JAN MOIR: The ugly feeding frenzy over Kate in the U.S. proves the royals MUST be more transparent

This may come as a shock, but here in Britain, newspapers and broadcast media still treat the Royal Family with a significant degree of respect. A blue ribbon of respect and restraint, a cushion of comfort offered to few others, colors all reporting on their activities.

For the British royal family and the British media, the rules of engagement are subtly different. In America, such niceties do not exist. There is no separation between royalty and celebrity. And in America the gloves are currently off.

Lurid gossip has been published in American newspapers, based on nothing more than speculation. In popular chat programs – programs that are watched by millions – our royal family members are discussed and openly mocked.

There has been a lot of ridicule about the Princess of Wales’s Mother’s Day photo and there has been a lot of mockery of the huge, ongoing Katespiracy over her lack of public appearances.

The Washington Post published a Home Alone-style cartoon showing Prince William holding a cardboard cutout of his wife in front of a palace window.

Once again it’s open season on the Wales’s, just as it was over 30 years ago. How did we get here so quickly?

In January, Kate was just recovering from abdominal surgery. In February, online conspiracy theorists on both sides of the Atlantic began filling the news void with increasingly lurid conjectures.

In March, there was a snapshot of a seemingly miserable Kate and William staring in opposite directions from a car.

Oh, I thought, stirring up a conspiracy theory all my own. We’ve been here before. How long will it take for Kate to pose solo on a bench at the Taj Mahal?

The problem for palace courtiers and communications teams in the modern era is that they have little control over the narrative. And to counter the onslaught of the online rumor mill, they will have to be more – not less – transparent.

Because anyone can discover the worst gossip with just one click of a computer key. For on the wilder shores of cyberspace there are no borders or barriers, nor warm pools of royal worship.

Long gone are the days when royals in crisis could scurry behind a nice big rock, like a family of shy velvet crabs.

What has changed so much? You could argue that part of the reason why the audience feels so involved online is – and why not, as they are encouraged to do so by the Windsors themselves.

The cozy royal Instagram accounts, the official websites, the fact that the Princess of Wales felt the need – however innocent – ​​to retouch a family photo of her children to make it more attractive.

Still, the rush to be recognizable has its drawbacks.

The trouble is that now, for keyboard surfers and American chat show hosts alike, everything is entertainment. No distinction is made between tragedy or triumph, between fiction and real life.

Think back to the disappearance of Nicola Bulley a year ago; a tragic event that provided a chilling insight into how certain sections of the public consumed news events – mainly as a fun online game of Cluedo.

It resulted in a morally sickening fiasco in which some people (uninvited) joined the police investigation and made wild accusations about Bulley’s death and the possible involvement of members of her family. Of course it was all nonsense. An inquest found her death accidental and the circus moved on, leaving a family in tatters.

That terrible level of intensity is repeated here, with no end in sight, as the mushroom cloud of wheezing speculation and conspiracy theories continues to grow. Who can manage it? Who can even survive?

If gossip is news that comes out in an ermine cloak and crown, then things will get worse before they get better. A little clarity from the royal family would go a long way to dispelling the worst rumors, but there are no signs of this happening anytime soon. In this void a fever burns.

At the heart of conspiracyism is the belief that innocent justifications do not exist and that all coincidences, no matter how improbable, must be shot down in righteous flames.

While the British media carefully and attentively patrol the areas of interest, the rest of the world watches and laughs.

The time when they could scurry behind a nice big rock like a family of shy velvet crabs is long gone.

A £550-per-head Michelin-starred restaurant in the US is facing a backlash over claims it serves smaller portions to female customers. Sushi Noz in New York City has been accused of offering smaller versions of the omakase menu to the little ladies. Is that really sexist? To be honest, many of my friends have the appetite of a bird. Only that bird happens to be a vulture.

Naomi, a role model for whiners and being spoiled

Naomi Campbell is definitely a half-empty girl! The supermodel is being honored with a solo exhibition at the V&A in London, an honor usually given to the likes of Rodin, Dior or Picasso.

But behind her designer sunglasses, Naomi can’t see the bright side.

“Trying to take care of my two babies and do this at the same time is a lot,” she groaned. She also said she “had to quit (her) day job” to help put the show together.

And also that spreading her museum-worthy clothes across her collection of luxury homes in Russia, America and Spain had added to the ‘difficulties’.

Yes, Naomi speaks for working mothers everywhere. Let us all sob into our Givenchy handkerchiefs as one man, let us hold our Chanel gloves in solidarity.

In the meantime, the V&A must ask itself why it is bothered.

Transgender menopause advice is so ridiculous

You would think: hope! – that NHS chiefs should be more concerned than the small proportion of the population who are transgender. You’d be wrong.

Healthcare bosses have created a 17-page booklet reminding staff that ‘not everyone who goes through the menopause is a woman’. That’s biologically impossible and also empirically untrue, but that doesn’t matter. The new guidance states: ‘Transgender, non-binary and intersex colleagues can also enter menopause and have specific needs.’

Of course, this advice should only apply to trans men – who may still have a female body. But as always, the largest – and loudest – contingent here will undoubtedly be the men who identify as women.

They deserve support in their courageous journey to gender happiness, but these ‘specific needs’ do not include a hysterectomy to remove their uterus and fallopian tubes, the possibility of ovarian cancer and a one in two chance of significant bone loss resulting in osteoporosis. – so why do it differently? It’s not just nonsense, it’s an insult to women everywhere whose lives are worse affected by their biological nature.

Listen, buster. Try four decades of periods and menstrual pain, along with childbirth, menopause, increased risk of breast cancer, lower wages and mood swings – contact me.

It reminds me of my friend who works in an NHS maternity ward and now has to refer to the pregnant women and new mothers in her care as ‘persons with a cervix’. Ridiculous. And treacherous.

Argument that overrides protocol

How nice to know that in a moment of public and personal crisis you can always count on your brother’s support. Just not if you’re Prince William or Prince Harry.

The warring siblings refused to stage a joint show of solidarity this week, even in memory of their holy mother.

Last night, the Prince of Wales attended the Diana Legacy Awards at London’s Science Museum to present the prizes.

But he left before the Duke of Sussex was beamed in via video call from his home in California to congratulate the winners. Awks.

This was the 25th anniversary of the founding of The Diana Award charity – a milestone, a high-profile enshrinement of their mutual maternal legacy. Yet even in this moment of family pride, the brothers could not find common ground.

In many ways, who can blame them for their inability to even inhabit the same vain cyberspace? Harry is a boiling knot of bitterness, playing hardball in his court of exile, thousands of miles away.

And how could William ever forgive his younger brother for the insults heaped upon his wife, Catherine? A bride who fit the ‘royal mold’, the woman accused of being a ‘racist’ in the row over Prince Archie’s skin colour? It’s insurmountable, unforgivable.

Some things said can never be left unsaid, and some actions are beyond redemption.

But in moments like these, when their personal relationship trumps public protocol, it’s very difficult to take either of these men seriously.

Screen stars are dominating the Best Actress category at this year’s London theater Olivier Awards – but is that completely fair?

Sarah Jessica Parker is up for a gong for her vibrant but disappointing (I think) turn in Plaza Suite at the Savoy, while Sarah Snook is nominated for her flashy one-woman performance in The Picture Of Dorian Gray at the Theater Royal Haymarket.

The latter had mixed reviews. “Stunningly good,” wrote one critic. “Imagine Orson Welles reciting the Pizza Express wine list in the manner of King Lear,” snorted another. Both actresses only committed to short runs, with theaters charging £300 or more for the best seats for the privilege of seeing them on a stage.

If there is any justice in this world, the award goes to Laura Donnelly for her stellar performance in The Hills Of California, written by her real-life partner, Jez Butterworth.

This moving, bittersweet, unforgettable play about families and grieving siblings would also get my vote for Best New Play. But, as I often ask myself: what do I know?