Kate Middleton Looks Anorexic and Sick in 40th Birthday Portraits

She actually looks very pretty.

Lovely and elegant as usual

I think she looks beautiful.

In other news, you're an asshole.

She looks good but the photos seem so generic. Shame a lot of those great photographers got me-tooed.

Wow. She has definitely lost weight in her face, which is the last to go. She used to look younger with her cheeks.

The red dress photo is fantastic, but her face should have been left alone a bit more by the retoucher.

The black and white photos are odd; one like a sepia-tinted Civil War widow and the other like it was shot through a Vaseline lens. By aiming too hard for “classic,” they missed the mark.

All these pro or anti-Meghan people are nuts. Kate looks great! Yes, she's not a very exciting person, but isn't that the whole point of royalty?

That photo isnt very flattering. She looks much prettier in the candid photos of her out and about. That being said she looks still miles better than that chubby little cullad gal that Harry married

Her weight is probably the only thing she has control over in her life. She clamped down hard on it before her wedding and has kept herself underweight since. I thought she seemed a lot happier pre-marriage.

The coloring (a greenish beige on the skin) and lighting (very flat)of the the photo is odd, which doesn't help her at all.

She is not anorexic ffs. Her legs have too much muscle on them, she is just naturally a very thin person. That being said, I think the colouring of the photos are a bit odd, but she still looks good. She is what we call a "pretty English girl" meaning not stunning but attractive.

Her forehead looks huge in that pic.

Jesus...can't we find something more exciting besides picking apart a photo of Kate Middleton? I mean, seriously?!

Beautiful photos. Very classy, and I love love love the black-and-white ones! Retro is all the rage now and the profile portrait is done stunningly.

🤷🤷🤷🤷

She looks great!

I think they were going for what Patrick Demarchelier did for Diana, but they don’t have the same iconic quality.

Bad pics, washed out looking.

Horseface

R8, when was Mwghsn ever chubby?

Kate isn't naturally scrawny. If you see pictures of her when she was in school she looks healthy and normal. She's skinny because she compulsively diets

She compulsively diets to keep her husband happy and from cheating.

Those are the worst photos EVER! She doesn't even look like herself. Her forehead and nose look like they grew.

The side view in the white dress is ok, but the 2 others are horrible.

If you’re in her position, would you be allowed to say, throw these out and let’s do another set with a different photographer? Or are they some sort of state property?

I'd hit that in a hot minute.

Her hair does not look healthy.

You people literally only know plastic surgery, capped teeth, botoxed, extension haired, false lashes, pumped up lips trashy celebrities. I'm from California and every woman I know has had some work. The richer, more elegant women have had less, and better work.

Kate is pretty damn natural and it's apparently shocking to the unwashed masses expecting a degree of tacky celebrity tinsel glamour.

These photos are bad BECAUSE her natural looks aren’t visible through all these filters/effects, not because she looks too natural.

They are bad because she is dried white toast.

R29 lmaoooooo

R29, my point exactly. Now back to your Real Housewives and InTouch magazine.

She looks like an old Jennifer Connelly.

AKA like a man.

Whoever retouched them did a bad job. In some of them she doesn't look like herself. My favorite one is the profile, white dress picture. It is said to be inspired by Cecil Benton's portraits of Queen Elizabeth, and The Queen Mother. I think that will we be one of her "iconic" ones.

She looks different because the filters (?) washed out her skin and made it look very white. She has a natural, healthy color that doesn't come out here. Also, her makeup is different, especially her eye makeup. Maybe it looks more natural in these photos, but because she usually wears heavy makeup, she doesn't look like herself.

The weird blurring in the B&W closeup of her face makes her makeup look smeared. That one is just awful.

[quote] All these pro or anti-Meghan people are nuts. Kate looks great! Yes, she's not a very exciting person, but isn't that the whole point of royalty?

[quote] She is not anorexic ffs. Her legs have too much muscle on them, she is just naturally a very thin person. That being said, I think the colouring of the photos are a bit odd, but she still looks good. She is what we call a "pretty English girl" meaning not stunning but attractive.

[quote] She looks great!

[quote] As others have said, they are going to sell because they are burning through money and their post-royal life is not as lucrative as all their PR blurbs are made to make us think. If they were truly as wealthy as they want us to believe they are, they'd just buy a second house somewhere else. Seriously though, this mansion is far bigger than anything they would've gotten as royals. Outside of the monarch, the less lavish your accommodation. Allegedly, Meghan thought living in an apartment at Kengsinton was too "common" and she had her eye on Frogmore House not cottage, but the Queen gave her the cottage which is a large house not a cottage.

[quote] Frogmore Cottage has something like eight bedrooms and sits on a massive private park (something like 700 acres) that is part of the Windsor grounds. Most sane people would be very happy there.

[quote] R79 It's not just property taxes, upkeep, security, staff, PR etc. They ain't living cheaply so downsizing is probably going to be done out of necessity.

[quote] R88 Meghan also went on private trips to Amsterdam and New York while she a working royal (despite claims they took her passport).

[quote] R94 US Weekly is far from being a reliable source. That being said, these two need to move on from the "bitter ex-royal phase" and do something new to prove themselves. Truth: It has been two years since they quit the royal fold (well originally the had intended to be part-time working royals, but when the Queen said no, they changed their story and and then tattle-taled to Oprah) and what have they actually done? I can't think of a single program, charity, or cause they've actually been involved in beyond superficial PR statements and self-promotion. Meghan has been involved with paid leave, but that turned into a farce and has caused more controversy than good. In the same amount of time, William and Catherine have launched new projects and expanded their charitable endeavours. Ironically, despite the whole Meghan and Harry interview and Andrew's shit, 2021 actually was a good year for the royals at least in the UK. Meghan and Harry's connection to the royals seem to be the only thing they've got and it's already running out of steam. Meghan has been proved a liar in the British courts, Harry also through the emails to Jason Knauff so it casts more doubts over any accusations they make. The only reason we are still talking about H&M is because the media still think this is a money making story, but beyond ardent royalists or Harkle supporters, most people are tired of them. Their self-life in the US is likely longer, because Americans are still obsessed with royals and Diana too, but even then it's wearing thin. And Meghan writing a book about the royals his fucking hysterical given she was only within the royals for what 18 months and only performed 72 engagements.

[quote] Harry and Meghan Planning to Move R94 US Weekly is far from being a reliable source. That being said, these two need to move on from the "bitter ex-royal phase" and do something new to prove themselves. Truth: It has been two years since they quit the royal fold (well originally the had intended to be part-time working royals, but when the Queen said no, they changed their story and and then tattle-taled to Oprah) and what have they actually done? I can't think of a single program, charity, or cause they've actually been involved in beyond superficial PR statements and self-promotion. Meghan has been involved with paid leave, but that turned into a farce and has caused more controversy than good. In the same amount of time, William and Catherine have launched new projects and expanded their charitable endeavours. Ironically, despite the whole Meghan and Harry interview and Andrew's shit, 2021 actually was a good year for the royals at least in the UK. Meghan and Harry's connection to the royals seem to be the only thing they've got and it's already running out of steam. Meghan has been proved a liar in the British courts, Harry also through the emails to Jason Knauff so it casts more doubts over any accusations they make. The only reason we are still talking about H&M is because the media still think this is a money making story, but beyond ardent royalists or Harkle supporters, most people are tired of them. Their self-life in the US is likely longer, because Americans are still obsessed with royals and Diana too, but even then it's wearing thin. And Meghan writing a book about the royals his fucking hysterical given she was only within the royals for what 18 months and only performed 72 engagements.

[quote] Harry and Meghan Planning to Move R103 I was just going to post that. Yup so they are broke and $50K is a joke. They are likely going to start spilling a lot more [probably invented] dirt on the royals for money. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the Oprah interview (as the conducted it) was a mistake. Bitching about the royals publicly has bit the hand the feeds them, made them controversial, and destroyed any chance of renewing connection with the royals whom they need to stay relevant long-term.

[quote] Harry and Meghan Planning to Move Meghan has reportedly agreed to a £1 settlement with the Daily Mail after winning the breach of privacy case. In most cases like this, usually a settlement would be in the range of £75k to £100k! I'm wondering if the Mail's legal team cut a deal with Meghan's representation claiming they had more damaging information they'd be willing to print if they had to pay a full settlement?

[quote] Harry and Meghan Planning to Move R110 & R111 Commentators in the British Press are indeed suggesting there is more to this, that something went down behind the seems to "force" Meghan to accept what is beyond a joke of a settlement.

[quote] Harry and Meghan Planning to Move I love Kate's photos, though I have to say the b&w one where she's facing the camera is very early 90s "glamour shots"

Sure Jan.

Highness wears her hair too long and loose for a woman of her age and station.

Poor old OP, still carrying Meghan's water for her.

"Anorexic and sick?" The OP is blind and retarded.

She always looks so aged and matronly. 40 is the new 60.

I can't imagine her in person. She seems very hard and unhappy. Unpleasant. I wonder why, Didn't she want this life? She centered her own life around pursuing it after all. Now she's really in it and she looks so...haggard and mean.

That's how she looks, OP.

Leave her alone. It's her thing.

Both women are light years more attractive than the doofuses they married.

[quote]Her forehead looks huge in that pic.

Her whole head looks huge, hopefully it's just an unflattering picture. I usually avoid BRF threads but her bobble head made me click on this one. Why do anorexics usually have such big heads?

I kind of like the portraits but agree with posters saying she doesn't look like herself (lighting, retouching). She looks like a younger Polly Draper in two of them.

There is kind of a "Victorian" vibe to the look of these pictures and I think that might have been the point. Contemporary but harking back to earlier photos of royal women.

R43 but one married for love the other married for fame.............

She doesn’t look like herself. The sepia “war widow” one does, and is by far the best. The others make zero sense to me.

Just my two cents. I wouldn’t have guessed it was her in the red dress. It’s a nice photo, it just doesn’t look like her.

[quote] I can't imagine her in person. She seems very hard and unhappy. Unpleasant. I wonder why, Didn't she want this life? She centered her own life around pursuing it after all. Now she's really in it and she looks so...haggard and mean.

Shut the fuck up, Meghan, you jealous, greedy, stupid cunt.

Dressed to look like she isn’t an anorexic bitch.

Those pictures do not make her look good.

🤷🏻‍♀️

She looks fantastic

In the red dress photo, something went wrong with the photoshopping around her neck - it looks like they added her head later.

She looks like a chunkier Celine Dion.

I think I weigh more.

She looks lovely (I dont see anorexic) but I agree the photos look very washed out and too pale. The side profile in the white dress, showing off Diana's earrings and ring is the money shot. Bravo on that one.

She looks so lovely with her hair off her forehead. I wish she would always wear it like that.

Bitch can't do a decent crotch shot.

Here's another of the images.

Julia Margaret Cameron at ten paces.

Take THAT MM and shove it up yer little speckled mulatto twat. Palace PR is a' workin' 24/7, and we ain't takin' no shit no more! Now where's that fucking wind machine?

Jesus, is she supposed to look 140?

She looks great.

I think she looks lovely.

Here you go, r20.

She looks like she needs to take more piano lessons.

Kate, as usual, looks lovely and serene.

The photos do remind me of the sepia-toned photos from the Old West.

All the character of her face is blurred out. Boring photos.

Yes, she's super skinny, esp. for a woman who has had 3 children.

R63 Her expression is that of someone holding in a nasty wet fart. She looks sinewy and her eyes are wonky and her extremely thin lips and her teeth are rodent like.

She looks much younger in candid photos. I think these were shot to make her look older and more matronly on purpose.

MM could never.

This is Paolo Roversi's aesthetic. (I guess there's no one here who knows fashion or photography--on a gay website, strange.) You get the photographer's vision, and these are a gorgeous version of her. I like that he hasn't done away with the features that make her less attractive (mouth area, horsiness, no longer 20), like in some of the recent PR shots, but instead found some essence of her and highlighted that.

The future Queen of England. Regal, classy, graceful, elegant, stoic.

And then you have this:

R69 Are those the most unflattering photos you could find of Meg? Kate is bland dehydrated Turkey. I hate Megan but she is pretty.

I will say one nice thing about Kate for an anorexic she has very pretty long hair. It’s her best asset. Those man brows though….

R70 - yes true but I was referring more to her lack of class and grace by doing dumb tricks on a trashy talk show.

I love Kate but I'm not in love with these photos. I do like the profile shot, it looks like a classic royal portrait. The red dress is a great shot but Kate just looks too different for me to love it for her. The close-up is cringy and I hate to say that, but she looks like a teenager not a forty year old woman. But you know what, fuck it. She's turning forty, let her have her glamour shots to celebrate.

Sorry, but those photos of Kate are not attractive.

Kate is attractive--not beautiful. but attractive. And there are some very nice photos of her out there. These birthday photos, however, are not one of them.

The family is fortunate to have Kate's beauty, grace and nobility. It's more than enough to counteract Meghan's vile behavior and despicable lies.

R41 spelled Meghan wrong.

R70 needs glasses. Meghan has always been fug.

Kate looks weird in all the photos, but I wouldn’t have even recognized her in the red dress one.

I would be happy to put her in touch with my photoshop guy. He knows how to enhance your natural beauty without going over the line.

Catherine will still be queen whatever your opinion, Smegs. You and friar tuck need to get your expanding asses of the internet and go spend time with your kids. Unless of course you have decided that you're not "over the moon" with them either.

Lots of people here are missing the point

These are formal portraits, well within the photographer's style and aesthetic. They are being donated to the National Portrait Gallery, of which Kate is Patron. The proceeds of her best selling Hold Still look, a photo record of Britain under COVID, were shared between the NPG and a mental health charity.

So a nice informal family snap wasn't in the cards.

These were intended to be a museum draw.

And they contain very specific homages to earlier photographic royal portraits, most of all to Cecil Beaton's first formal portraits of Queen Elizabeth, the newly minted one after the Abdication. Also in black and white, Beaton's portraits have the same dreamy quality in white chiffon and tulle as these of Kate do. The only difference is that Kate eschewed the major bling, including a tiara, which she could well have worn given her current and future rank.

The photos' aim (and you can agree or not if they succeeded) I think obviously was to blend glamour, mystique, references to historica royal photos, but, with the lack of huge bling no tiara free flowing hair and wide s.iles hands on pockets on the red gown one, also to suggest accessibility and informality

All three photos carry one or the other message or a blend thereof.

They are beautiful photos, just as Beaton's were. In them, just as she did in that now iconoc photo at Philip's funeral and of her in the golden gown she wore to the Bond premiere, Kate reeks of class, regality, confidence, and happiness. These photos send the messages they were intended to send.

As for OP, our own dear KGT, read 'em and weep: Meghan never looked this good in her life, including on her wedding day.

And, of course, the portraits are a nice addition to the NPG by their Patron.

I don't think the photographer is very good, he's created a flatness to her face that's not flattering.

OP just started this to get the MM trolls riled up, and it worked because of course it did.

^* wide smiles hands in pockets in the red gown one

And cut the anorexia shit. She's one if those lucky women born inclined toward good muscle tone, slimness, and she's always had a very small middle.

Sponge Bob middle toothpick legged Meghan Markle would kill to have Kate's body and the (real) hair on top of it.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

And cut the comparing bullshit- if Meghan had stayed in the Firm, she may have had something like this. If she was able to yield control to the photographer. But she would have likely had a formal, stuffy, romantic portrait at some point.

But again, she doesn't want this aesthetic- she is into California celebrity chic. She didn't want this life.

Beautiful. The 3 pics will be hung in the National Portrait Gallery. Quite an honor.

Here’s my issue with them from an aesthetic perspective: the older portraits these pay homage to were of their time. The reason they are classics is because they captured a moment anchored in the reality of particular royals: like Cecil Beaton’s portraits of QEII.

These portraits mimic and pay homage to the older ones, and in that way try to draw on the power of those earlier portraits and the statements they made, rather than to make an original impression themselves. That gives them significantly less power. Imagine if the Cecil Beaton portraits of QEII had been set up to appear like the early Victoria portraits, rather than works under their own steam?

And this highlights an issue I see with KP’s publicity methods generally. They tell instead of show: “look, this is a classic portrait because it looks like other classic portraits.” It would have been far more effective, interesting, and fitting to Kate’s actual life and personality to eschew this aesthetic borrowing and consider how to capture the many NEW fantastic things she brings to the family and nation, not just trying to hammer us over the head with how she fits in perfectly and how she’s just like the Queen. (In fact, I find it a bit presumptuous, and I wonder if the Queen does as well, for a Queen-in-waiting to mimic a portrait of the woman who was already on the throne at the time, and who didn’t marry-in to get there…)

This is why so many portraits of Diana became iconic. They were formal and beautifully composed, but modern and original. I wish KP was a little less afraid to venture out of the box, that’s all. Kate is beautiful enough to carry off a risk!

No, just to use it as springboard to mediocrity and sucking baby bottles and squatting on daytime TV.

Congratulations, dear, you're a punchline.

If Meghan could just donate 1£ to poor Kate, the world would be a better place! Kate's thin face is something I'd rather look at than Meghan's cruel, opportunistic gob wh. masquerades as 'humanitarian.'

It's irritating that every time there's royal news, particularly about Kate, the Megaloons rush in with their insults. Meghan's not a royal anymore, so why compare?

But then I realized, there's nothing really to say about Meghan anymore (that isn't embarrassing - Ellen, Spotify, etc.). It's sad, like people who still stan Madonna.

Maybe it's time to find someone else to follow? Because if it isn't clear, things are just going to get worse for Meghan.

Serious question for the KGT, what success do you envision for Meghan? Rather than tear down Kate, put your money on the table and explain Meghan's pathway to success. Go on, we're waiting.

Why does there need to be discussion of Meghan at all in this thread, which is about Kate and portraiture? Can’t the Klan Grannies confine their Two Minutes Hate to threads about Meghan and Harry?

Meghan very much wanted this. She wanted what Kate has. She never would have gotten her birthday honored like this even had she stayed in, she's not the future Queen.

Meghan got Melissa McCarthy and Harry juggling some balls for her 40th.

[quote]It's sad, like people who still stan Madonna.

In fairness to Madonna, she managed a couple of decades of true success before she descended into dissipation.

Another serious question for the KGT troll: How do you explain making a fool of herself on Ellen. And before you say she didn't, ask yourself, what would you say if Michelle Obama had done that? Or Kate had done that?

And r81 and r87 swoop in and rescue this thread.

Thank You

Her waist in that red dress - tiny! Love the sepia tone pic. But for me, Catherine has never looked better than the candid of her in the back of a car at Phillip's funeral. That is breathtaking and iconic.

R95, what does that have to do with Kate? The poster above was right. The Klan Grannies probably don’t even care about Kate, it’s just a jumping off point for them to criticize MM for being mulatto or having bad hair, or wanting to be white.

My own opinion? The photos are beautiful, they’re of varied aesthetics, which I appreciate as an art history minor. Kate does look a bit different, but we rarely see these kind of portraits, most of her photos are by the paps, so the lighting and makeup were used to create something different.

Both women are attractive btw. Different for sure, but no need to attack their looks, by any conventional measure, they’re considered very attractive women.

[quote] Lots of people here are missing the point

The point is that they should show her at her best, and the point is that she doesn't look her best. "Specific homages" doesn't mean she should look wooden and sickly. Perhaps YOU are missing the point, dear.

This pic.

There are multiple threads open for people who just want to roll out the old complaints about Meghan, so please go to those and let this continue as the interesting discussion among non-trolls that it was.

She’s naturally pretty though admittedly aging and nothing wrong with that, But the photos look so photoshopped that it’s the first impression one gets.

Skinny. Markle is prettier and more stylish.

R43 nailed it. Baldy and his brother Balding.

R100, Elizabeth Taylor vibes.

Pics?

[quote]Why does there need to be discussion of Meghan at all in this thread

Because OP brought her up immediately, I would imagine. This was MM hater troll bait, of course.

Stop using the term mulatto. Jesus. But you know it’s wrong.

I like the photos but I agree that the colouring is off and sort of throws me off when I'm looking at them. That being said, these are meant to be magazine photo shoots, these photos are going to be viewed for decades (maybe even centuries from now) so they are meant to be more timeless--a mix of regal and informal.

Also the Kate/Meghan battles are so fucking misogynistic and annoying.

The Kate/Megan battle was started and perpetrated by Muggins and her stans, so fuck off please about a war that was lost before it began. Must suck hazballs to be Sparkles today nanoo nanoo

Kate is very pretty but not very charismatic. She's an empty vessel who does what is expected of her. As a woman she is not someone I admire, but I'm sure for some women she's amazing. Being able to waltz around in gorgeous clothes, work when you want and be lauded for doing absolutely nothing is meaningful, fits in well with the "influencer" age.

R111, isn't that so funny? I see her as the absolute opposite of the influencer age woman - she is able to be admired without exploiting her sexuality and sucking all of the air out of the room. She is not an overly dramatic attention whore, and I find that refreshing.

Are you a millennial?

It's telling that when people insult Meghan they throw the nastiest terms at her. I don't particularly care for Kate but I've never called her names.

People despise Meaghan. And, believe it or not, some despise her solely because of her actions and words. She inspires passion- which is a big emotion. If you liked her merely because she became a part of the BRF, leaving it and denouncing it is going to be a hard pill to swallow. That's just obvious.

Kate has always worked towards being benign. She does not inspire a passionate reaction. I can't think of anything Kate has said or done to inspire a big reaction- even in the bold, gold dress she smiled impishly. She serves lukewarm, "ah, that's nice".

R110 has the maturity of a 10-year old.

And yet R110 is correct, under the appalling language, R115.

R110 childishly expressed a childish opinion R116. I don't give a shit about either one of these women for the most part and my opinion is that fans and haters of them are all pathetic and mentally ill to be so vested in them.

She doesn’t look like herself. Maybe I’m used to seeing her in a hat or tiara?

THIS is how to wear a red dress.

Please note, Fat Markle.

OP types like a fattie.

Just like Fat Markle does.

Poor Fat Meghan. So much like her old man with every passing squat. I wonder if she'll end up in modest housing in Mexico, too?

I guess even the posters who hate Meghan find her more interesting to talk about than Kate.

No, [R91]. When Harry and Meghan stop infiltrating the awareness of those of us who don't give a shit about them, I'll consider it. Who do you think posted this thread? The Patron Saint of Goodness Everywhere? It's a fucking paid Sunshine Sachs cunt. Are you THAT naive?

[quote] When Harry and Meghan stop infiltrating the awareness of those of us who don't give a shit about them

Seek psychiatric help.

If you don't give a shit quit commenting on threads about them. I tend to avoid BRF and the Harry/Meghan threads because I have little interest but why is criticism or lack of worship for boring Kate Sunshine Sachs? Can't it just be a regular poster? Turn it around. Is every Harry/Meghan hate thread started by a PR firm or paid haters?

It's amazing how little they can infiltrate if you don't want them to.

So…as someone in the PR field, I can tell you that planting negative stories about someone who is NOT paying you does little to raise the positive profile of someone who IS paying you. Making a “rival” look bad doesn’t help your own profile. Both of you just end up looking bad. You might as well throw that money out the window, that’s not how PR works. I have no doubt that MM and her PR firm are working with journalists and planting positive stories, but in no universe would a PR expert use negative press like that—especially about some photos someone had taken—to help make their client look better—because it doesn’t work.

Bottom line, it might be a MM fan that started this thread , or it might be a Kate hater, but it’s not MM’s PR company.

It’s also insane (delusions of grandeur) to believe that any paid firm would be targeting this fairly obscure website.

The black and white Pre-Raphaelite virgin ghost one is pretty.

It’s also possible when someone says that a story was planted by “SS”, that they are referring to the Sussex Squad (MM’s bunch of obsessed supporters) rather than Sunshine Sachs.

I can easily believe that the former are responsible for many such posts - these people have sent death threats to journalists such as Camilla Tominey - threats to her children, actually. They’re not be be dismissed lightly.

R129, as someone who has no use for the BRF-or ex BRF members—both sides look pretty heinous to me. Just take a look at the posts on this thread. Some members of both sides are pretty despicable.

[quote] It’s also possible when someone says that a story was planted by “SS”, that they are referring to the Sussex Squad (MM’s bunch of obsessed supporters) rather than Sunshine Sachs. I can easily believe that the former are responsible for many such posts - these people have sent death threats to journalists such as Camilla Tominey - threats to her children, actually. They’re not be be dismissed lightly.

Meghan Markle Troll Makes Over $3k a Month Trashing Her on YouTube

Meghan Markle YouTube troll makes an estimated $3,300 a month providing regular hate videos to 45,000 subscribers, a screenshot from one video appears to reveal.

R129, the post at r123 specifically mentions Sunshine Sachs.

YouTube 'Incentivizing' Meghan Markle Trolls to Produce Hate Videos—Data Analyst

Meghan Markle trolls are earning thousands via YouTube advertising, which then acts as an incentive to "continue creating more hate-filled content," a data analyst has told Newsweek.

Bot Sentinel has been investigating what it described in one report as a network of hate targeting the Duchess of Sussex.

The company started off looking at Twitter where it found in October that 70 percent of hateful Twitter posts about Meghan were produced by a core of 55 troll account backed up by 28 secondary accounts that were used to spread the toxic discourse.

Yes I know, R132 - I should have been clearer - quite often people in other posts refer to “SS” which is open to misinterpretation.

R130 agree - I was just responding to your post re Sunshine Sachs. I guess, from my observation, the key difference between the two “protagonists” is that Kate is attacked for being thin, boring, a social-climber with a Mum who was a flight attendant etc while Meghan’s often ridiculous behaviour since she appeared on the scene five years ago makes her an easy target for some of the more waspish DL contributors.

Funny, though, how criticising Meghan is regularly called “racism” while criticising Kate is rarely called out for what it is - “snobbery”. I’m not equating the two, just making an observation.

^^^ R29 here

She's aight.

Bot Sentinel is a Harkle operative that uses his own algorithm to get the results he requires. Unfortunately for all his "effort Youtube didn't agree and declined to shut down channels critical of the Sussexes

Bot Sentinel?!? Seriously, R131 aka Sussex Squad Stinkfish?!?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

R113 that’s nice that you don’t call Kate names. Sadly, other posters on these threads - one in particular - have called her cunt, slut, hoe, whore and cock-sucker, amongst other things.

Would that we could all be as benign as you, R113.

There was an article about the demise of the Golden Globes that noted Sunshine Sachs is the only PR agency not boycotting it.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Any birthday greetings from Montecito?

Thanks, but no thanks, R142.^^

Sorry, most major PR firms, not all but Sunshine Sachs.

Another BAFTA dress, worn in 2012 (?). She rewore it last year - after having three kids - for the Earthshot Prize ceremony, with a different belt.

Why does her nose look so large in those photos? I know almost nothing about photography, but I've heard focal length affects the proportions of the subject in that way. True?

[quote] Her expression is that of someone holding in a nasty wet fart. She looks sinewy and her eyes are wonky and her extremely thin lips and her teeth are rodent like.

Shut up, Meghan, you slimy, detestable, jealous cuntface.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

R148 I wish one of those sites that out celeb plastic surgery would do a before and after of Kate and some of her royal colleagues Maxima, Madeleine, Victoria and Mary. There have got to be a few stealth nose jobs and eye lifts. The closest I’ve seen are features on the super obvious royals like Rania, Letizia, Noor, etc. With Kate it’s hard to tell because she was so young when first photographed and her face did change a lot due to weight loss and aging. Her dental work does seem to have left her with a pronounced underbite.

The most noticeable thing on Kate is getting rid of under eye bags and lines and filling the gap between her eyes and cheeks. That could just be Botox and filler.

[quote] Bot Sentinel is a Harkle operative that uses his own algorithm to get the results he requires. Unfortunately for all his "effort Youtube didn't agree and declined to shut down channels critical of the Sussexes

You smoke crack right?

Why would a contemporary portrait of a future queen, meant to become part of a country's historical record, want to look anything like a publicity photo of a pop star?

Pretty and stylish are not words that have ever been used to describe Meghan.

American girls want everything in the world you can possibly imagine...

English girls they're so prissy, I can't stand them on the telephone,

Sometimes I take the receiver off the hook, I don't want them to ever call at all

White girls they're pretty funny, sometimes they drive me mad,

Black girls just wanna get fucked all night, I just don't have that much jam.

I can't stand Markle... what an operator... but I would describe her as pretty. She has nice colouring, beautiful brown eyes, cute freckles and whether it was God or a good surgeon, her face is symmetrical. I wouldn't call her beautiful but I would absolutely call her pretty. She's just awful in everything other respect so it doesn't really count for anything.

R90 The problem with your point is that she IS still a royal, and only enjoying the life she now has because of it. She may not be using that HRH but she still has it and she throws that Duchess of Sussex title around like rice at a wedding.

And OP titled thos thread as she did because she's a known Meghanstan Kate halter, so it's a bit late in the thread to bemoan the entrance of the Meghaloons, because the OP set the thread up on the ground.

Some fair points have been made about the new portraits on both sides, but the public don't care. They're going into the NPG collection where the originals may show more impressively than as photographs of photographs.

Or not. But, bottom line, it was a lovely the gesture by Kate for one of her special patronages, they're pretty enough, and I believe she was incredibly smart not to do the Tiara Future Queen pose.

Meghan couldn't have pulled this off not because she didn't want this life, but because she knew she didn't have the ability for it. She used Harry and the BRF and the race/victim card as cover for one of the most successful con games ever pulled on the Windsors.

The comparisons are inevitable, and you can thank the Sussexes, the refusal of the BRF to respond properly to the handwriting on the wall, and the seething hatred of Meghan's lunatic adherents toward Kate for succeeding where Meghan failed. And, in doing so, by comparison, exposing Meghan for the cheap phony she is, and shooting to the top of the polls as a result.

So, don't expect threads opened with titles like this not to invite those comparisons.

She resembles an 80s prom queen in that red dress and with that beachy hair.

R157 No, they resemble HER, but at a far lower and less successful level.

R111 - Oh, please. If she were that empty she'd never have survived as she has. What you see as "empty" the rest of the world sees as disciplined discretion. Her projects include the Five Under Five Project, which she worked for years on, the portraits of Holocaust survivors in Britain (which Meghan's then friend, Jessica Mulroney, herself Jewish, as a favour to Meghan came out and called nothing but pretty pictures - the ensuing backlash forced her to deny that the statement had ANYTHING to do with Kate's portraits of those survivors), and the Hold Still photographic record of Britain under COVID. It was also done with the NPG and the proceeds (a best seller, by the way, which Meghan's horrible embarrassing flop of a book wasn't) were split between the NPG and a mental health charity.

She isn't there to be about herself: she's there to be about the WORK, and the position, and as she represents the nation, as such, she has to straddle territory between lending support to certain causes without being political.

You have to be American, Americans simply do not grasp this point: to succeed at being royal, you cannot be yourself on your own terms.

That's what you see as an empty vessel, which she clearly isn't.

And it's what MEMEMEMEME Meghan not only wouldn't but couldn't do.

And it was perfectly obvious to the BRF in the early days of the marriage, when, by summer 2018, the staff on the payroll of the BRF was helping her and Harry collude with Omid Scobie on that trashy book in which they were going to throw the entire family under the bus. Can you credit it? BP knew, KP knew, Clarence House knew . . . and they let the two con artists do it.

The monarchy deserves everything coming to it from the two scammers.

In the meantime, that "empty vessel" has carved out a very strong position for herself and with the public.

She's got a spine of steel and that's why she'll be there when Meghan Markle is a has been.

Well then, based on what r159 wrote, it sounds like the Duchess of Sussex did the right thing by resigning her post.

R160 No, she just resigned the work. She kept the title that came with th ef position, the money that c as came with the position, andcplayed the victim and race cards to justify leaving the position, lied about the family to reinforce the justification, and lied to to a court under oath.

She played Harry, the Queen, and Charles like the proverbial stringed instrument.

And they let her. They're a pack of fools except for the tough and savvy Cambridges.

She is trying *WAY* too hard. Between these horribly staged photos and the Westminster Abbey Piano Debacle a blind man can tell that there is trouble in Paradise.

The piano thing was a bit over the top. Trying too hard.

^ But don't get me wrong, I generally admire her, very much.

If only life came with an instruction book, very specific about do this and do not do that. God knows the number of times I completely fucked things up with the very best of intentions.

Pics aren’t flattering.. poor choice of photographer.

Over shopped. Way over shopped.

[quote] She isn't there to be about herself: she's there to be about the WORK, and the position, and as she represents the nation, as such, she has to straddle territory between lending support to certain causes without being political.

For God's sake, she puts on pretty clothes and waves at events. Anyone who seriously refers to that shit the "royals" do as "WORK" has never had a real job.

[quote] You have to be American, Americans simply do not grasp this point: to succeed at being royal, you cannot be yourself on your own terms. That's what you see as an empty vessel, which she clearly isn't.

Again you sound like someone who has never had job.

Symmetrical face? Meghan?? With her Neanderthal jaw?? Giant fivehead, ski slope nose, cross eyed, beady eyes (fake lashes aren't beautiful brown eyes), terrible skin, and receding hairline? THAT Meghan? Oh...

Kate is beautiful and classy and always will be.

[quote] Symmetrical face? Meghan?? With her Neanderthal jaw?? Giant fivehead, ski slope nose, cross eyed, beady eyes (fake lashes aren't beautiful brown eyes), terrible skin, and receding hairline? THAT Meghan? Oh...

Yes! Just like that! I forgot fat and frumpy.

[quote] For God's sake, she puts on pretty clothes and waves at events. Anyone who seriously refers to that shit the "royals" do as "WORK" has never had a real job.

Oh, believe you me, I've had plenty of real jobs that required work, both manual labor, including cleaning toilets, and professional desk jobs, and I think this is a shallow observation of the Royals.

I think what the Royals do is real work.

Let's stipulate that they're privileged, wealthy, famous, personnel staffs, many homes. Yeah, I get it. Us humans haven't figured out how to equally distribute those things. I wish we could.

But my job and your job, unlike, the Royals, is performed in the luxury of total anonymity. Yes, I set forth the controversial observation that there are benefits to being among the poor and obscure.

I wouldn't trade my blissful anonymity for their fame. Ok, Ok, I'll take the dough-re-mi if I could remain anonymous, just be another face in the crowd.

It's just plain wrong to think that what they do isn't work. Yes, it is. It's physical. It's mental. It's emotional. It's psyching yourself up to be "On" for those interactions with Polly and Bradley, the two front-line administrators of the school for challenged adults.

On- duty, every second, every gesture, word, facial expression, glance, garment they're wearing, is minutely recorded; painstakingly recorded, not for the purpose of posterity, but for either a successful interaction or, hopefully by some, a mega-gaffe, a verbal misstep, a slight indication of weariness, that can be interpreted as "rude", a physical fall... what-have-you.

Hell, if you don't think that their awareness alone of that isn't mental labor to them, that's just misunderstanding what you're watching when you see them "on-duty". They're working, alright, and what they produce better pass muster, or, unlike you and me when we fuck-up, it'll be on the Earth's page one click-bait.

The BRF is the best actual, real "reality show" going. I'm there for it. And the cast is very talented.

I think part of what makes these portraits look odd and ‘unlike Kate’ , is the absence of her signature blow dry/blow out. Her lush ‘rich girl’ hair is one of her signature features….I think her hair in the portraits is her natural hair texture and maybe a nod to the amazing Mario testino pics of Diana…minimal hair and makeup in beautiful gowns. But it doesn’t work…and I think the hair is a big part of it…

Also, why the shot of her at Phillip’s funeral is so striking is because you can only see her eyes….her lower face let’s her down and she is becoming jowly and more thin lipped. This is totally preventable and I hope she is doing the best non-invasive treatments…I don’t think she can afford to totally age naturally.

Jowly and thin lipped . . . Jesus, the woman just turned 40, not 60.

If you look at the photographs of her in that golden gown she looks nothing of the kind. Her face looks fresh and full, her figure including curves can be seen through the material, and if you watch the video footage you can see how fantastic shocked in the flesh.

I'd agree that if I had been consulted (I don't know why, but the stupid royals never consult me) I'd have suggested something different, along similar lines of glamour with warmth and maybe one homage to Beaton, but really you lot are seriously overthinking this.

The piano bit at the Abbey was rather sweet and the public liked it.

These photos were a little surprising, but they'll become part of a historic collection and the fact is Kate has a long life of official portraits ahead of her.

For the record, I thought Beaton's portraits of Margaret and Elizabeth in their fairytale dresses againsnt those The Red Shoes technicolor backdrops were a bit twee even for Back Then.

I felt differently about those amazing black and white photos of the new Queen Elizabeth. Even Beaton records his surprise when he looked at the first images, as she wasn't to the naked eye photogenic and he was unsure if he could something good.

It would have done with Kate's hair up, as, far from looking jowly, when it's all piled up she looks fresher, in my view.

She and Meghan both allow their hair to detract from their expressive eyes and faces. In Kate's case, it's somewhat understandable as her hair is 1) glorious, and 2) the anchor of her look.

Hell, maybe Kate will free women over 40 from caring about the shrieks of a bunch of nasty poufs that they must now CUT IT CUT IT CUT IT!

And maybe her husband adores it.

I think all in all the photos show some of Kate's sly fuck you side.

Della, I would add an additional perspective about the work the royals do. The Princes Trust, EarthShot, Heads Together, etc etc etc don't just happen in a vacuum. W and C are both very active and involved in planning, organising and making these efforts happen. I have a good friend who works with them on one of those efforts and he has regular very business-like meetings with them just like those of us in "real jobs" have. He said they work just as hard as anyone else would in a setting like that. They are intelligent, engaged, are willing to take direction, are very professional, very courteous, have good instincts and are very fair. There is a ton of behind the scenes work that goes on, and I don't know about the other royals, but these two are very involved in the projects they lead.

[quote] It would have done with Kate's hair up, as, far from looking jowly, when it's all piled up she looks fresher, in my view. She and Meghan both allow their hair to detract from their expressive eyes and faces.

Agreed. Fear of letting go of youth, I think.

I do think Kate’s PR lately comes across as trying too hard, but for some reason I suspect it’s William behind that and not her. She seems to have a fairly good head on her shoulders, but her confidence seems to be diminishing instead of growing. I’d guess there are fairly awful family dynamics behind the scenes on the royal side, so it’s no wonder they spend a lot of time with the Middletons.

R162 trouble in paradise, Westminster debacle?

Ok, Meghan.

R167 the royal worshippers despise actual labor and especially laborers. These sycophants live to prop up the illusion that royals do anything or even represent anything of actual value. They're wholly wedded to the grift. They get off on it.

Oh Wow!

R176 - I'll agree with everything except the confidence bit. On the contrary, I think she reeks of increased confidence. I think that's what's coming across as trying too hard. And she looks very happy, much surer of herself.

As bad as the previous year has been in immediate terms, the truth is the exit of the Harkles was the best thing ever to happen to the Cambridges. The stupid Sussexes left the field clear and the Cambridges, who must have some clever advisors now, made the most of it. They retrieved the field, the Sussexes continued to sink in the UK polls whilst the Cambridges soared . . .

We're not looking a diminished confidence here at al. The breeding is done (Kate had difficult first trimesters), she's been in more than ten years and has the game under control, and has carved out an increasingly identifiable persona and interests.

It's odd how things backfire - the Sussex's aim was to harm, smirch, and take down. Instead, it blew back on them, made them seem petty, traitorous, dishonest, and unlikable, and Kate and William emerged triumphant - even Charles' polls in the UK improved, going over 50% for the first time in quite some time.

No, Kate is doing just fine.

That said, I'd still have done one updo, one down, one Beaton homage.

What Della said at R172 and what R175 said.

What royals do, when they take their work seriously, is what influencers are meant to do, the distinction being royals influence over the substantive and ideas and community and people and influencers sell garbage nobody really needs. It's a gross oversimplification to cast their work as just waving at people, but remarks like that aren't meant seriously anyway. For sure, if you think about it, royalty doesn't make a lot of sense or some necessary. Most things don't when they stir emotion or prompt thought about lives and things beyond yourself. Positions of authority or prominence, our reactions to them, our need for them, that runs pretty deep, whatever those positions are. Royalty, ludicrous though it may be if viewed dispassionately, is part of that tribal instinct in us.

[quote]Bot Sentinel is a Harkle operative

Ridiculous! You don't know what you're talking about.

I like the photos of the Catherine the more I look at them. The stans photoshopping Meghan's face onto Catherine's body was very telling.

Ok, Sussex stinkfish @ R182.

R183, yeah, whenever it suits them, they scream "RACISM!!!" etc

However, they don't mind her being whiter than white when it suits them either.

They're just like their heroine - guileful and hypocritical.

The Photoshop Diet. If it means she'll stay home and never actually be seen again, I'd support that choice.

Though I will miss the natural dignity of her squatting like she's taking a shit in the woods. Regal.

R183 Yes, it was. It made it all too plain that Meghan would have looked horrible in the dress. Everything those stans try to do to take down Kate, including OP here, ends up blowing back in their faces, makes them look horrible and envious, and Kate look better.

These photos will be part of a historic collection in a world renowned museum.

The stupid photoshop version Meghan's idiot stans did will also end up in a collection.

The kind whose clatter and bashing of empty bottles and cans wake one up at dawn every week.

Anybody with a working pair of eyes and unbiased mind would say that Kate Middleton looks very good. But if you're a Royal hater, or a fan of Sparkle and Dimwit then I guess you would call this very attractive woman "ugly."

Out of the 3 shots, I liked the profile shot in the white dress best but she looks tense. I wish that she had a slight smile.

I think it's the photographer. I don't care for his aesthetic.

I suppose once you commission the photographer you have to let him complete the project.

I'd be curious to see the many other photos from amongst which these four were selected.

William turns 40 in June. I don't suppose there will be as much interest in what he wears in what will also undoubtedly be special portraits as he's the one headed for the Top Job.

If there are portraits taken of William, my guess would be they would emphasize his “family man” side, not his “future King” side. They have to be cognizant that moving from a ruling Queen back to a ruling King is going to be a bit of a culture shock, it’s no longer a maternal hand at the wheel but something that feels more old-fashioned and paternalistic. That’s why I find it interesting they’re emphasizing Kate’s future role as Queen consort by drawing the parallel with the older portraits. Is it meant to soften the cultural blow of a man back at the helm in this more modern age? They couldn’t have done this with Camilla due to the history there, so this may be why we’re seeing so much more of “Kate the future Queen consort, don’t worry folks, this lovely, sweet, and sedate lady will be involved, not just a King.”

My only complaint about the photos is that a 40th birthday portrait is not the time to do the ingenue type portrait with a pouffy gown and flowing hair. Still, a wise person up thread said these photos are meant to get people talking and draw visitors into the museum and they do that very well.

My grandfather loved my my grandmother's long, flowing locks and my mother remembered that when they were young he would bury his head in her hair.

Then Grandma found out about Grandpa's mistress and she had her hair cut very short, with Mamie Eisenhower bangs and shellac hairspray, for the rest of their lives. At the time i was too young too wonder about why they had separate bedrooms. Or why he would welcome me into his tiny room while he laid in bed reading in his underwear with his boxers' fly wide open while I stared at his uncut dick.

Like the members of the BRF, I come from a highly dysfunctional family.

That's terrible r194. I'm sorry that happened to you.