Another New York Timestweet seems to have died from being ratio-ed into oblivion.

It was there all day yesterday. We all saw it. It linked to a piece written by the great Maggie Haberman (surprise!). It seems like just yesterday Habes was facing a tiny spot of criticism over her constant fawning access journalism as seen in the instant Haberman classic that framed Hope Hicks's decision on whether or not to commit a crime against Congress as some sort of glamorous fashionista white lady coming of age story. Now Haberman has shaken it off and gone on to write some more fawning journalism for the paper of record that doesn't have a public editor because the paper's leadership doesn't think it needs one.

The Times has replaced the tweet, with another tweet that doesn't correct the problem of the first tweet:

And yet that fucking headline is still there!

(And yes, to be clear, we know Maggie Haberman probably rarely if ever writes her own headlines. There's plenty of blame to go around.)

Let us be clear: America does not have a "royal family," though we do have a tradition of elevating certain political dynasties to a semi-royal stature. The Kennedys are an obvious example, as noted in the tweet, and the Bushes also come to mind, not as much as "royals," but more as "people who won't go away." The Trumps do not rise to the level of either.

But yes, let's read an article intended for an audience of one written by Maggie Haberman, who according to her fellow access journalism colleagues is above criticism.

When Queen Elizabeth II welcomed the president on Monday for his first state visit to Britain, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner watched from a Buckingham Palace balcony. Later, at a state banquet, Eric Trump posed for photographs. During dinner, Donald Trump Jr. tucked into a menu including lamb and halibut as Tiffany Trump chatted with the queen's private secretary.

We get it, the entire clan grifted its way on to this trip, even the ones who don't work for the administration but supposedly are stewarding the private Trump business. Also, to a lesser extent, Tiffany.

The Kennedys have long occupied the American political culture as the unofficial royal family, but this week, the Trumps appeared to present themselves as the 2019 version.

And the New York Times is fine with their uncanny valley cosplaying, we guess. Even though this family is clearly reviled by a majority of the American public, and there is no reason to believe they will ever become a political dynasty like the Kennedys, not least because nobody really expects a majority of the family to remain on the outside of prison for that long.

Privately, White House officials say that some of the Trump children, particularly those working in the White House, see themselves this way. One senior official, who did not want to speak publicly about internal planning, said that Mr. Kushner and Ms. Trump in particular had grown more emboldened with their requests to be accommodated at official events.

See, now this is news, albeit a tiny giblet of news buried inside a fluff piece of vomit. Maggie Haberman does uncover interesting information fairly frequently! And then she turns around and is Maggie Haberman.

The rest of the article really isn't that bad, if you take the time to read past the first six or seven ass-licking grafs. Haberman reports on the grunting Trump spawn wrangling to get a place on this trip, and how this really isn't off-brand for them. She tells the story of a bunch of the people Melania Trump invited to the State of the Union address -- you know, the folks who get invited for the photo op, so the president can pretend to have accomplished something by pointing at them -- being shunted down the hall outside the chamber, so that Prince and Princess Dumblefuck, Javanka, and to a lesser extent Tiffany could sit in the box with their doting stepmother.

The article also compares and contrasts the Trumps with previous presidential families where the lesser members were also well-known, like the Roosevelts and the Reagans, and the portrait it paints of the Trump family is one of classlessness and an appalling lack of good breeding.

It's too bad most people will only see the part about how the Trumps are now America's royal family, which it turns out is exactly what they want you to think. Good journalism, New York Times!

Since we're on the subject, we'd be shirking our duty if we didn't note a couple of the latest embarrassments from THE ROYAL FAMILY'S trip to London to see the queen. We've all seen the pics of the dumbfuck male Trumps in their big boy suits that don't fit their admittedly weirdly shaped bodies:

And we've all seen how, despite his best efforts, Junior can still neither stand like a person nor wear clothes correctly.

Ivanka continues to wear only the most ghastly thing she can find on the sale rack from the Ivanka collection at TJ Maxx:

As for Daddy, he has been doing the important work of being Maggie Haberman's King Of America, before he jets off to Ireland to meet with the prime minister in the lounge at the airport, by sending tweets about Bette Midler:

Also he got a present and it was a hat and he will wear his hat present every day and caress it with his tiny paws:

All of this is just too embarrassing for words, and everybody in the UK hates Trump so much they're projecting pictures of USS John McCain hats (and so much more!) onto their buildings just to hurt his feelings, and oh yeah, looks like Princes Harry and William successfully managed to refuse to have their pictures made with Trump, who is reportedly obsessed with winning the approval of the royals.

You know, the real royals.

But sure, New York Times, tell us more about how the Trumps are the new royal family of the Americas. We are sure everyone the Trumps will love it.

[New York Times]

Follow Evan Hurst on Twitter RIGHT HERE, DO IT RIGHT HERE!

Wonkette is ad-free and funded ONLY by YOU, our dear readers. If you love Wonkette, SUPPORT WONKETTE.

How often would you like to donate?

Just once Monthly

Select an amount (USD)

$2$25$5$50$10$100$15$500$20$1000