The Problem With Kate’s "Triumphant" Return
on THAT cover story, and why the coverage isn't over-the-top...it's all we’ve got.
If you’ve seen the latest Us Weekly cover featuring the Princess of Wales—“Preparing for her Destiny”—you probably had one of two reactions: either “Finally!” or “Again?” I was quoted in the piece, and while I stand by everything I contributed, I also think the tone of the story reflects a bigger issue: there’s only so much you can say about the Princess of Wales when there's so little actually there.
There was a lot of discussion of this piece, most of which focused on Kate’s work ethic. More troubling (at least to me): “Is Amanda becoming a Palace shill?”
Let’s clear that up right now: I don’t write or give comments just to flatter anyone. I try to understand what the royal family is doing, how they’re covered, and what it all says about power, media, and performance. And sometimes, that means participating in coverage when it isn’t necessarily an angle that I, myself, would write.
From the piece:
“After taking a break from royal appearances while undergoing treatment, Kate gradually began her reemergence and, in January, announced that she was in remission. Since then, she’s appeared happy and healthy at nearly a dozen engagements, both with and without husband Prince William, 42, including the annual Commonwealth Day service at Westminster Abbey. ‘Kate looked wonderful,’ says royal biographer Hugo Vickers after seeing her at the March 10 event.”
There are a lot of stories lately about Kate’s “triumphant” return to the public stage. These stories don’t come from nowhere; they’re shaped by what the Palace allows us to see and what the press has to work with. And I do think there’s value in shedding light on how Kensington Palace sees itself—especially when it comes to William and Kate’s self-image and the kind of modern monarchy they believe they’re building. I think that adding commentary through my lens can only enhance this type of reporting (and I have to hope that folks can read between the lines to understand that I’m framing the palace spin, not just echoing it). There’s value in participating in the conversation, even when I disagree with the terms of it. Especially then, actually.
If you're reading this part of the post, this is the kind of nuanced, no-holds-barred royal commentary I share every Friday, exclusively for paid readers. If you want to keep cutting through the palace PR fog with me, consider upgrading your subscription—it’s how this work keeps going.
Comeback Fatigue
I want to unpack what “Kate’s return” actually means in this context, why we keep seeing this narrative on repeat, and what it says about the institution she’s supposed to represent.
Think about it. If you’re on the royal beat, how would you write about the principal player who…
consistently brings in clicks, visits to affiliate links, and content reshares?
releases very few personal, public statements?
works a low number of engagements per year?
takes extended time off with little explanation (even before her cancer treatment)?
has a public image that is tightly curated and minimally exposed?
When Kate reappears after weeks or months away, there’s an immediate hunger to make it mean something. The problem is: it usually doesn’t. So instead, the story becomes about the fact that we’re seeing her at all. And over time, that creates a strange loop—where the act of showing up becomes the story, over and over again.
This isn’t Kate’s first “triumphant return”—and it won’t be her last. We’ve seen a version of this narrative again and again: a hiatus from public life (for reasons sometimes specified, sometimes not), followed by a carefully choreographed reappearance that’s framed as brave, selfless, or even historic.
Then…a week or two later? A school holiday. A family vacation. A period of silence. And the whole cycle begins again.