Camilla and The Public

[cepe]

Scooter is right. The press could care less about Camilla. It is neither pro nor anti. Kate gets the attention when there is any. Camilla is a non-entity here.

Ive seen pix of the front page of the Globe and that is definitely anti-Camilla.

This is so funny

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BtBsjjxIUAAZtFt.jpg

 

[Queen Camilla]

Wrong.
The Globe has it's weekly front page cover of anti-Camilla. The other tabloids have several covers a year.

Last week was the first time I actually saw a hard copy of the Globe. It was at Walgreen's. I was extremely disappointed that Walgreen's carried this rag.

 

[scooter]

Are you under the impression that the Globe or the National Enquirer is the same as the New York Times? You can't compare the 'front page' ;which Queen Camilla I would hope you are aware of.

 

[scooter]

That's extremely harsh

I'm not going to debate the soap opera with you because this isn't the place, but since marrying Charles, what has Camilla done that could possibly make her unappealing to even the most passionate of Diana's admirers? I don't want to hear about the 70's, the 80's, the 90's, or the years between the death and the wedding. I want to hear about Camilla's time as The Duchess of Cornwall, because that is what this thread is about. She has been an exemplary representitive of The British Royal Family, and will be a wonderful Consort. You can hold the view that she was the only problem Diana ever had, for all I care, but your assertion that her warmth and work ethic haven't won you over can't go without elaboration.

Apparently you ARE willing to 'debate the soap opera'.

 

[Ish]

I googled "the Globe covers," went to images and found covers with the following headlines:

"Charles flees raging Camilla: 'I'm a battered husband,' he sobs" with the add on "$250m divorce back on!"

"Queen dying!
•Sick and fading fast - what's wrong!
•Camilla's evil plot to seize Throne
•What will happen to William & Kate?"

"Cam and Kate wedding disaster
•Shocking rehab drama
•Camilla's ugly fight with bride"

"Bitter palace showdown: Kate wins!: Go to hell, she tells Camilla"

"Evil Camilla renews bitter battle for Throne"

"Royal family split: William orders Charles: 'Keep evil Camilla away from Kate!'" with the add on "Charles rages 'Kate must respect Camilla!'"

"It's official! Queen Kate!: Why this photo destroyed evil Camilla's dream"

"Boozing Camilla breaks down"

"After a bitter fight with Kate Camilla storms out!: She's fleeing to America and demanding $20 million home here" plus "She won't accept Kate as Queen"

And, the royal baby exclusive, "Cruel Camilla humiliates grandpa Charles"

That's just the front page headlines from one American magazine in one quick google search (I spent more time typing out the headlines than looking for them).

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I recently heard of an article talking about how Camilla won the publics heart. Also there are frequent articles when she and Charles go to events and on tours. It is not a lot but they do pop up. The media is agist and shallow; Camilla and Charles are old and unattractive so they aren't focused on much by the media. But when they are it doesn't seem negative.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

None of the royals are covered much in the reputable papers or media in the U.S. - except for the current Georgemania, and before that the royal wedding, and the Harry in Vegas thing. In the U.S. we don't, as a collective, see the royals as anything but celebrities, therefore we only hear about them when they cause sensations. Our "information" about Camilla comes from the tabloids.

Probably the last time the reputable media reported on Camilla was when she lost her brother, and this most likely was due to the fact that he died in New York.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Is the Globe an American publication? I thought it was a Murdoch tabloid that was only distributed in the U.S., not published here? Maybe I've got it confused.

Anyway, Australian born Murdoch is a virulent Republican. His contempt for the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall comes through loud and clear. But in American rags like the Enquirer, US magazine, and People, the coverage of Camilla(when it exists at all, as COUNTESS pointed out she is pretty much ignored here) is pretty even.

Most of the ink goes to William/Kate/George/Harry.

 

[Ish]

Are you under the impression that the Globe or the National Enquirer is the same as the New York Times? You can't compare the 'front page' ;which Queen Camilla I would hope you are aware of.

This isn't a comparison though. You and Countess are claiming that there is no coverage of Camilla at all. We've provided evidence that that simply isn't true. The tabloids are covering her regularly, and typically from an anti-Camilla stance. I wouldn't be surprised if other papers covered her when she's in the US or even in Canada, but I'd have to do more of a search for it.

 

[COUNTESS]

Those are not tabloids in my opinion. I didn't even know the Globe existed. I knew of the National Enquirer, but always thought it was a joke to entertain people. Years ago it said Saadam Hussien retired in New Jersey and I noticed that when checking out of the supermarket and laughed. How can you call this crap coverage? I never saw anyone buy one, but they must. The New York Post is what I call a tabloid. I have no idea what they do either. But they are a newspaper. This coverage here is not really noticed. If she went door to door in most places, no one would know who she was.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

Those are not tabloids in my opinion. I didn't even know the Globe existed. I knew of the National Enquirer, but always thought it was a joke to entertain people. Years ago it said Saadam Hussien retired in New Jersey and I noticed that when checking out of the supermarket and laughed. How can you call this crap coverage? I never saw anyone buy one, but they must. The New York Post is what I call a tabloid. I have no idea what they do either. But they are a newspaper. This coverage here is not really noticed. If she went door to door in most places, no one would know who she was.

You're right about that - most people would either not notice or or realize they know her from somewhere but not really be able to place her.

 

[Duchess of Durham]

Those are not tabloids in my opinion. I didn't even know the Globe existed. I knew of the National Enquirer, but always thought it was a joke to entertain people. Years ago it said Saadam Hussien retired in New Jersey and I noticed that when checking out of the supermarket and laughed. How can you call this crap coverage? I never saw anyone buy one, but they must. The New York Post is what I call a tabloid. I have no idea what they do either. But they are a newspaper. This coverage here is not really noticed. If she went door to door in most places, no one would know who she was.

If she knocked on my door I would invite her in for tea and milk, or something stronger.

 

[TLLK]

None of the royals are covered much in the reputable papers or media in the U.S. - except for the current Georgemania, and before that the royal wedding, and the Harry in Vegas thing. In the U.S. we don't, as a collective, see the royals as anything but celebrities, therefore we only hear about them when they cause sensations. Our "information" about Camilla comes from the tabloids.

Probably the last time the reputable media reported on Camilla was when she lost her brother, and this most likely was due to the fact that he died in New York.

Other royals typically would receive a photo and a brief column about a wedding from the Los Angeles Times.

 

[muriel]

Please. There is no Camilla press at all here!

Scooter is right. The press could care less about Camilla. It is neither pro nor anti. Kate gets the attention when there is any. Camilla is a non-entity here.

The lack of coverage about Camilla in the US is not really a particular concern for the BRF. The US domestic audience are of little consequence to how the future Queen of the GB may be perceived.

 

[wyevale]

The US domestic audience are of little consequence to how the future Queen of GB may be perceived.

I would go further.. they are of NO consequence whatsoever..

 

[Pranter]

Out of all the people I know, friends, casual aquaintences, close family members etc...I am the only one who knows anything about the royal family (any royal family) past that some of them prob know who Queen Elizabeth is, will have heard of Diana and her boys (William's marriage, Kate and George) and maybe might recall Prince Charles....nothing else at all....and a few of them won't even know those basics.

None of them care anything about it. People think I am weird when I get trivia questions about Diana (et al) right when playing one of those trivial pursuit types of games.

LaRae

 

[Pranter]

Oh and, I only know one person who buys those tabloid types of magazines (Star)...don't know how they stay in business really but I suppose someone buys them.


LaRae

 

[MARG]

Well you've got to have something to wrap the fish and chips in!

 

[Pranter]

If only we had real Fish and Chips here! That would give me a reason to buy those magazines!!


LaRae

 

[Dman]

The American people know a great deal about the British royal family and welcome the senior and popular royals with open arms whenever they visit. The American people like to downplay their royal interest but that interest comes out when the royals come to visit, there's a royal wedding coming up, a major State funeral or Coronation. There was an American audience for the 1953 Coronation but it's going to be even bigger and much larger scale for Charles's future Coronation and William's (God's willing).

The American public opinion on Charles & Camilla must meant a little something for the very first overseas trip Charles & Camilla made after their controversial wedding was to the United States. They were officially welcomed to the United States by President & Mrs. Bush. I were part of the many people who stayed tune to the C-SPAN coverage of their visit and the media went nuts of the coverage as well.

A great deal of the American people not only like The Queen and some members of the royal family but show a great deal of respect for them.

 

[muriel]

The American public opinion on Charles & Camilla must meant a little something for the very first overseas trip Charles & Camilla made after their controversial wedding was to the United States. They were officially welcomed to the United States by President & Mrs. Bush. I were part of the many people who stayed tune to the C-SPAN coverage of their visit and the media went nuts of the coverage as well.

A great deal of the American people not only like The Queen and some members of the royal family but show a great deal of respect for them.

Prince Charles' trip to the US had been planned well before his wedding to Camilla. Camilla was added to the schedule subsequently.

 

[teeyah]

The lack of coverage about Camilla in the US is not really a particular concern for the BRF. The US domestic audience are of little consequence to how the future Queen of the GB may be perceived

You've said it all, and I'm agreeing with you as someone who lives in the US

 

[cdngirl]

Clarence House ‏@ClarenceHouse 3m
The Duchess of Cornwall is surrounded by people during an impromptu walk on Edinburgh's Royal Mile #TRHScotland pic.twitter.com/x7D3W8oFFn

 

[Dman]

Prince Charles' trip to the US had been planned well before his wedding to Camilla. Camilla was added to the schedule subsequently.

Yeah but it was a great way to introduce Camilla to the American people and the was a great success. The people welcomed them with open arms.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Yeah some people welcomed them, go ask 99% of the American people who Camilla Parker Bowles is and they won't care and won't know. Americans care about celebrity, if they were really into the BRF they would pay more attention to them rather than tuning in every other decade to see a wedding. Kate is all the rage because she is new and pretty, if she looked like Hilary Clinton I doubt she would get as much coverage. The country has been indoctrinated to worship the young pretty and glamorous; some members or the RF fall into that. I don't know why how Camilla is perceived in this country matters, we aren't who she should be worrying about, it's the British and how they view her which matters.
During the world cup a lot of Americans were paying attention to it, but that doesn't mean Americans care about soccer. It's similar with the RF.

 

[Dman]

Yeah some people welcomed them, go ask 99% of the American people who Camilla Parker Bowles is and they won't care and won't know. Americans care about celebrity, if they were really into the BRF they would pay more attention to them rather than tuning in every other decade to see a wedding. Kate is all the rage because she is new and pretty, if she looked like Hilary Clinton I doubt she would get as much coverage. The country has been indoctrinated to worship the young pretty and glamorous; some members or the RF fall into that. I don't know why how Camilla is perceived in this country matters, we aren't who she should be worrying about, it's the British and how they view her which matters.

American's my age and over know who Camilla is because of her past and the part she played in the Charles & Diana saga. There's a great deal of American's who do pay attention to the popular royals and whenever there's a royal wedding, jubilee, funeral, royal visit or whatever, the American people are interested. From what I've seen, some American's try to downplay their interest in the British royals because some find it embarrassing to be found having an interest in royalty.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Yeah some people welcomed them, go ask 99% of the American people who Camilla Parker Bowles is and they won't care and won't know. Americans care about celebrity, if they were really into the BRF they would pay more attention to them rather than tuning in every other decade to see a wedding. Kate is all the rage because she is new and pretty, if she looked like Hilary Clinton I doubt she would get as much coverage. The country has been indoctrinated to worship the young pretty and glamorous; some members or the RF fall into that. I don't know why how Camilla is perceived in this country matters, we aren't who she should be worrying about, it's the British and how they view her which matters.

I disagree. There are some things in pop culture in the age of instant news that one cannot avoid knowing. I am not of the older generation and I definitely know who Camilla is. It's why The Globe can put those headlines on their front page.

I just don't think that - while people know about her - they necessarily have an opinion about her. It's like hearing about Carla Brunei - one knows she exists and that she was the French president's wife but there's no passion about her. Why should there be?

Now if one follows royalty that would be another matter - and it's clear there are Americans who follow royalty. That being so, there would likely be opinions pro, con or indifferent regarding her but it's hard to assess statistically.

That's my two cents.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I disagree. There are some things in pop culture in the age of instant news that one cannot avoid knowing. I am not of the older generation and I definitely know who Camilla is. It's why The Globe can put those headlines on their front page.

I just don't think that - while people know about her - they necessarily have an opinion about her. It's like hearing about Carla Brunei - one knows she exists and that she was the French president's wife but there's no passion about her. Why should there be?

Now if one follows royalty that would be another matter - and it's clear there are Americans who follow royalty. That being so, there would likely be opinions pro, con or indifferent regarding her but it's hard to assess statistically.

That's my two cents.

I agree. People know who Camilla is, but they don't feel passionately about her. There is substantial interest in the British royal family in the U.S. Time Magazine would not have run a cover story about Charles a few months ago if they didn't think the American public would know or care about him.

There will be major interest in his coronation when the time comes. There hasn't been a British coronation for more than 60 years.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I'm sorry but those of us on here do not count as the average American, clearly we fare about the Royals because we are on this board. The people you know may recall Camilla but the people I know cannot. They know Diana, William Harry Kate, barely recall Charles, have no idea who his siblings are, know who Queen Elizabeth but couldn't name her husband. I personally saw no coverage of the jubilee only the Olympics, and the last funeral that was mega news was Diana's, The Queen Mothers might have been big, I do believe I saw some coverage but there wasnt much with Margaret's.
Again I will use the soccer analogy, just because it's a big deal at the moment doesn't mean that Americans have all of a sudden started to care about soccer.
Ofor course there is substantial interest but not enough to justify a phrase that the entire country cares about them.

On another note, since when is The Nation Enquire not a tabloid but The New York Post is? I thought NE was the king of US tabloids.
Either way I don't get my news about Camilla from American publications. I get it from the DM site, is that a tabloid rag too? I know it was jokingly called the Di-ly mail by some.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I'm sorry but those of us on here do not count as the average American, clearly we fare about the Royals because we are on this board. The people you know may recall Camilla but the people I know cannot. They know Diana, William Harry Kate, barely recall Charles, have no idea who his siblings are, know who Queen Elizabeth but couldn't name her husband. I personally saw no coverage of the jubilee only the Olympics, and the last funeral that was mega news was Diana's, The Queen Mothers might have been big, I do believe I saw some coverage but there wasnt much with Margaret's.
Again I will use the soccer analogy, just because it's a big deal at the moment doesn't mean that Americans have all of a sudden started to care about soccer.
Ofor course there is substantial interest but not enough to justify a phrase that the entire country cares about them.

On another note, since when is The Nation Enquire not a tabloid but The New York Post is? I thought NE was the king of US tabloids.
Either way I don't get my news about Camilla from American publications. I get it from the DM site, is that a tabloid rag too? I know it was jokingly called the Di-ly mail by some.

The Daily Mail is probably the worst tabloid of all because their trash is hidden but maybe even more poisonous and vitriolic because of that. When you buy The Mirror or The Sun, even a blind can see it is a rag only worth as a bottom for your cat's litter. The Daily Mail presents the most awful gossip with a sauce of credibility and is maybe the most undermining and dangerous paper. The Telegraph, The Independent, The Guardian, The Times are examples of more serious papers but even these haven become victims of the celebbie-fever which engulfs Britain.