This Is Wild — Supposed ‘British Royal Expert’ Exposed As Fraud, Turns Out To Be ‘Tommy From Upstate New York’ With Phony Posh Accent!
June 3, 2018The royal wedding brought out every single British royal expert and ex-pat from around the globe to talk Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, but it also evidently brought out at least one MAJOR fraud… and the Wall Street Journalis intent on exposing it!
A man reportedly named Thomas Mace-Archer-Mills, Esq. was going around ahead of the royal wedding the last few months giving a variety of interviews to TV outlets.
He had been billing himself as the 'Chairman of the British Monarchist Society' and he's apparently been speaking about royal etiquette, British nobility and more on TV for YEARS, all delivered "in his post English accent."
Related: Meghan Markle 'Draws A Lot Of Strength' From Her Mom!
There's only one problem, as the WSJ found out recently… "Thomas" is actually Tommy Muscatello, an American born of Italian heritage and living his life in upstate New York with NO connections to the United Kingdom.
Oops!! Busted!!!
After Muscatello was outed, he claimed to the Journal that he picked up the British accent in high school during a drama production of Oliver!, and just stuck with it.
LOLz!!! Seriously.
Eventually, he created the full-on "Thomas" character around it, and started giving TV interviews as those he were an expert on high-society in Britain, and other shit like that.
This is wild!!!
Related: Meghan & Harry's Surprising Honeymoon!
One of the shows he appeared on as a royal expert, Comedy Central's Jim Jefferies Show, realized their mistake and had a little light-hearted fun with it in a statement to the media (below):
"If we had any journalistic standards, we imagine we'd be quite upset by this news."
LMAO!
But others are taking this seriously…
Muscatello, for one, says he was duped by WSJ on the initial premise of the interview itself, and he has since released his own statement to the media after being discovered as a fraud, saying (below):
"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."
Hmmm…
The Journal stands behind its story… which is unfortunately behind a paywall, but if you have a subscription, you should read the whole thing HERE.
Unbelievable!!!
[Image via WENN.]