Royal Image Management and Editorial Rewriting of Kate Middleton Coverage

A Liz Jones column that mocked Kate Middleton’s “performative gurning” appears to have been quickly softened. Why does this matter? Well, the Palace has spent years pretending it was powerless to stop media cruelty toward Princess Diana and Meghan Sussex, yet criticism of Prince William and Kate keeps getting buried, edited or quietly downgraded.

The funny thing about the Waleses is that the mask always slips when the criticism gets even mildly personal. For years, the line from Palace defenders was that the institution could not control the press, could not stop the cruelty, could not protect Diana, could not shield Meghan, could not do anything except sigh and carry on. And yet, somehow, stories that embarrass William and Kate have a habit of vanishing, being rewritten, or returning in softer packaging.

That is why Liz Jones’s Daily Mail column is significant.

The Smile Stayed, But The Criticism Got Smoothed Out

“I imagine Kate’s face must be aching with all the performative gurning. There the couple were at the recent Baftas, failing to read the room that was more concerned with their Uncle Andrew’s arrest. Facing accusations of misconduct in public office, his homes had been searched and his emails scoured, yet on the Waleses ploughed.”

Liz Jones, Daily Mail

Jones was unusually blunt about William and Kate’s grim little habit of smiling through scandal. In the version circulating on March 20, she wrote: “I imagine Kate’s face must be aching with all the performative gurning.” She also tore into the pair for breezing through public appearances while Prince Andrew’s arrest dominated the backdrop. It was a rare moment when a Mail columnist stopped pretending the Waleses’ chief gift is looking solemn in expensive clothing and said the obvious: their relentless beaming looked false, tone-deaf and morally vacant.

And then, just like that, the sharp edges appear to have been dulled.

I cannot independently confirm every stage of the Daily Mail edit trail because the site blocks direct access via the web tool and one archive request rate-limited, but there is enough visible evidence to say this much with care: the article remains traceable under the same Daily Mail URL, while outside traces show different headline renderings, including “Why so many are now gravely concerned by this picture of Kate and William” and a softened version rendered as “Why many are concerned by this picture of Kate and William.”  The line about Kate’s “performative gurning” also continued to circulate in copies and discussion of the piece, which suggests the core criticism was not wholly erased even if the presentation was toned down. 

A Long Running Pattern of Softened and Removed Coverage

That is the part people should pay attention to. Not because one tweaked Mail headline is the scandal of the century, but because it fits an old pattern. Vulture’s Ellie Hall documented a far bigger one in 2024: 21 U.K. stories about Rose Hanbury were deleted, and six more were edited after publication, with broken links and altered text left behind across outlets including the Mail, the Sun, the Mirror, the Express, Tatler, the Evening Standard and the Guardian. Hall found no public explanation from those outlets for why the posts disappeared or were changed. 

And this was not some one-off event. Kensington Palace also pushed back hard against Tatler’s 2020 profile of Kate, written by journalist and biographer Anna Pasternak. At the time, reporting showed the piece was later edited after Palace objections and reported legal pressure, with passages removed or softened. Pasternak herself later described the fallout as intense, saying she was warned not to speak publicly for months as legal threats loomed. She also suggested the episode revealed how royal influence can shape media narratives behind the scenes, including how stories are framed once they reach the press.

The Myth of Powerlessness No Longer Holds

So the claim that the royals are helpless before the tabloids looks thinner every year. They may not control every headline, but they plainly know how to exert pressure when they decide something matters. Especially as royal reporters such as Rhiannon Mills move from media roles to work directly for the Royal Household.

That is what makes the Meghan and Diana comparisons so ugly. In her Oprah interview, Meghan said the press let negative stories about other royals appear briefly before they disappeared, while it sustained attacks on her. The Palace pushed the idea that it could not intervene. Yet when criticism touches Kate’s image or William’s circle, the machinery moves quickly. That contradiction is the story.

Infantilised Heirs and Strategic Smiles

It also says something bleak about William and Kate themselves. Even when Liz Jones criticised them, she still slipped into that ridiculous language about them as “young parents.” The press has wrapped these two middle-aged heirs in deference for years, shielding them while demanding maturity from everyone else. It expected Meghan to absorb racism, stalking coverage and humiliation with saintly grace. It forced Diana to endure a machine that fed off her pain. Yet it cannot even describe Kate as over-smiling through a family scandal without tidying the article.

That is why the grinning matters. The smiles are not warm. They are strategic, we have seen her specically pose in camera-ready ways while looking odd for the video.

I first realised that most of Kate’s photos are fake PR stunts when I saw her putting on this dramatic performance for the cameras at a Tour de France event in 2014. You can be sure there was a photographer positioned behind her to capture this “candid moment”. https://t.co/JaA8tKfBuc pic.twitter.com/se3b1zYIOZ

— Zandi Sussex (@ZandiSussex) January 23, 2026

They are the public face of a family that wants applause for ribbon-cutting and tiaras, while evading moral accountability when the real filth rises to the surface. Jones was right about that much. No amount of beaming can disguise how hollow the act looks when Andrew’s scandal is hanging over the institution, and the future king still seems more comfortable posing than speaking plainly.

The Palace cannot keep selling two stories at once. It cannot claim helplessness when women like Diana and Meghan are torn apart, then suddenly discover leverage when William and Kate are embarrassed. Either the institution has influence, or it does not. The record now suggests it does. 

And that leaves a very ugly conclusion. The leftovers were never enough because this was never about mere survival. It was about hierarchy. Some family members were allowed to be fed to the wolves. Others were cushioned from even the mildest bite.

Embed from Getty Images Embed from Getty Images