Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Op-Ed: Princess Charlene Vs the Daily Mail or as I call it, The Daily Fail.

As some of you may be aware, there have been massive rumors again about Princess Charlene and not keeping her end of the deal…if there WAS a deal….to provide a royal heir. Here’s the article I’m talking about that started the whole thing. The basic premise of the article is that the rumors of her running away were true, and in order to convince her to stay, she and Albert agreed as soon as she provides an heir to the throne and she would get a substantial monetary supplement out of the deal, but she’s having trouble conceiving (which I do believe, but that’s an entirely different story all together) and because of that, she’s getting depressed.

Honestly, given how many FACTS (FACTS folks as in can be proven…) were incorrect in the article itself and how both the Prince and Princess have gone on record numerous times about the issue, I take the whole idea  of Emma Renylods's article with a grain of salt….the incorrect facts (or proof that Emma Renyolds is a complete failure at math, spelling and journalism all together as she can't get ages, spelling of names or facts right):
  1. Jazmin’s mother is NOT Tamara Rotola, but Tamara Rotolo. R-O-T-O-L-O.
  2. Alexandre was born in August 2003, making him presently 8 years old, not 7 as stated in the article.
  3. Charlene was born 25 January 1978, meaning she is 34 years old. The article claims she is 33 years old.
  4. Prince Albert was born 14 March 1958, making him 55 years old, not 54 years old  as the article states.
  5. There was no 3rd child. Albert’s not a cheater. He is a Playboy, but not a cheater. If there was a third child, don’t you think we’d have heard something other than ridiculous rumors that spoiled their wedding about it by now? The palace is good at cover ups, but not good enough to keep it this quiet.
  6. The Princess Grace Awards WAS NOT held in Grace’s honor, but in honor of the recipients of the Princess Grace Awards.
  7. The rumor that she bolted to Nice airport was false.She went to Nice to catch a flight to Paris for a day of shopping with her mother and was back the same evening. Her passport was confiscated because of a lapse of judgement-she was holding two passports at the time, her valid South African one and her not-until-after-the-wedding-was-it-valid Monaco passport, and handed the security agent her not yet valid one, and all it took was a quick look at her personal security guard and call to Albert and they were on their way. Duh. Any moron can figure that one out.
  8. Prince Albert and Charlene met in 2000, were friends for six years before they began to date in 2006. They dated for 5 years, were engaged for one year, and have been married for one almost now. Where’s the four years like it claims in the article? I'm not seeing it...6 years, 5 years, 1 year...1 year. humm...nope. No 4 years.
  9. The wedding was not 10 months ago, but 10 months, one week.
  10. Prince Albert never actually dated Brooke Shields. They are just friends. They are actually distant cousins through  Louis XIV of France. Brooke was  Louis XIV's cousin many generations removed {Source} and he is Prince Albert's something (still working on it).

See? There's no basis to believe it or let it go viral. It's totally ridiculous tabloid gossip. Only a complete moron would be stupid enough to believe it. If they were going to make something so stupid up, the least they could do is get the minor details right. After all, the best lies consist of accurate details.

One royal blogger made an interesting point that actually sparked this op-ed: Each time a negative article appears about the Grimaldis in the Daily Fail (errr...MAIL. The Daily Mail.), a positive one appears about the Duchess of Cambridge (sure enough, shortly after this factucually incorrect article about Charlene appeared, there was a positive one of  a certain duke and duchess).

Another interesting point that  the royal blogger makes is that it could be possible that Charlene's depressive state is due to a miscarriage and it's likely that the media isn't helping her any at all. Quite honestly, given some of the information that I have uncovered about Princess Charlene (of which is information that will remain under wraps, so don't bother asking what it is that I know that's not already public about her. All I'm sayin' is that I have a 6th degree of separation from Princess Charlene...that's more like two degrees.), that prediction would not surprise me at all. If in fact that is true, does it make it fair or even decent to write articles such as the Daily Fail's article? Personally, I've never suffered one, but I know people who have, and it's heartbreaking to watch them recover! If it is true that she suffered a miscarriage, the last thing she needs is the media making the wrong assumptions and spreading rumors!
       
Bottom line: The people at the Daily Mail...are clueless, inconsiderate and downright rude people, even for tabloid reporters.

No comments:

Post a Comment