Why is the UK and US treatment of Kate Middleton so different?

There is no possibility, if you consume any kind of media, that you will not be aware of Kate Middleton’s absence from public view over the past couple of months. For a time, it was possible to put the various rumors and speculation down to over-excited people on the internet with too much time on their hands and over-vivid imaginations. Then, in an apparent attempt to quell speculation, Kensington Palace released a strangely Photoshopped image of the princess on Britain’s Mother’s Day, and all hell broke loose.

Even those who would normally have sighed at the increasingly prurient stories found themselves saying things like, “I’m not a conspiracy theorist but…” Yet the treatment of Kate’s disappearance and the media’s reaction to it have become widely polarized between the United Kingdom and the United States. The British press has always been largely respectful towards its royal family (with the exception of the republican-sympathizing left-wing Guardian). The much-read tabloid press, in particular the Daily Mail and the Sun, have to tread a fine balance between reporting the news (and, at times, finding their own, inimitable, spin on it) and catering to their readers’ interests. In Britain, the narrative, broadly speaking, is that people are fond of the King and Kate; have time for Queen Camilla and Prince William, although not without reservations; loathe Prince Harry and Andrew, Duke of York; and regard Meghan Markle with a contempt that is usually limited to child murderers and serial rapists. The late Elizabeth II, naturally, is venerated as a secular saint.

In America, however, there is a far greater irreverence that is unsurprising from a country that threw out its last ruler (none other than mad old George III). This goes hand in hand with a residual degree of respect for the institution of the monarchy, but Stephen Colbert was still able to deliver a monologue last week in which he addressed long-standing and unproven rumors regarding the state of William and Kate’s marriage.

John Oliver, meanwhile — himself a displaced Brit — has been mocking the whole ordeal, saying, “I thought, let’s all just ignore this, we’ve moved on — until the Photoshop thing. It feels like you’re almost handling badly in an impressive way at this point.” Oliver then stated — ostensibly jokily — that, “There’s a non-zero chance she died eighteen months ago. They might be Weekend at Bernie’s-ing this situation. I’m not saying it happened! I’m saying it’s non-zero until proven otherwise. Until you see her with a copy of today’s newspaper.”

The chances of his saying this on British television is impossible, but Oliver’s anti-monarchist sentiments are well-known; he has previously called the royal family “a human appendix,” calling for their surgical removal on the grounds of redundancy, and dismissed them as “an emotionally stunted group of fundamentally flawed people doing a very silly pseudo-job.”

For a republican in either country, the current situation is somewhere between gloriously entertaining and deeply predictable. Yet in Britain, there is no overt reference to potential marriage trouble between William and Kate in any media — save some vaguely worded reporting of Colbert’s comments — and the wilder rumors (which Oliver and Colbert have steered well clear of reporting so far) exist on the darker corners of social media. (As I was writing this, I received an email from a senior editor at a major publisher detailing some of these stories, and many of them are so bizarre as to be laughable.) Instead, the front page news story in Sunday’s Sun was that Kate was seen visiting a farm shop; no pictures of the visit could be provided, so the glowing account of how she looked “healthy and happy” had to be taken entirely on trust.

It is clear why there is greater affection for the royals in Britain than anywhere else, and the influence of Kensington Palace when it comes to the media is a long-lasting one; should a paper or journalist step out of line, they would swiftly find themselves ostracized from the so-called “royal rota” which allows controlled access to senior royals on foreign trips and the like. Yet in the United States, there is the freedom to be able to deal with this wildfire-spreading story in a less sycophantic and more detached way, which many will find refreshing, even as the stories verge on the scurrilous.

It is intended that, in a few weeks, the princess will once again take to public life — and, perhaps, divulge more fully what her mysterious health condition was — and, when she does that, the likes of Oliver and Colbert may well find other targets for their satire. However, should this not be forthcoming, there will be no check on the public speculation — and it will be Britain’s most famous former colony that will no doubt be leading the way in its discussion.