If any of you have a moment to spare
I’d like you to read something and tell me if you can work out what the point of it is. Because I can’t.
The article is here. Go and read it and then come back. Disclaimer: it’s in the Daily Mail and it was written by Amanda Platell. I will not be responsible for any ill-effects or nausea you suffer as a result of clicking on the link.
Right. Now, I think that the point of the article, if indeed it has a point, is that although Princess Bea is not fat, she should try to lose weight anyway, but only off her thighs, because Amanda Platell doesn’t like the shape of them. But I might be wrong, so if someone else could read it and tell me what on earth the point of this rambling, pointless, vindictive, tedious rubbish is, I’d be most terribly grateful, really.
No, I think that’s just it. Ms Platell thinks she should lose weight…for some reason. She doesn’t like her thighs because…they remind her of her mother? What’s so bad about Fergie that you have to take it out on her daughter’s thighs?
Comment by Charlie — May 1, 2008 @ 10:22 pm
Hmm. I suspect the real point is that AP is contracted to write a column and was running short of material. However, beyond that I’m still trying to work out if this pointless piece of filler is a dig at Bea or actually just another piece of spite aimed at Fergie (who just for the record, I always considered far more attractive and appealing than the mad blonde one).
Or then again, maybe it’s just an excuse to print a photo of Zara (admittedly looking very fetching) in a bikini.
Comment by jd — May 1, 2008 @ 10:32 pm
That’s just mean. Just an excuse to post gratuitous pics of girls in bikinis. Rubbish.
Comment by Clover — May 1, 2008 @ 11:02 pm
Yeh I read this yesterday and thought ‘wtf’ basically. I agree it’s a totally nasty little piece that she try’s to disguise as not really having a dig! Yeh right.
Princess Bea is very refreshing and I love she is so happy in her lovely curvy body, I think the comments indictae we’re not the only ones who thought this!
Comment by Sarah — May 1, 2008 @ 11:26 pm
So many questions arise… Was this article supposed to have a point? I mean, is it supposed to be interesting? Are five screens of ramblings about thighs of interest to anybody? And when was the last time Platell got laid?
On another note, either it’s me or Amanda Platell had no idea what a pear shaped body is like.
Comment by Citronella — May 2, 2008 @ 12:14 am
I am absolutely staggered by the comments from a few, particularly the one from Iowa that stated that her family were all morbidly obese - like Beatrice!
Wtf?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I was under the impression that morbidly obese corresponded to a BMI of over 40. I would guess that Bea’s is in the high 20’s. Where do these people get off?
Comment by Another Wendy — May 2, 2008 @ 7:39 am
So not only does she need to go on a diet…she also needs to not have bodyguards any more because it costs less money a year than Victoria Beckham spends on a shopping trip?
Oh and the mother and daughter WW comment????
I agree WT actual F?
Comment by LizSara — May 2, 2008 @ 7:42 am
I can’t believe such a pointless nasty dig was allowed to be published. I know now what I don’t buy the Daily Mail, and never will.
Comment by Wendy — May 2, 2008 @ 9:08 am
Pure evil bitchery. Someone must have snubbed her recently.
Comment by manda — May 2, 2008 @ 9:09 am
Wtf was the actual point she was making?? Her comment about ‘indeed she ’should’ do something about her thighs’ had me spitting flames! Grrr!
I also fail to see what she was trying to prove in the body comparisons photos. Surely that proves that it’s not what they’re (over)eating but how they’re inherantly(sp) shaped?
Comment by sooz — May 2, 2008 @ 9:24 am
Oh my God. As I read the article I experienced the ‘drop’ that has so inflicted the royal family- my mouth fell wide open. The same paper that regularly blames models for promoting unhealthy body types kindly recommends that a teenage girl adopt a diet and exercise regime because ‘unless she gets her body under control, she’ll have a lifetime of yo-yo dieting and pitiful self-esteem. Just ask Fergie.’ I honestly do not know what to say, except that it is totally irresponsible to suggest that a girl who we know is not overweight (because we have just seen a picture of her in a bikini) should try and lose weight and change her body shape. And don’t even get me started on why we should judge female politicians or professionals according to their appearances… grrrr
Comment by Victoria — May 2, 2008 @ 9:27 am
It is a nasty piece of bile wrapped up in a disingenuous package of faux concern allowing a major media outlet to both run pictures of the rich and famous wearing next to nothing and reinforce the message that we are all inadequate. Business as usual.
Comment by asta — May 2, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
That girls inherit their mother’s genes? Duh?
Comment by AfterGirl — May 2, 2008 @ 2:07 pm
I think the point is that you should struggle against your natural body shape and make yourself unhappy and unhealthy because women ought to hate bodies because if they don’t other women can’t handle it.
What a bitch… at least it would be more honest if she were out-and-out nasty. And the poor girl… it would take more self-confidence not than I have not to get completely screwed up by that kind of stuff. Another reason it’s not sooo bad not to be rich and famous I suppose.
Comment by Eloise — May 2, 2008 @ 3:38 pm
Utter rubbish. Of the photos published the ONLY one that made me wince was of Jerry Hall who looked ill poor woman. I did try to get a point out of the waffle but what I ended up with was:
How comfortable she is with her curves! Which she shouldn’t be, naturally, but hey, it’s all her mother’s fault anyway, and while we’re on the subject those male royals are FUGly aren’t they? Although I did quite fancy them in their time, mind you. So if you’re going to shag a royal try to get at him before age 30. Oh, and lose weight, darlin’ because, I mean… you know.
Comment by Megan — May 2, 2008 @ 6:06 pm
It’s a funny thing. I notice that a lot of Fat Acceptance blogs got wind of the story and headed over there to leave some comments yesterday and today. And what do you know? There are now no comments on the piece at all.
In fact, you can’t even ADD comments.
I think Amanda Platell might be the latest in an ever-growing list of MSM journalists to discover that being a journalist is considerably easier when your audience has no way of answering back…
Comment by Katy — May 2, 2008 @ 6:28 pm
There is no bloody point, apart from a wee bit of jealousy on the journalist’s part. I mean, how dare Princess Beatrice be pretty, priviledged and confident in herself, especially with a mother like she’s got. Quick, lets pick on a random body part to bait her with.
I’d like to see Platell’s thighs. “May she with no thighs cast the first stone”, or whatever.
Utter Tripe.
And I must say that the Duchess of York is also looking pretty fantastic in her halterneck cossie there- go Fergie!
Comment by beakerella — May 2, 2008 @ 7:24 pm
Ditto to all the above.
(Although, I have to admit that I couldn’t bring myself to finish reading the article, because it was too rubbish)
Comment by Clair — May 3, 2008 @ 7:05 am
A classic example of woman’s inhumanity to women. Sad, really.
Comment by Joanie — May 3, 2008 @ 11:46 am
Let me point out the obvious: the piece was in the Daily Mail. That is all.
Comment by non-workingmonkey — May 5, 2008 @ 11:29 am
My comment was deleted too but I was a wee bit rude to Rebecca of Iowa et al so maybe it’s just as well.
I’ve hunted high and low for a picture of 50 year old Amanda Platell’s thighs but it seems that only headshots are allowed. She gets to choose which pictures are in the public domain, you see.
Here’s a picture of her anyway: http://www.thespeakersagency.com/speakerdetail.asp?speaker=409&show=image
Comment by Daisy — May 6, 2008 @ 5:04 pm