Jeff noted that the Duchess of York had visited Williams. Key paragraph:

“The scuttlebutt,” Abrams explains, “is that the Duchess of York had an appointment at Williams College to discuss the prestigious school for possible placement for one of her daughters. Since she was swept off the plane and driven directly to Berkshire County, Fergie wanted to freshen-up and change her outfit before going on to her meeting. The limousine driver was instructed to stop at a local hotel to ask if a room could be made available as a courtesy for that purpose,” Abrams notes.

The daughter would probably be Princess Eugenie of York


Attentive readers will note that she is wearing purple. A princess at Williams? What will my friends in Women’s Studies say? Previous famous female Eph matriculants have included a soap opera character, an OC resident and the President’s daughter, but all of these were fictitious.

I added the above as an UPDATE to Jeff’s post. After some discussion, we decided that it would be best to split off this photo and the associated discussion into a new thread. Please read the comments in the previous thread for full context. Comments:

1) Ronit points out that this is not really a photo of Princess Eugenie. More here:

Eugenie, daughter of Fergie and Prince Andrew and sixth in line to the throne, seems to have become the latest victim of computer retouching after posing for the cover of next month’s Tatler magazine.

Gone is her teenage puppy fat and awkward smile – replaced with the bone structure of a supermodel.

The Mirror’s health expert Dr Miriam Stoppard said: “It’s that arm that’s the giveaway because it’s the arm of an anorexic.

“I really feel sorry for Princess Eugenie because the aspiration to look so altered through airbrushing is really sad.”

And beauty expert Madeline Crisp added: “She has lost her youthful bloom.”

Eugenie, who will be 18 on March 23, isn’t the first to be airbrushed by a magazine. Kate Winslet was famously made more slender by GQ in 2003.

At least the princess is in right royal company then.

Indeed. Photo above from Google Images.

2) JG asks about the “posting a gratuitous pic.” Well, the context here is that adding pictures to posts is a good thing. I, and other authors, should do it more often. Having decided to add a photo of Princess Eugenie, which one should I select? Given the choices available from Google, I would say that the one I choose was, at first glance, the best since a) she is wearing purple, b) it is a posed, professional, high quality photograph and c) rather than a paparazzi shot taken without her permission, the Princess must have consented to Tattler using that photo. When in doubt, I prefer to allow people to present themselves as they wish to. What criteria would critics use instead?

3) InvisibleMom’10 writes:

If Fergie was under the impression that this idyllic, yet remote academic institution, would provide Eugenie with privacy, one look at EphBlog and she’d know the truth.

That’s right. Nasty old EphBlog is the sort of place that would republish the photo that you posed for and which appeared on the cover of a national magazine. We are eeeevil. As eyetoldyouso comments:

I am not sure posting a cover photo from a magazine with a 300 year history and a current circulation of around 90,000 constitutes an invasion of privacy. I think, but would not know, that you pose for covers because you want people to look at you.


4) sophmom adds:

Why is there a photo of the daughter posted? Because DK thinks she might be the one considering Williams?

The story is fun and amusing, but posting the photo is going too far.

My guess is that it is Eugenie who is considering Williams. Her elder sister Beatrice is already in college. The Princess seems to have the intellectual chops and interest in art history that would make Williams a natural fit. Since she the plan seems to have been for her to start college in the fall of 2009, she may already be a member of the class of 2013. You read it on EphBlog first.

What policy would Sophmom (or anyone else) propose for posting photos? The Princess is a 19 years-old famous public figure, 6th in line to the thrown of England. She has had her photo taken literally millions of times. She posed for Tattler. If I can’t use that photo, is there any photo that I can use?

Without directing this comment toward any reader in particular, let me just say that the whole discussion reminds me of the commentary surrounding the Vanity Fair photo of Erin Burnett ’98. In both cases, we have highly intelligent and attractive women who have chosen how they want to present themselves to the world. Why don’t we grant them the respect they deserve? Why attack me for posting photos that were clearly meant, by both women, to be seen far and wide?

Now, of course, there is some chance that neither Burnett nor Eugenie wanted to present themselves in this fashion. Perhaps they were tricked by the photographer. Perhaps they were misled by the publication. Eugenie, after all, was only 17 at the time the cover photo was taken. Yet, I highly doubt that that’s what happened. Burnett and Eugenie have advisers and staff. They almost certainly retained veto rights over the photos. It was almost certainly a collaborative effort. We are viewing the photos that they wanted us to view.

So why is everyone mad at me?

Print  •  Email