While I agree with your comment about monarchy's "core characteristics," I wonder if it isn't a good thing that William might turn the monarchy more toward the European model of monarchy--fewer castles and palaces, only a a few glittering occasions a year, but with an emphasis on the kind of "meet the people" events like today. It would make a nice contrast from Meghan & Harry's expensive celebrity events like the upcoming GQ night. And what do you think of Meghan's being nominated for an award from the "GQ Man of the Year" event, Jane? Harry attended via video last year, what IS this event and why are H & M so popular in it? One tabloid said it was due to Enninful's being a "great friend" but I wonder what your take is?
Sorry for the length of this comment but yes! I hope you will tackle this too. I find Meghan’s post Megxit work endlessly mystifying. I also wondered what supposed good works were the basis of this GQ award. I didn’t understand why they got the NAACP award. Can’t think of anything impactful Meghan or Harry did this year or last with any clear result. And if it’s just an award to get them to show up and get their picture taken, why are they agreeing to accept and diluting their brand? Sometimes it’s better to ask for a raincheck until you can point to and highlight meaningful results for a snowball effect. I’m not saying they can’t be impactful. For example, the cookbook and her efforts to help the Hubb Kitchen in 2019 were a big success that she should be proud of and that would have made sense to recognize. But I wouldn’t call her unsuccessful phone campaign on parental leave, the photo ops in Uvalde, issuing statements condemning political events like overturning Roe v Wade or in support of voting or handing out school bags for an hour for Baby2Baby, etc much of a contribution that’s been successful enough to merit this. And what do any of these efforts have to do with each other? It’s frustrating to watch. She’s been so unfocused and scattershot that it’s hard to point to impact and results. People condemn her approach as “Hollywood PR” but that is unfair to celebrities who do philanthropy right. Compare Meghan’s work over the last year to Jennifer Garner’s, also a Hollywood celebrity. Garner has been very targeted and focused over 15-20 years in her work with Save the Children and improving access to early childhood nutrition and education in the US. She has donated significant time and resources, both her own and that of her endorsement partners, and raised exposure across many efforts and campaigns. Her baby food product line has an integrated partnership with Save the Children and donates large amounts of product and money. Everything she does and sells ties back to her core image, including her causes. Meghan too has product lines she invested in this year. But what happened with Meghan’s vegan lattes or the insipid children’s book? Where are the proceeds going and do the actual products have anything to do with that cause or Meghan’s image? Meghan and Harry have such large (probably expensive) teams advising them but so little to show for it. Their advisers are from big names firms so where is this going so wrong? Are they giving bad advice or is Meghan ignoring them? I don’t understand why they do some of these nonsensical things like “secretly” but noisily consulting professors at Stanford or speaking to nearly empty rooms on off days at the UN, beyond the obvious photo-op. Remember when they went to the UN last year for a half hour just to take pictures? They didn’t actually donate to a campaign or do anything to help anyone. Even these photo-ops seem meaningless beyond keeping their names out there. I, and probably most people, couldn’t tell you what causes any of the mentioned appearances benefited. Meghan and Harry as philanthropists are a product but I think most of us are confused by what that product is by the approach they’ve taken to “selling.” Catherine in comparison has been quite disciplined in her key areas: early childhood, mental health, addiction and the link between the three and we have seen a cumulative effect in her impact. These causes make sense with her background, image and identity as an athletic mother with interests in sports, childhood education and health and amateur photographer. Her efforts with her “hobby” cause of photography and portraiture with the National Portrait Gallery have been very fruitful with Stand Still, her Holocaust survivor portrait series, her photos of the children, of Camilla for her magazine cover, her own portraits for her birthday etc. Even her approach to her appearances and causes matches the image she is “selling,” that of someone who is secondary and supportive of William, as opposed to outshining him. Just look at her focusing on the children and deferring to William here in these photos. She is consistent. Both women show how effective even relatively small projects or appearances in a single area can be over time. Meghan gets as much or even more attention than both and I can’t help but feel she’s squandered the last three years. Just think what she could have accomplished using that attention and even the same small amount of work towards one cause. What is happening in Montecito that it’s all going so wrong? The new books on Harry and her struggles with their staff probably offer some clues…
Great questions Alexandra! As the Sussex Squad ramp up their criticisms of W & C as well as the rest of the RF, and the tabloids continue to focus on M & H, it’s important to me, as firmly a W& C/RF supporter to try to understand this fascination with M & H. Why are they considered so glamorous when all of their “glamor” comes from their attachment to the RF? Even Sunshine Sachs has left them, saying carefully that “it was always planned that they would hand things over to Archwell?” Really? Why do they get away with so much smoke and mirrors when W & C are so criticized as doing “nothing” when, as you pointed out, they’ve put in a lot of work on their causes.
Why have most of the words spilled in comments on this story, when the Sussexes were not even mentioned, about the Sussexes? Why when Jane does write a story on the Sussexes is there so much more interest as reflected in the number of comments?
Love them, hate them, or something in between there is interest in what they are doing, granted what they've accomplished isn't terribly significant. Media outlets write about them constantly because it drives up traffic. Awards like this often aren't given given on merit, think of Time magazine's most influential cover for another example, they're given on fame or the bandwagon principle.
I understand, Kathleen, and I do kind of apologize about bringing it up. I guess I fell into the very thing that I rail against the tabloids for: the emphasis on the Sussexes. I am still smarting from the coverage of the funeral by The Telegraph and even The Times and wonder when it's all going to end. It's affecting Royal coverage and because Jane uses the Royal media for her posts, well, it's bound to rub off here too. However, I promise I will not mention them again unless Jane brings it up :)
There is no apology necessary, Valerie. I find the Sussexes very fun to discuss and analyze, and I want all my readers to feel completely comfortable bringing them up at any time.
Just to be clear Valerie I was not looking for an apology, nor was I saying people shouldn't comment as they see fit. I was responding to questions being raised as to why the pair were covered so much in the press and why they receive these awards given by the press which really are no much more than PR exercises for the outlet giving them.
I pointed to the reason being, imv, is because there's a lot of interest in the pair, whether we like it or not, as evidenced by the comments in response to this story that wasn't about the Sussexes and the number of comments a Sussex story gets in relation to most Cambridge (now Wales) stories. It's the same in comments at the Telegraph, Times, and Daily Mail. Something btw which is not going to end anytime soon.
I think it’s reasonable that he skips the investiture, and not just for financial reasons. The last two Princes of Wales had investitures because they came to the role young (the future Duke of Windsor in his teens, the now-King Charles as a child) and single. It made sense to have a ceremony to introduce them to the people. And being young, both had time to go to Wales and study the language etc. It’s a bit different when you come to the role as a 40 year old married father-of-three.
While I agree with your comment about monarchy's "core characteristics," I wonder if it isn't a good thing that William might turn the monarchy more toward the European model of monarchy--fewer castles and palaces, only a a few glittering occasions a year, but with an emphasis on the kind of "meet the people" events like today. It would make a nice contrast from Meghan & Harry's expensive celebrity events like the upcoming GQ night. And what do you think of Meghan's being nominated for an award from the "GQ Man of the Year" event, Jane? Harry attended via video last year, what IS this event and why are H & M so popular in it? One tabloid said it was due to Enninful's being a "great friend" but I wonder what your take is?
Sorry for the length of this comment but yes! I hope you will tackle this too. I find Meghan’s post Megxit work endlessly mystifying. I also wondered what supposed good works were the basis of this GQ award. I didn’t understand why they got the NAACP award. Can’t think of anything impactful Meghan or Harry did this year or last with any clear result. And if it’s just an award to get them to show up and get their picture taken, why are they agreeing to accept and diluting their brand? Sometimes it’s better to ask for a raincheck until you can point to and highlight meaningful results for a snowball effect. I’m not saying they can’t be impactful. For example, the cookbook and her efforts to help the Hubb Kitchen in 2019 were a big success that she should be proud of and that would have made sense to recognize. But I wouldn’t call her unsuccessful phone campaign on parental leave, the photo ops in Uvalde, issuing statements condemning political events like overturning Roe v Wade or in support of voting or handing out school bags for an hour for Baby2Baby, etc much of a contribution that’s been successful enough to merit this. And what do any of these efforts have to do with each other? It’s frustrating to watch. She’s been so unfocused and scattershot that it’s hard to point to impact and results. People condemn her approach as “Hollywood PR” but that is unfair to celebrities who do philanthropy right. Compare Meghan’s work over the last year to Jennifer Garner’s, also a Hollywood celebrity. Garner has been very targeted and focused over 15-20 years in her work with Save the Children and improving access to early childhood nutrition and education in the US. She has donated significant time and resources, both her own and that of her endorsement partners, and raised exposure across many efforts and campaigns. Her baby food product line has an integrated partnership with Save the Children and donates large amounts of product and money. Everything she does and sells ties back to her core image, including her causes. Meghan too has product lines she invested in this year. But what happened with Meghan’s vegan lattes or the insipid children’s book? Where are the proceeds going and do the actual products have anything to do with that cause or Meghan’s image? Meghan and Harry have such large (probably expensive) teams advising them but so little to show for it. Their advisers are from big names firms so where is this going so wrong? Are they giving bad advice or is Meghan ignoring them? I don’t understand why they do some of these nonsensical things like “secretly” but noisily consulting professors at Stanford or speaking to nearly empty rooms on off days at the UN, beyond the obvious photo-op. Remember when they went to the UN last year for a half hour just to take pictures? They didn’t actually donate to a campaign or do anything to help anyone. Even these photo-ops seem meaningless beyond keeping their names out there. I, and probably most people, couldn’t tell you what causes any of the mentioned appearances benefited. Meghan and Harry as philanthropists are a product but I think most of us are confused by what that product is by the approach they’ve taken to “selling.” Catherine in comparison has been quite disciplined in her key areas: early childhood, mental health, addiction and the link between the three and we have seen a cumulative effect in her impact. These causes make sense with her background, image and identity as an athletic mother with interests in sports, childhood education and health and amateur photographer. Her efforts with her “hobby” cause of photography and portraiture with the National Portrait Gallery have been very fruitful with Stand Still, her Holocaust survivor portrait series, her photos of the children, of Camilla for her magazine cover, her own portraits for her birthday etc. Even her approach to her appearances and causes matches the image she is “selling,” that of someone who is secondary and supportive of William, as opposed to outshining him. Just look at her focusing on the children and deferring to William here in these photos. She is consistent. Both women show how effective even relatively small projects or appearances in a single area can be over time. Meghan gets as much or even more attention than both and I can’t help but feel she’s squandered the last three years. Just think what she could have accomplished using that attention and even the same small amount of work towards one cause. What is happening in Montecito that it’s all going so wrong? The new books on Harry and her struggles with their staff probably offer some clues…
Great questions Alexandra! As the Sussex Squad ramp up their criticisms of W & C as well as the rest of the RF, and the tabloids continue to focus on M & H, it’s important to me, as firmly a W& C/RF supporter to try to understand this fascination with M & H. Why are they considered so glamorous when all of their “glamor” comes from their attachment to the RF? Even Sunshine Sachs has left them, saying carefully that “it was always planned that they would hand things over to Archwell?” Really? Why do they get away with so much smoke and mirrors when W & C are so criticized as doing “nothing” when, as you pointed out, they’ve put in a lot of work on their causes.
Why have most of the words spilled in comments on this story, when the Sussexes were not even mentioned, about the Sussexes? Why when Jane does write a story on the Sussexes is there so much more interest as reflected in the number of comments?
Love them, hate them, or something in between there is interest in what they are doing, granted what they've accomplished isn't terribly significant. Media outlets write about them constantly because it drives up traffic. Awards like this often aren't given given on merit, think of Time magazine's most influential cover for another example, they're given on fame or the bandwagon principle.
I understand, Kathleen, and I do kind of apologize about bringing it up. I guess I fell into the very thing that I rail against the tabloids for: the emphasis on the Sussexes. I am still smarting from the coverage of the funeral by The Telegraph and even The Times and wonder when it's all going to end. It's affecting Royal coverage and because Jane uses the Royal media for her posts, well, it's bound to rub off here too. However, I promise I will not mention them again unless Jane brings it up :)
It's frustrating, I understand completely.
There is no apology necessary, Valerie. I find the Sussexes very fun to discuss and analyze, and I want all my readers to feel completely comfortable bringing them up at any time.
Just to be clear Valerie I was not looking for an apology, nor was I saying people shouldn't comment as they see fit. I was responding to questions being raised as to why the pair were covered so much in the press and why they receive these awards given by the press which really are no much more than PR exercises for the outlet giving them.
I pointed to the reason being, imv, is because there's a lot of interest in the pair, whether we like it or not, as evidenced by the comments in response to this story that wasn't about the Sussexes and the number of comments a Sussex story gets in relation to most Cambridge (now Wales) stories. It's the same in comments at the Telegraph, Times, and Daily Mail. Something btw which is not going to end anytime soon.
It looked like a lovely day! Great start to their new role.
Looked like a wonderful day for the new Prince and Princess of Wales! They both looked happy and relaxed.
I am hoping that William will choose to do a scaled down Investiture once the UK is on the other side of this economic crisis.
I just wanted to point out, for anyone who might not know, the Spells of Love is a Welsh jewelry company and also has some very affordable pieces.
Thanks Joanna. For us US folks, Spells of Love also sells through Etsy :)
I think it’s reasonable that he skips the investiture, and not just for financial reasons. The last two Princes of Wales had investitures because they came to the role young (the future Duke of Windsor in his teens, the now-King Charles as a child) and single. It made sense to have a ceremony to introduce them to the people. And being young, both had time to go to Wales and study the language etc. It’s a bit different when you come to the role as a 40 year old married father-of-three.