Duke and Duchess of Cambridge Current Events 1: April 29-November 2011

[shari-aree]

William & Kate's feelings for each other is personal. Your opinion, my opinion and everyone else's who don't know them personally are speculative at best. From my personal point of view, I find no reason to suspect that William isn't in love and completely devoted to his new wife. I think they are carrying themselves with good grace, class, discretion and dignity befit of their future roles.

... May I say that you have responded also in good grace and with class, I very much like your post and believe that it sums up the feelings on many many people, Thank you.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

If it was my own private time, and I wanted to take a walk in a beautiful park with my other half without being hassled by the press taking photos from bushes, I'd take a large black umbrella with me. If I spotted cameras, I'd hoist the umbrella in that direction. It would ruin any good photos.
The couple need to develop some easy creative ways to foil good photos

Thats a no-no for William & Kate in their position. They need the media for survival and cannot afford to annoy them in such "normal" situations in public places.
It is well known that especially Charles & William loathe the media and they are already on the edge within their boundaries of what can be done to avoid them, cant go any further without threatening their own position.
Just imagine William came out with a black umbrella every time he is "private", public opinion would turn against him very quickly.

 

[Tyger]

This conversation reminds me of something Betty Ford said. She was the wife of the late President Gerald Ford. Betty Ford died a month ago. She had been a very beautiful young woman who was a model in her youth. She understood what was needed from her as the wife of a congressman, as a newlywed and later. That being said, still she said this - clearly there are points when the 'pressing in' is felt as intolerable -

Betty Ford Quote -
“From the outside, our life looked like a Norman Rockwell illustration,” Mrs. Ford said at one point. Nevertheless, by 1962, she was seeing a psychiatrist twice a week because, as she put it, “I’d lost my feeling of self-worth.”

“I think a lot of women go through this,” she said. “Their husbands have fascinating jobs, their children start to turn into independent people and the women begin to feel useless, empty.”

Later, when she accompanied her husband on campaign trips more frequently, she acknowledged that that, too, was not all fun. At one point, she recalled, she was in an airport and “through clenched teeth said: ‘I don’t want anyone to come over and talk to me. I just want to sit here all alone and finish this cigarette.’ ”

I think the inability of some well-known people from whatever walk of life to have the ability to go about their business without comment or fear of being told about to the press puts them in an intolerable life condition.

I was raised in New England USA and grew up in a small town that had scads of well known people living there and/or passing through. No one treated them anyway but as regular folks. Once a well known actor who raised his family in the town gave an interview in which he commented on the fact that he could sit at a cafe table out in the open and not one person would give him a second look. He indicated that having that freedom was precious to him.

 

[figtreecrossing]

Thats a no-no for William & Kate in their position. They need the media for survival and cannot afford to annoy them in such "normal" situations in public places.
It is well known that especially Charles & William loathe the media and they are already on the edge within their boundaries of what can be done to avoid them, cant go any further without threatening their own position.
Just imagine William came out with a black umbrella every time he is "private", public opinion would turn against him very quickly.

I do get your point about the look of the black umbrella but do you know what it sounds like you're describing?
A relationship of co-dependancy between the Royals and the Press.
If that is the case it doesn't sound healthy

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

I do get your point about the look of the black umbrella but do you know what it sounds like you're describing?
A relationship of co-dependancy between the Royals and the Press.
If that is the case it doesn't sound healthy

but it is the truth. royals depend on public opinion and the media have huge impact on public opinion. there are deals going on all the time, eg william being left alone during uni in exchange for exclusives from time to time, two other examples for media influencing public opinion is prince andrew resigning as foreign business embassador or camilla not attending the diana memorial.
there are certain boundaries that are better not overstepped, for the media but as well for the royals. black umbrellas in order to prevent photos on private occasions on public grounds would be one, for certain.

 

[CrownPrincess5]

Thats a no-no for William & Kate in their position. They need the media for survival and cannot afford to annoy them in such "normal" situations in public places.
It is well known that especially Charles & William loathe the media and they are already on the edge within their boundaries of what can be done to avoid them, cant go any further without threatening their own position.
Just imagine William came out with a black umbrella every time he is "private", public opinion would turn against him very quickly.

I agree.
The media is important for royals and celebrities alike. I can't remember his name but there was a particular celebrity who was hassled by the press day and night. He eventually fended off and annoyed the press and media boycotted him, they didn't take his pictures anymore and he went downhill from there.

William and Kate do not like it but they have to tolerate it. It's a give and take situation. The press is vital for their survival.

 

[Tyger]

William and Kate do not like it but they have to tolerate it. It's a give and take situation. The press is vital for their survival.

I don't think anyone has the 'right' to intrude, to strip someone of their privacy.

If the press is vital for their 'survival' - in what way? - then its not worth surviving - whatever it is. Who the heck cares what 'the press' thinks?

Other monarchies are able to have daily going-about-their-business lives. The Swedish King and Queen apparently went food shopping every Sunday afternoon as their children were growing - what an image of normalcy and saneness - family life in full view and without intrusion.

The concern will always be the corrosive nature on the psyche of those being subjected to such unrelenting scrutiny. 'The public' has a 'right' to the protocol and ceremony - but since when did it become a 'right' to the personal, every day 24/7?

 

[SF_49ers]

I don't think anyone has the 'right' to intrude, to strip someone of their privacy.

If the press is vital for their 'survival' - in what way? - then its not worth surviving - whatever it is. Who the heck cares what 'the press' thinks?

Other monarchies are able to have daily going-about-their-business lives. The Swedish King and Queen apparently went food shopping every Sunday afternoon as their children were growing - what an image of normalcy and saneness - family life in full view and without intrusion.

The concern will always be the corrosive nature on the psyche of those being subjected to such unrelenting scrutiny. 'The public' has a 'right' to the protocol and ceremony - but since when did it become a 'right' to the personal, every day 24/7?

I agree...

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Other monarchies are able to have daily going-about-their-business lives. The Swedish King and Queen apparently went food shopping every Sunday afternoon as their children were growing - what an image of normalcy and saneness - family life in full view and without intrusion.

The concern will always be the corrosive nature on the psyche of those being subjected to such unrelenting scrutiny. 'The public' has a 'right' to the protocol and ceremony - but since when did it become a 'right' to the personal, every day 24/7?

When was that? In the 1980ies? Media world has changed since then and its not about the royal good guys and the media bad guys. Royals use the media for their own purposes as much as the media uses the royals for their purposes.

Back to William & Kate - they have been courting the media to the full eg during their trip to Canada & the US, they got all the nice & sugary coverage, very good for their image, and in return they will have to take in to be photographed while taking a walk or grocery shopping. Its a business deal, no harm on either side.

Of course they would like to be photographed only when they like and the media only coming up with pre-approved stories but those times when royals were untouchable are thankfully over.

 

[CrownPrincess5]

I don't think anyone has the 'right' to intrude, to strip someone of their privacy.

If the press is vital for their 'survival' - in what way? - then its not worth surviving - whatever it is. Who the heck cares what 'the press' thinks?

Other monarchies are able to have daily going-about-their-business lives. The Swedish King and Queen apparently went food shopping every Sunday afternoon as their children were growing - what an image of normalcy and saneness - family life in full view and without intrusion.

The concern will always be the corrosive nature on the psyche of those being subjected to such unrelenting scrutiny. 'The public' has a 'right' to the protocol and ceremony - but since when did it become a 'right' to the personal, every day 24/7?

I'm sorry but what year are you living in? We're far away from the 70s and 80s. I agree that they need a certain amount of privacy. But how much privacy you expect them to get when they're strolling outside in the public? If they want true privacy then I say stay at home. Will and Kate are smarter than people think. They know what theyre doing. I just don't get why everyone feels sorry for them. I guarantee they don't feel sorry for themselves.

When was that? In the 1980ies? Media world has changed since then and its not about the royal good guys and the media bad guys. Royals use the media for their own purposes as much as the media uses the royals for their purposes.

Back to William & Kate - they have been courting the media to the full eg during their trip to Canada & the US, they got all the nice & sugary coverage, very good for their image, and in return they will have to take in to be photographed while taking a walk or grocery shopping. Its a business deal, no harm on either side.

Of course they would like to be photographed only when they like and the media only coming up with pre-approved stories but those times when royals were untouchable are thankfully over.

Exactly!

 

[camelot23ca]

The interesting thing to me will be how they handle things when they have a baby. There's going to be a massive amount of interest in that child growing up. I expect William and Kate will want something similar to the deal that was put in place for William and Harry after their mother died - leave them alone in school, etc in exchange for a certain number of photo ops and interviews.

The British royals aren't entirely independent of the media but they're certainly not in the same position as some B list celebrity. They have a lot more clout, they don't depend on non stop media coverage for their livelihood and the law appears to be on their side if they reach their limit. The press may not like all the limits that are set, but the press is not all powerful, either.

 

[Skippy]

The interesting thing to me will be how they handle things when they have a baby. There's going to be a massive amount of interest in that child growing up. I expect William and Kate will want something similar to the deal that was put in place for William and Harry after their mother died - leave them alone in school, etc in exchange for a certain number of photo ops and interviews.

The British royals aren't entirely independent of the media but they're certainly not in the same position as some B list celebrity. They have a lot more clout, they don't depend on non stop media coverage for their livelihood and the law appears to be on their side if they reach their limit. The press may not like all the limits that are set, but the press is not all powerful, either.

Exactly - so to say that the royals need the media for survival is an exaggeration, in my opinion. They are not all ashes and dust without.

The media favouritism is changing continually, some might last longer than others, but it is not permanent so if one would be dependent on the media I would declare that a very unhealthy case.

 

[Tyger]

When was that? In the 1980ies?

Not so very long ago - in the 1980's and 1990's - during the era of Charles and Diana, et al., in fact. Apparently the whole family went on the shopping trips - and the Queen then cooked Sunday supper. Sounds very sweet - the Queen talked about it in an interview.

Media world has changed since then and its not about the royal good guys and the media bad guys.

Yes and no. Its about cultural or societal standards of behavior toward a country's royalty - how they are treated, respected, allowed to be in their lives. If one wants more normal, sane and balanced royals this kind of boundary would foment that.

Royals use the media for their own purposes as much as the media uses the royals for their purposes.

What are the purposes the royals use media for? I know the media use them for money.

If you're talking about the charity stuff, I personally think that raison d'etre has gone too far. Its quite one thing to go about it in one's own backyard - helping out one's subjects, noblesse oblige and all that - quite another to start imagining relevance beyond one's own turf. that's when it starts getting squirrelly.

Back to William & Kate - they have been courting the media to the full eg during their trip to Canada & the US

You're right there - especially coming to LA.

they got all the nice & sugary coverage, very good for their image

There I would agree and actually the LA visit was an eye opener. The polite little articles on the visit were pure PR and bore no resemblance to their often uncomfortable 'progress' among the US common folk. They would have been better to have ended their official trip in Canada - then popped down to LA on the quiet, showing up only at the BAFTAS. As it was they over-taxed themselves (Kate certainly) and created an unfortunate impression.

and in return they will have to take in to be photographed while taking a walk or grocery shopping. Its a business deal, no harm on either side.

I disagree there's no harm. The harm is happening. I see it.

I don't agree its a business deal - are they making money? William and Kate have a formal role they discharged in Canada as members of the BRF. I would say the 'deal' is between the BRF and the press or their subjects.

Of course they would like to be photographed only when they like and the media only coming up with pre-approved stories but those times when royals were untouchable are thankfully over.

I wouldn't say thankfully. I think it might be a good time to re-visit the 'old days' of protocol - or one is going to find the situation rife with looney-toons happening with regularity.

In fact if there is any argument that is persuasive for the Commonwealth countries abolishing the British Monarch as their Head of State it is the low grade media/royal hand-in-glove arrangement. Sadly, the BRF no longer has an impeccable reputation in deportment (and I'm not alluding to Charles - Charles has done fine). It is the overly personal nature of the monarchy or the realtionship to the monarchy - too emotional abetted by the British press, that is the 'deal' that will ultimately unravel the BRF's existence IMO.

I think I read on the threads about the Danish Royalty that there is an agreement amongst the press regarding pictures and when and how and what is photographed and said. I think that's a good boundary.

 

[shari-aree]

When was that? In the 1980ies? Media world has changed since then and its not about the royal good guys and the media bad guys. Royals use the media for their own purposes as much as the media uses the royals for their purposes.

Back to William & Kate - they have been courting the media to the full eg during their trip to Canada & the US, they got all the nice & sugary coverage, very good for their image, and in return they will have to take in to be photographed while taking a walk or grocery shopping. Its a business deal, no harm on either side.

Of course they would like to be photographed only when they like and the media only coming up with pre-approved stories but those times when royals were untouchable are thankfully over.

I like your reponse.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

What are the purposes the royals use media for? I know the media use them for money.

to get a nice, clean and useful image - see the recent Wills'n'Kate charm offensive.

 

[figtreecrossing]

to get a nice, clean and useful image - see the recent Wills'n'Kate charm offensive.

And the cost, what is the cost of this co-dependancy with the press to the Royal Family?

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

And the cost, what is the cost of this co-dependancy with the press to the Royal Family?

Being photographed in situations they'd rather not be photographed, for example.

 

[figtreecrossing]

Being photographed in situations they'd rather not be photographed, for example.

That's right, fudged boundaries.
It's the lack of healthy boundaries which has birthed harassment, cell phone hacking, exposure of the personal details of their lives, death if you include lack of boundaries for the death of the Princess of Wales.
I don't know how long the Family will be prepared to pay this cost.

 

[muriel]

Whilst all this debate is very interesting, I really do think it is premature. I am not convinced the photos of W&C in Holyrood park necessarily show them as being annoyed, or that they find the press intrusive. I think they are quite adept at managing the Press themselves.

 

[figtreecrossing]

Whilst all this debate is very interesting, I really do think it is premature. I am not convinced the photos of W&C in Holyrood park necessarily show them as being annoyed, or that they find the press intrusive. I think they are quite adept at managing the Press themselves.

Respectfully Muriel, I believe this is more than Prince William and Catherine's current events.
As has been pointed out in earlier posts, the times and the "rules" have been changing rapidly since the 90's.
The government funding of security is dwindling to the point where members of the Family are set to be loose their protection. Private families, non-royals who are related to the members of the Family by marriage, are being forced to take legal measures against photographers pursuing them for photos.
It's more than a temporary annoyance on a walk in the park.
Someone one day has to call the bluff of the press. I believe William and Harry are the men with the mettle to do it.
William and Catherine are a fine couple, I believe they were born for such a time as this. Made of true Kingly material.
They don't "need" the press, the press needs them. It's a matter of courage and believing in themselves to be the head and not the tail.
I hope I'll still be around to see it happen. We will be proud of them. We certainly won't forget about them and I wager the press will fall in line eventually.

 

[Osipi]

.Someone one day has to call the bluff of the press. I believe William and Harry are the men with the mettle to do it. William and Catherine are a fine couple, I believe they were born for such a time as this. Made of true Kingly material.
They don't "need" the press, the press needs them. It's a matter of courage and believing in themselves to be the head and not the tail.
I hope I'll still be around to see it happen. We will be proud of them. We certainly won't forget about them and I wager the press will fall in line eventually.

What I am hoping is that as the public wakes up to what means some tabloids such as the News of the World employ to give the public sensationalistic scandals and the public tire of second rate reality type shows, there will be a trend back towards responsible journalism. Oh wait. I had my rose colored glasses on while typing that.

I agree that both William and Harry realize all too much what the press is like and its been stated many times that William has a very low opinion of them in general. I'd seriously hate to be someone that crosses the line with them two as I really don't think they would show mercy to anyone that overstepped their boundaries.

There are some areas that I really wish wouldn't have changed so much with the times and the media is one of them. As much as the instant information can be such an asset, there are really times I wish we could turn the clock back to the 1960s where even mentioning a W.C. in a joke on television would get censored and the press had respect for people's personal and private lives.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Someone one day has to call the bluff of the press. I believe William and Harry are the men with the mettle to do it.
William and Catherine are a fine couple, I believe they were born for such a time as this. Made of true Kingly material.
They don't "need" the press, the press needs them. It's a matter of courage and believing in themselves to be the head and not the tail.
I hope I'll still be around to see it happen. We will be proud of them. We certainly won't forget about them and I wager the press will fall in line eventually.

I am not sure what you are talking about? Special private law for royals = censorship?
Without the press, the royals eventually become nobody and will eventually be abolished because the public has lost interest.
Who is it who feeds the interest in the royals, especially the young generation = William & Kate:
Is it William & Kate themselves who create interest by doing such terrific duty to their country or is it rather the media who create interest by distributing all these nice pictures of the handsome couple, Kate's beautiful clothes etc.?
Its rather the media creating the interest and I am inclined to say that the royals need the media more than the media needs the royals since the media still have the celebrities people are interested in, not much different from the young royal generation by the way.

Just to add - nobody is approving of any crimial behaviour a la news of the world, phone tapping etc but a private stroll in a public park remains a perfectly legal target for photographers.

 

[Skippy]

I think I read on the threads about the Danish Royalty that there is an agreement amongst the press regarding pictures and when and how and what is photographed and said. I think that's a good boundary.

We have that agreement in the Netherlands also - there is the 'Media Code': a photoshoot is arranged twice a year and for the rest we don't see the royals in private time. Working visits are documented, but the intrusion in their privacy has rapidly decreased. Before the media code, there were much more photos around. Not not so much.

to get a nice, clean and useful image - see the recent Wills'n'Kate charm offensive.

Oh please, give me a break... You sound like there is nothing sincere in this whole thing.

I am not sure what you are talking about? Special private law for royals = censorship?
Without the press, the royals eventually become nobody and will eventually be abolished because the public has lost interest.
Who is it who feeds the interest in the royals, especially the young generation = William & Kate:
Is it William & Kate themselves who create interest by doing such terrific duty to their country or is it rather the media who create interest by distributing all these nice pictures of the handsome couple, Kate's beautiful clothes etc.?
Its rather the media creating the interest and I am inclined to say that the royals need the media more than the media needs the royals since the media still have the celebrities people are interested in, not much different from the young royal generation by the way.

Just to add - nobody is approving of any crimial behaviour a la news of the world, phone tapping etc but a private stroll in a public park remains a perfectly legal target for photographers.

You have an interesting way to look at this and that is the last thing I say about it.

 

[Duchess of Durham]

I am not sure what you are talking about? Special private law for royals = censorship?
Without the press, the royals eventually become nobody and will eventually be abolished because the public has lost interest.
Who is it who feeds the interest in the royals, especially the young generation = William & Kate:
Is it William & Kate themselves who create interest by doing such terrific duty to their country or is it rather the media who create interest by distributing all these nice pictures of the handsome couple, Kate's beautiful clothes etc.?
Its rather the media creating the interest and I am inclined to say that the royals need the media more than the media needs the royals since the media still have the celebrities people are interested in, not much different from the young royal generation by the way.

Just to add - nobody is approving of any crimial behaviour a la news of the world, phone tapping etc but a private stroll in a public park remains a perfectly legal target for photographers.

Special laws for royals does not equal censorship.

There are "special laws" for kids, granted it's not about taking pictures. But it is about their safety, which is what special laws for the royals would be too.

 

[ladongas]

We really have no idea...

...about the pictures taken in the Park. Could have been telephoto lens, and W&K had no idea they were being photographed. As to the expressions on their faces, maybe they were having a little discussion:

K: "You were so embarrassing last night, so drunk, singing karaoke!"

W: "Aw, babykins, give me a break. A guys gotta have a little fun sometimes."
'
K: "But did you have to dirty dance with that actress?"

W: "I'm terribly sorry. I don't remember that part of the evening. Zara should've never had that vodka fountain."

 

[camelot23ca]

What I am hoping is that as the public wakes up to what means some tabloids such as the News of the World employ to give the public sensationalistic scandals and the public tire of second rate reality type shows, there will be a trend back towards responsible journalism. Oh wait. I had my rose colored glasses on while typing that.

Maybe not entirely unrealistic for certain limited situations, though. IMO, the deal to leave William and Harry basically alone until they finished school would not have been adhered to so well by the press if they, (the press), hadn't been so roundly blamed for contributing to Diana's death. The opinion of the public towards the press after Diana died was low enough to actually cow them a bit and make them willingly act with a bit of self restraint. The royal household knew they were in a position of strength and took advantage of it to William and Harry's benefit.

I think this most recent press scandal has disgusted a lot of people, or at least confirmed the suspicions they already had about a good portion of today's media. I'm guessing a poll done today in Britain would show that the public neither likes nor trusts the media.... not exactly a strong bargaining position should the royals and their team decide to set more stringent limits. And I also think the idea of Diana being "hunted" to death by the media is still a fairly powerful one with a lot of people, (although not a strictly accurate one).

 

[Tyger]

...about the pictures taken in the Park. Could have been telephoto lens, and W&K had no idea they were being photographed. As to the expressions on their faces, maybe they were having a little discussion:

K: "You were so embarrassing last night, so drunk, singing karaoke!"

W: "Aw, babykins, give me a break. A guys gotta have a little fun sometimes."
'
K: "But did you have to dirty dance with that actress?"

W: "I'm terribly sorry. I don't remember that part of the evening. Zara should've never had that vodka fountain."

 

[Daria_S]

That's great!

 

[Baroness of Books]

LOL, that is priceless! And how can we know that a similar conversation didn't take place, unless there were lip readers also lurking in the bushes?

 

[Zonk]

Okay time to move on.........