- BTW
- Posts
- BTW: Kate Middleton has cancer - and a conspiracy problem.
BTW: Kate Middleton has cancer - and a conspiracy problem.
Jessica Maddox
March 26, 2024
Welcome to BTW, a newsletter on all things Internet culture and technology. Here, I discuss an in-depth issue or trend in social media or the tech industry with my eye on what you need to know to be informed on the matter.
Content warning: Today’s post contains discussions of suicide, murder, illness, and death. Please proceed carefully.
⏰ TL;DR:
After weeks of conspiracy theories running rampant, Kate, the Princess of Wales, revealed she has cancer.
Today’s post contains a timeline for what happened, as well as an analysis of a media environment that privileged conspiracy.
On Friday, March 22, England’s Kensington Palace revealed Catherine (Kate), Princess of Wales, has cancer. The news comes after weeks of viral and rampant internet speculation and memes about the princess’s whereabouts after she wasn’t seen in public for several months.
Please note that there were a lot of moving parts of this story, and I’ve done my best to focus on the most important elements.
So what happened?
Back in January, Kensington Palace (the royal palace that represents Prince William and Princess Kate) announced that Kate had just undergone successful planned abdominal surgery, and she would be back in the public eye at or after Easter. It didn’t really cause too much of a fuss - it was announced right around the time it was revealed King Charles was having a medical crisis that turned out to be cancer, and Kate’s news was (understandably) overshadowed by that a bit.
And that was that for the time being. She was out of the public eye, and nobody was wondering anything - until February 27.
On February 27, Prince William was scheduled to attend a memorial service for his godfather, Constantine, the last King of Greece. Prince William was set to do a reading at the event, but at the last minute (we’re talking less than an hour to go), he said he would not be attending due to a personal matter. (What we know now is that Kate began chemotherapy in late February). This drew attention to the fact Kate hadn’t been seen since Christmas, and many people who had missed the announcement of her surgery were now made aware of it.
A related, but unrelated, bit of news became the object of focus the same day: On February 25th, Kate Middleton’s sister’s ex-boyfriend (stick with me, I swear) was found dead with a “catastrophic” head wound. Thomas Kingston was now a member of the royal family by marriage by marrying King Charles’ second cousin.
Now, the reality is this was a tragic event and most likely completely unrelated to Prince William’s decision not to attend the memorial service. But the recent proximity of both led many to begin speculating - and things spiraled out of control.
I’m only going to briefly recap the various conspiracy theories that emerged because I have zero interest in propagating false information in this newsletter. I’m only going to discuss them enough to ground my analysis. I’m also going to go in chronological order of events, so if you’re wondering why I haven’t mentioned that photo yet- It’s coming. If you’d like to track how this happened, Ryan Broderick at Garbage Day did some outstanding digging to trace the “#WhereIsKate” hashtag back to its origins.
The decision to pull out of the memorial service, Kate’s absence, and Thomas Kingston’s suicide led many to speculate that Prince William had killed Thomas. The justification here was something about an affair. Alleged photos emerged with Prince William with a bruised neck (these are unverified), with individuals claiming this was evidence he had fought with Kingston before killing him.
The conspiracy theories quickly evolved. People speculated Kate had given Charles an organ. That she had a Brazilian Butt Lift (BBL). That she had taken the kids and left William due to his affairs (unconfirmed reports from content creators only emerged at this time saying the children hadn’t been seen in months; this was also untrue). You also have to be really online to understand the memes that emerged, particularly surrounding Kate Middleton and an AI Willy Wonka event in Glasgow, Scotland.
Around this time, one of the British tabloids re-ran a story they had written about Lady Rose Hanbury, the Marchioness of Cholmondeley(for the love of God, don’t ask me to pronounce this). This matters because Lady Rose Hanbury is allegedly Prince William’s current/former mistress. Individuals interpreted this move as a sign the Royal Palace was working in cahoots with the British press to “soft launch” (i.e., test the waters) a new wife for William. In reality? SEO is a thing, and timely re-upping this article would drive traffic to the site. TikTok creator Matta_of_Fact discussed this here:
@matta_of_fact Why #RoseHanbury is a trending #royal topic in the wake of all the #KateMiddleton conversation 👀☕️ #royaltea #royalfamily #royals #royalty... See more
At this point American tabloid news site TMZ published a paparazzi photo of Kate, wearing sunglasses, in a car driven by her mother. The public was quick to denounce this as a body double, saying there was no way that could be Kate, that the face was too round, etc.
It doesn’t help that at this time, Kensington Palace doubled down. The conspiracy theories were “wild and outlandish,” according to them. And they were. But they also had a chance to right the ship, go on the record, and explain within reason, while still respecting Kate’s privacy, that the discourse was going too far. But they didn’t. More on this later, since we’re still on the timeline.
But now we reach a point of no return in this story - the Instagram photo that could quite literally wind up on the image of the year lists for what was done to it, and what happened next.
A Photo? A Photo??
On March 10th, or British Mother’s Day, Kensington Palace released a photo of Kate Middleton and her three children. It’s a lovely photo - but it had been manipulated so intensely that AP, Reuters, and Agence France-Presse, the major international news agencies that distribute media and information to outlets around the world, issued a “kill notice” on the photo. A kill notice means that the material is not “authentic” or “credible” and should not be distributed as fact. AP explains its image kill notice guidelines here. Notably, light editing such as cropping, color, tone, etc. are permissible. For an image to be killed, it must be substantially altered, i.e., inauthentic. We are notably not talking about simple photoshopping skills; to say this photo of Kate and her children was photoshopped is inaccurate. This image used a combination of intense editing software, previous images, and artificial intelligence to generate a happy, healthy-looking Kate Middleton and her children.
If Kensington Palace had been hoping to ease the conspiracy theories with this, they failed miserably. Instead, they poured gasoline on fire, creating an inferno. I’m not even going to bother recounting all the subsequent conspiracies that emerged, but they ranged from everything from secret pregnancies for both Kate and William’s mistress, Kate being in a coma, divorce, etc. There were repeated claims that the royals had issued an injunction to British media to stand by and be aware of a possible breaking news story by Wednesday, March 20. Well, March 20th came and went with no story.
Folks flocked to this image. Many rightfully pointed out errors. Others speculated about where the images could have come from. Knowing what we know now, that Kate Middleton was undergoing chemotherapy and cancer treatment when that image was allegedly taken and shared, we know Kensington Palace tried to pull a fast one on us. Then, when they realized it wasn’t working, they had Kate released a statement saying the image was the result of her dabbling in photo editing software. Again, the AP doesn’t kill an image of light photo edits.
Why would Kensington Palace Do This?
Because they believed they could. Understanding why this happened involves understanding the sheltered and out-of-touch role the Royals believe they play in this world. People only do things when they believe they can get away with them. This is the case in strategic communication, too. The Kensington Palace public relations team believed the world would buy their story.
It doesn’t help that the British monarchy is suffering from massive unpopularity. Between ubiquitous calls to reckon with its colonialist and imperialist legacies; their racist treatment of Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex and Prince Henry’s wife; and the death of Queen Elizabeth II, both folks in and out of England question the monarchy’s purpose in the twenty-first century.
Molly McPherson, a PR expert on TikTok, did a great explainer:
@mollybmcpherson There's some tinkering going on at Kensington Palace regarding the messaging around Kate Middleton's absence. #katemiddleton #royalfamily ... See more
Is The Royal Family Really In Cahoots with the British Media?
Yes. The British royal family has long used its strategic communication arm to plant stories in the press and control the release of unfavorable information about them. And, given the recent years’ resurgence of content about Princess Diana, William’s late mother, Diana came to everyone’s minds in this situation as an example of, well, the palace has been shady before, they could be shady again.
What Happened Next?
After the AP kill notice, grainy bystander video showed Kate and Prince William walking at Windsor Castle. Folks didn’t believe it was Kate. She looked too thin. She looked gaunt.
She looked like a woman undergoing chemotherapy.
You’re an American, didn’t you fight and win an entire war to not have to care about the monarchy?
USA! USA! USA! (just kidding, nationalism is gross).
Okay but why should I care about the monarchy?
You should care insofar as considering the colonial, imperial, racist, and wealth-hoarding the monarchy represents. We can feel sympathy for Kate’s cancer diagnosis while also acknowledging the horrific institution she is a part of.
Wait, so The Royal Palace didn’t reveal Kate’s cancer diagnosis, didn’t take advantage of sympathy for a cancer-ridden mother and her young children, treated cancer like it was something to be ashamed of, let conspiracy theories run rampant, and blamed her for a bad Photoshop shop, even though they’ve proven in the past they can and will issue statements whenever they want?
Source: Disney
What Do You Think About All of This?
This whole viral debacle was a masterclass in media manipulation, and we should be horrified. However, we all manipulated media - Kensington Palace, The Independent, social media platforms, content creators, and yes, even individuals interacting with content.
In the days since her cancer announcement, there has been doubling down and finger-pointing. Folks stand by their decision to engage in conspiracy. Other says they should feel ashamed. Admittedly, I was one of the latter. And admittedly, I regret that post I made in a moment of an anger flash - my mother died of cancer, and when I first heard the news I could only imagine what it would have been like for her to endure such scrutiny (apples and oranges, I know, my mother wasn’t a public figure). It was emotional, not analytical. I keep the post up for accountability.
But since I’ve been thinking and reflecting, I remember that all things can be true at the same time. And I think we need to reflect on media and information manipulation and try to learn things for next time.
Algorithms are designed to promote and push popular content. On X, I was pushed “Katespiracy” content despite never interacting with posts. On TikTok, my For You Page was filled with theories despite minimal interaction (I say minimal; TikTok is alleged to count it as interest for even hovering over a video an extra second).
Content creators know this about algorithms. They know that to stay relevant and to keep getting clicks, likes, and views, they need to talk about popular and trendy things. This is the whole model of an app like TikTok - in the beginning, it was use a popular, trending bit of audio and put your own spin on it to get pushed to the front. Creators are often in a race to be first - which is sometimes at the extent of accurate information. I tell my students in my social media storytelling class all of the time: “Yes, people get on the internet and say untrue and unverified things all of the time, but my students are certainly not doing that.”
The reinforcement here happens because the content performs well. The algorithm prioritizes it, it gets pushed to lots of people, lots of people interact with it because it’s trending and people want to know more, and then the creator has an incentive to produce similar content because it did well. And the cycle repeats. I’ve talked to close to 150 creators and influencers in my career, and they all tell me the same thing - they figure out what works, what’s popular, and what the algorithms like, and they make more of it.
Conspiracy and rampant speculation are not immune from this. In fact, the system I just described, combined with a lack of information, creates a volatile space for inaccurate information.
Researchers Michael Golebiewski and danah boyd coined and described the phenomenon of data voids back in 2019. While they were specifically writing about search engines, I’d like to extend their thoughts to the Katespiracy. Rather simply, data voids are an absence of information that can be weaponized by actors. But if you’ve been a long-time reader of this newsletter, you know that I’m interested in how more everyday, less intentionally malicious versions of practices occur.
I’d like to focus on one particular type of data void that Golebiewski and boyd describe: The breaking news data void. They describe this as “The production of problematic content can be optimized to terms that are suddenly spiking due to a breaking news situation; these voids will eventually be filled by legitimate news content, but are abused before such content exists.” They write that in a breaking news event, we don’t have all the information, so bad actors come in and insert wrong or inaccurate information to sway opinion and knowledge.
But to me, Kensington Palace’s out-of-touch strategic communication created a data void, accelerated by the architecture and incentives of social media platforms, content creation, and individual social media use. We did not have enough information, so before we got it, speculation ran rampant. Furthermore, the SEO move by The Independent shows how easily media can be manipulated, even if not by bad actors for nefarious ideological purposes, but simply by any entity in this hypercompetitive media environment trying to stay relevant. As we scramble for visibility, attention, and information, we risk doing harm with unchecked rumors and ideas.
Was the institution of Kensington Palace wrong here? Yes. Were individuals wrong for going on Beyonce’s internet and saying anything, regardless of its relationship to reality? Also yes. But as I’ve written before, we don’t do well holding two conflicting truths at the same time.
Conspiracy thinking is not a sign that our culture is backward; in fact, it’s emblematic of larger ways of thinking about the world around us. When we don’t trust institutions writ large, of course, we’re likely to question the narratives they’re providing. When that institution is as complicated as the British monarchy, and given its track record, of course, there would be conspiratorial thinking. We should challenge the monarchy. But there’s a fine line between challenging, healthy speculation, and even meme-making, and saying whatever we want without checking.
Arguing we’re not complicit at all upholds a convoluted take on a long-debunked way of thinking about media: That if media are hypodermic needles, simply injecting us with their messages and we’re powerless to stop it. Saying we had to speculate because of Kensington Palace’s lack of information and shady practices implies we were powerless to avoid engaging in conspiracy. Saying we speculated because it’s okay not to trust an untrustworthy institution, and acknowledging the choices we made is another matter entirely. We should hold the powerful accountable. Question the kill notice and demand to know the truth about what happened - don’t speculate why.
I do believe self-reflection is necessary in this moment, but I don’t think we’ll get it. People are too defensive and too quick to point fingers. This is going to add to our increasingly divisive way of being - everyone thinks they’re right, which leaves little space for self-reflection about why we’re speculating (and even blaming).
To sum it up - we hold the powerful accountable by demanding information and transparency. We don’t get it by saying whatever we feel like.
The only real conspiracy I believe in here is that Cholomondeley is pronounced “Chumley.”
📚 Academic Readings to Learn More
Stef Aupers, “Trust no one: Modernization, paranoia, and conspiracy culture.”
Jaron Harambam, “Against modernist illusions: Why we need more democratic and constructivist alternatives to debunking conspiracy theories.”
Alice Marwick and Rebecca Lewis, “Media manipulation and disinformation online.”