Yahoo News I say! 'British' royal expert exposed as New Yorker who 'put on English accent'
A ‘British’ royal expert who commentated on Prince Harry’s and Meghan Markle’s recent wedding to international broadcasters has a big secret.
Thomas J Mace-Archer-Mills Esq, chairman of the British Monarchist Society and Foundation who has an impeccable English accent, is actually an Italian-American Thomas ‘Tommy’ Muscatello, who grew up in New York.
The revelation was made in the Wall Street Journal.
The 38-year-old told the paper that he identified more as being British than American and that he had been obsessed with the UK as a youngster.
Muscatello explained that he had adopted a British accent and started ending conversations by saying ‘God save the Queen’, despite his New York heritage.
The royal enthusiast said he had put together his aristocratic-sounding pseudonym by using ‘names of friends and distant relations’.
During last month’s wedding he appeared on Norwegian TV, telling audiences he hoped that ‘making sure that the traditions and heritage that we have as British people remain at the forefront’ during the celebrations.
He also spoke to US and French broadcasters.
MOST POPULAR TODAY ON YAHOO
Denmark becomes latest European country to BAN the burqa (and all ‘head-covering garments’)
France blocks Britain’s access to EU security system that identifies foreign criminals
Torrential rain, hail and thunderstorms lash Britain with more on the way
Three people charged over ‘suspicious’ death of three-year-old boy
Mr Mace-Archer-Mills is also editor of Crown & Country Magazine and even launched a royal-themed cryptocurrency.
He hit back after he was exposed by claiming the journal’s report was wrong.
‘The Wall Street Journal breached journalistic trust, omitted truths and mis-sold what the initial interview was for,’ he said.
‘Many of the facts in the article are inaccurate and the Wall Street Journal itself was given many opportunities to ensure that the article was published with the most accurate information available. The WSJ chose not to adhere to the facts or their integrity.’
