Kate Middleton: Edited headline sparks debate over Royal Family’s 'invisible contract' with media

A post on Twitter has sparked debate online about how much influence the Royal Family has over the British media.

Edited headlines about Princess Kate

Twitter user @ArchewellBaby posted two screenshots pointing out what appears to be an edited headline by The Telegraphabout the person who Princess Kate wanted to hire as her private secretary rejecting the job.

In the first screenshot, the title of the article published on 25 March 2023 at 2.53pm is 'Princess of Wales’s new private secretary rejects job, opting to stay with Jamie Oliver'.

In the second screenshot, the title of the article published on the same day at 3.45pm is 'Princess of Wales’s new private secretary rejects job to stay 'under the radar''.

@ArchewellBaby claimed:

It took less than an hour for Kensington Palace to make the call and have a headline changed. An innocuous headline that has no effect.

Further proof that Royal reporters attacking the Sussex children has approval from the Royal Family.

It could be speculated that the first headline reflects poorly on the Princess, implying that the private secretary preferred to work with Jamie Oliver over Kate. However, as it is written in chapeau of the second screenshot, Alison Corfield is only 'said to be' staying with Jamie Oliver, so perhaps that is the simple explanation for the edit.

The article’s title has since been changed again, and now reads simply: 'PR guru rejects job as Princess of Wales's new private secretary'.

Read more ⋙ Prince William and Kate face backlash after their latest move: 'Lots of talk, nothing but talk'

'Invisible contract' with press or simply a misleading headline?

Either way, the post has sparked debate among Twitter users. Some see it as proof of the Royal Family’s 'invisible contract' with the press, as Prince Harry once described it.

@sannetje_26 tweeted:

Invisible contact very visible

@bolling_debbie wrote:

The fact that they still have to clean up after these folks. Ten years and they’re still struggling

@Viv_Uz5 tweeted:

Proves Harry right yet again. He was dealt a hard hand by his family to be honest

Read more:

⋙ Princess Eugenie overshadowed Kate Middleton and Meghan with £10 million accessory

⋙ Kate Middleton: Rumours the Princess of Wales could 'destroy Meghan' in TV interview

Others see no meaning to the edit at all. @holographicgold tweeted:

The headline hardly changed. What power does that show? Does either headline look good for Kate? Also how do we know KP got it changed? Or did the writer decide to change it themselves?

@trudynwilson wrote:

The two heading still mean the same thing the person chose to stay with her current employer no big deal really.

@LizzieM12807558 tweeted:

I don’t see a shred of proof of your claims. What I see is a misleading headline, the publicist herself called to correct. Would Jamie Oliver want his name in the headlines?

Sources used:

Twitter