Family of Queen Camilla 2: Sep 2022 -

[Healthy Sceptic]

Other authors have written a ton of books on the subject, you're right. But none of them have had the Queen of GB promote their book. Which is an unfair advantage. Camilla should, IMHO, not be promoting commercial ventures of any kind. She should be above this, no other queen has done this AFAIK. And I stand by my comment that it is hypocritical to allow Tom this advantage when others are denied it. It smacks of familial favoritism.

 

[muriel]

Other authors have written a ton of books on the subject, you're right. But none of them have had the Queen of GB promote their book. Which is an unfair advantage. Camilla should, IMHO, not be promoting commercial ventures of any kind. She should be above this, no other queen has done this AFAIK. And I stand by my comment that it is hypocritical to allow Tom this advantage when others are denied it. It smacks of familial favoritism.

Not quite. The Queen is not promoting the book. She is merely present at a private party for the launch of the book of her son. This is not an unfair advantage. Tom is not a member of the RF at all, so no favouritism.

 

[Somebody]

Exactly, Camilla is in no way promoting the book. She is just present at her son’s book launch. Had she been using the royal family’s social media accounts or written a foreword so her name could prominently feature on the cover, she could be said to ‘promote’ the book, now she is just supporting her son in private.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Other authors have written a ton of books on the subject, you're right. But none of them have had the Queen of GB promote their book. Which is an unfair advantage. Camilla should, IMHO, not be promoting commercial ventures of any kind. She should be above this, no other queen has done this AFAIK. And I stand by my comment that it is hypocritical to allow Tom this advantage when others are denied it. It smacks of familial favoritism.

I think it has clearly been stated that she’s not promoting his book. Tom’s experience and credentials speak for themselves. Tom is not a royal, so Camilla cannot be accused of using her status as Queen to help her son nor is she being paid to manage his commercial affairs. Which others are being denied? The facts are facts. Tom doesn’t live on royal property and isn’t Charles’s son so Tom isn’t being given an advantage in any way.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I would suggest she support her son in private.
Back to my question, isn't it a bit hypocritical to use royal cache for monetary gain when others, actual royals, have been told blatantly not to do so?

I agree with you and your question. The responses somewhat surprise me, as I understand that there are no material privileges involved in Tom's case, but the optics seem little different from Peter Phillips being introduced as a member of the British royal family in a royal-themed advertisement for milk, which was roundly criticized even though his mother the Princess Royal was not involved in any manner.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

I agree with you and your question. The responses somewhat surprise me, as I understand that there are no material privileges involved in Tom's case, but the optics seem little different from Peter Phillips being introduced as a member of the British royal family in a royal-themed advertisement for milk, which was roundly criticized even though his mother the Princess Royal was not involved in any manner.

Peter Phillip’s case and this one is not comparable as Tom did and never has exploited any connections to the royal family as Peter explicitly did in the milk advert in China. Tom does not and never has done royal duties and is not a member of the royal family. Peter was criticised because in spite of not being a titled member of the family, he’s already known to be a son of the Princess Royal and eldest grandchild of the late Queen who he mentioned in the milk advert. There’s nuance and if some don’t see it, oh well.

 

[Healthy Sceptic]

I agree with you and your question. The responses somewhat surprise me, as I understand that there are no material privileges involved in Tom's case, but the optics seem little different from Peter Phillips being introduced as a member of the British royal family in a royal-themed advertisement for milk, which was roundly criticized even though his mother the Princess Royal was not involved in any manner.

Thank you, I'm a little surprised at the responses, but not really. There is a very strong contingent around Camilla that feels she can do no wrong and I'm not among them, so I'm used to it.

Peter Phillip’s case and this one is not comparable as Tom did and never has exploited any connections to the royal family as Peter explicitly did in the milk advert in China. Tom does not and never has done royal duties and is not a member of the royal family. Peter was criticised because in spite of not being a titled member of the family, he’s already known to be a son of the Princess Royal and eldest grandchild of the late Queen who he mentioned in the milk advert. There’s nuance and if some don’t see it, oh well.

That's a fairly subtle nuance, you're right. Tom is also not a titled member of the family and is known to be the son of the Queen. The optics of this party are off, it should have been held in private without photographers. By being in public celebrating with photographers present I venture to say that is a strong endorsement, which Peter never got from Anne.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Thank you, I'm a little surprised at the responses, but not really. There is a very strong contingent around Camilla that feels she can do no wrong and I'm not among them, so I'm used to it.

No one thinks she’s perfect. This situation is just very different to these “others being denied commercial activities”. Tom does not need the approval of the royal house or the household as he’s a private citizen. None of the working royals do any commercial activities so I don’t see the issue. She has supported her son on many of his books and events so why should she stop now? I don’t think her going to his events gives him an advantage in any way apart from being a supportive parent.

 

[HRHHermione]

I think the Queen going to her son’s book launch for something like his eighth or ninth book about food is a complete non-issue.

Her children aren’t royalty and have no official roles and they need careers. Food writer is about the most innocuous career someone in that position could possibly choose.

 

[muriel]

I think the Queen going to her son’s book launch for something like his eighth or ninth book about food is a complete non-issue.

Her children aren’t royalty and have no official roles and they need careers. Food writer is about the most innocuous career someone in that position could possibly choose.

Well said.

The alternative would be for the children of the Queen to not pursue individual careers and be funded by the state / family, which is not the right thing either.

Despite being in the public eye, I think Tom has been very careful to not really ever trade on royal connections, or every reveal any insider information. He has been quizzed many times about the food his mother cooked for him, and he has always stuck to the story of the roast chicken stuffed with lemon.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I think the Queen going to her son’s book launch for something like his eighth or ninth book about food is a complete non-issue.

Her children aren’t royalty and have no official roles and they need careers. Food writer is about the most innocuous career someone in that position could possibly choose.

Well said.

The alternative would be for the children of the Queen to not pursue individual careers and be funded by the state / family, which is not the right thing either.

Despite being in the public eye, I think Tom has been very careful to not really ever trade on royal connections, or every reveal any insider information. He has been quizzed many times about the food his mother cooked for him, and he has always stuck to the story of the roast chicken stuffed with lemon.

The issue that stood out to me in terms of optics wasn't that the book was about food (which is normal and expected given Tom Parker Bowles' profession), but that it was specifically about royal food and even refers to Charles III in its title.

I haven't seen criticisms here or elsewhere of Tom Parker Bowles for continuing to work in the field of food critique.

 

[HRHHermione]

The issue that stood out to me in terms of optics wasn't that the book was about food (which is normal and expected given Tom Parker Bowles' profession), but that it was specifically about royal food and even refers to Charles III in its title.

Yes, it appears to be a history of royal recipes from the time of Queen Victoria to present. Makes sense to me as a topic for a food writer.