherine is in prison in Guantamano Bay (seriously) to those who believe it was all Meghan's fault and she paid to get Catherine's medical records (seriously) this will not end. If we don't engage with the nonsense it would, but the media and the public is insatiable for this rubbish content.
And even in some regards, things like this keep it going! It’s engaging with the nonsense in an educated and calm way, but it’s still rehashing all the same things. I had no idea who ballerina farm was before this but now I’m resisting the urge to google it and the whole trad wife thing.
Hi Kat, just wanted to say that I hear you. Choosing what to share here and how is not something I take lightly. I learned a lot from my conversation with Emily that I thought would be helpful to share. But wanted you to know this is not something I do lightly, as I know any coverage at all amplifies all of this.
I think you do a wonderful job of holding space for both sides. And I love how you bring your political glasses to Royal coverage as well (the parallels between this and Lloyd Austin’s disappearance are something I think a lot more people should be discussing.) it’s just more a lot of this “don’t fall down the conspiracy theory hole” feels a lot more like virtue signaling than anything else.
I agree. It feels like an attempt to retrospectively analyse the analysis and put a more positive spin on it than it was just more “gossip” that fed into the whole frenzy. I started following SMT for the fashion chat, as it morphed into analysis of the institution of the monarchy I’ve been less interested. I think there is space for one without the other.
Hi Eliza, thanks for the feedback. I know there is a meaningful portion of SMT readers who are here for the fashion — and I hope to get back to that soon!
I have many friends who don’t think the royal family should exist (UK based) and the general tone of the in-person gossip wasn’t really conspiracy theory driven so much as observing that if you let a vacuum form, theories will appear to fill it, and a mild amusement at the memes. Interesting though is the turn towards “what is the truth”? I think people feel lied to and let down particularly by politicians and the royal family feels an extension of that?
In recent months I've thought a lot about conspiracies, wondering why we humans are so willing to believe the unbelievable. While I acknowledge that this has grown far more serious in the social media age, I also remember as a college freshman in 1969, all of us pursuing a conspiracy about the death of Paul McCartney (as I remember, if you played one of the tracks on the Sgt. Pepper album backwards, you could hear "Paul is dead"; further evidence was that Paul was barefoot on the Abbey Road album cover--but I can't tell you how that was evidence.) In any case, we seem to have a predisposition for following conspiracies, and we need to amp up the need to verify before we spread.