Caroline Kennedy, Not QVC, Is Shameless ‘Shill,’ Post Says Now

Last month we wrote a blog about a New York Post gossip item that blasted QVC for selling a costume jewelry replicas of pieces that Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis owned. The nasty Page Six blurb called the baubles “tacky,” “sleazy” and “a ripoff.”

The Post also wrote that Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg had forced the line’s manufacturer, Camrose & Kross of Boonton, N.J., to run a disclaimer saying that the Kennedy family didn’t endorse the collection.

In this particular case, we actually defended QVC. And now it seems that the Post has changed its tune.

The Post changed its tune on QVC Jackie Kennedy jewelry

Last Sunday the paper wrote a brutal story about Caroline, our new ambassador to Japan, headlined “Selling Out Camelot: Caroline Kennedy shamelessly shills her family as she trots off to another non-job.”

“The most shameless huckster of Kennedy’s mythology and memorabilia is Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg,”
the story claimed.

The article charges that Caroline’s public image as the “classy, quiet keeper of the Kennedy legacy” is fake.

“She is a profit-minded serial holder of non-jobs. culminating in her appointment to one of our ultimate non-jobs, ambassador to Japan,” the story said.

The article described in excruciating detail how Caroline and her now-deceased brother, John Jr., auctioned virtually every item in their mom’s estate — event the doors from her White House dressing room. The sale generated a hefty $34.5 million.

Caroline also tried to put the kibosh on sales of Kennedy items put on the marker by other collectors.

And in what seemed like one of the most greedy acts, according to the Post Caroline sold the recorded interviews that historian Arthur Schlesinger conducted with Jackie after JFK’s murder. Those tapes has been sealed, only to be opened 50 years after Jackie’s death.

“The implication was these recordings were part of American history — that they belonged to all of us and would be released for free,” the Post wrote. “But Caroline took those tapes and sold them to her publisher, Hyperion, only 17 years after her mother’s death. The transcripts were packaged with CDs, and Caroline also sold the rights to ABC for a TV special.”

The Post story then talks about the item it ran about Caroline being displeased with the “sleazy” QVC Jackie jewelry line. But the spin is quite different than it was back in August, with Caroline cast s the villain.

The article said that in August, a friend of Caroline’s told the Post that she couldn’t believe that the home shopping network was selling the reproductions.

“Never mind that QVC was able to make copies because Caroline auctioned off Jackie’s jewelry, or that you could buy the stuff at the Kennedy Center’s gift shop, or one of Jackie’s favorite pieces was a fake, three-strand pearl necklace — clearly, peons should not have such easy access to her replicas of her mother’s fakes,” the Post wrote.

The Post accused Caroline of “crying foul whenever she can’t control the narrative or turn a profit herself.”



Tags: , , , , , ,

8 Responses to “Caroline Kennedy, Not QVC, Is Shameless ‘Shill,’ Post Says Now”

  1. Joanie B. Says:

    Hooray for The Post !! I’m delighted that they followed up on the story, and got it right this time.

  2. Helene Says:

    The jewelry was originally sold years ago on HSN before coming to QVC. I was surprised that the family would license something like this as Jackie was always such a private person even though she was always in the public eye. I distinctly remember Philip Kaufman saying the Kennedy Family (Caroline as John Jr was deceased) insisted the jewelry was to be made EXACTLY as her mother’s (obviously done in costume). I assumed that shis meant she had an interest and she received a percentage of the profits from Camrose and Kross.

  3. Sandydc Says:

    It is the Post, after all. Isn’t the first time they’ve changed their tune.

  4. carolyn simpson Says:

    caroline must have made someone at the post very very angry. just another example showing that the pen is mightier than the sword.

  5. Queen Celeste Says:

    Wow is right! I’m sure I remember the vendor saying the collection was sanctioned by the estate and every piece approved by them, at least when the collection was on HSN. The Post’s take on CKS certainly makes for fascinating reading.

    I wonder why this collection is permissible, yet anything to do with Marilyn Monroe must go through the estate, or so I read.

    Thanks very much for the update!

  6. Duchess Says:

    Jackie wore a lot of custom made costume jewelry by choice, Caroline dose not owe anyone a…. WHO! WHAT! or WHY! …. no one knows what understanding or agreement was made between Jackie and her children regarding her belongings, the reproduction of her pieces have made a lot of people happy in a lot of ways, name calling is such a small minded way of expressing your opinion…

  7. Connie Christenson Says:

    I think the reproductions of her (Jackie Kennedy) jewelry is a respectful compliment to her elegance and taste. Many citizens of the United states had a great love for her as our First Lady and I do not see anything sleezy about it.
    Sorry to let the secret out but the very wealthy wear quite a bit of costume jewelry
    and Mrs. Kennedy also wore a lot of fashion/costume jewelry along with very expensive pieces. She wore what was appropriate for the time, place and expectation.
    The pieces I saw on QVC were very nice and the shows were very respectful and the viewers did understand that the Kennedy family was not exploiting their family member and had nothing to do with the shows.

  8. Frances Tornese Says:

    I own many of the Camrose and Kross JBK fashion jewelry. Yes, they are not solid gold and the stones are crystals, but the pieces are not junk or cheap looking. Anyone who says they are cheap or poorly made either never has worn any of them or is not familiar with fashion jewelry at all. QVC and Philip Katz did a fine job of presenting the jewelry. There was nothing disrespectfully done or said on any of the shows.
    As far as Caroline’s involvement or lack of goes, I, also, thought that she was involved. If she wasn’t I am disappointed, BUT I love the pieces anyway and I am happy to have them and wear them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: