 |
| British GQ/Norman Jean Roy |
A second black and white image showing William with George and Charlotte is also included.
 |
| British GQ/Norman Jean Roy |
British GQ shared the following background on the interview "As part of the ongoing Heads Together campaign, Prince William, the Duke of Cambridge has opened up about his mental health and discussed the death of his mother with GQ's Alastair Campbell, a self-described "old leftie Republican". In a wide-ranging conversation the Duke reveals his determination to get the nation talking more about emotions and feelings." The cover leads with "William, A Prince In His Prime".
Several extracts from the interview have been published and can be read in their entirety here. William spoke about a number of issues including missing his mother:
"I would like to have had her advice. I would love her to have met Catherine and to have seen the children grow up. It makes me sad that she won’t, that they will never know her."
On the imminent 20th anniversary of his mother's death:
“I am in a better place about it than I have been for a long time, where I can talk about her more openly, talk about her more honestly, and I can remember her better, and publicly talk about her better. It has taken me almost 20 years to get to that stage. I still find it difficult now because at the time it was so raw. And also it is not like most people’s grief, because everyone else knows about it, everyone knows the story, everyone knows her. It is a different situation for most people who lose someone they love, it can be hidden away or they can choose if they want to share their story.”
William discussed the importance of family "I could not do my job without the stability of the family. Stability at home is so important to me. I want to bring up my children in a happy, stable, secure world and that is so important to both of us as parents. I want George to grow up in a real, living environment, I don’t want him growing up behind palace walls, he has to be out there. The media make it harder but I will fight for them to have a normal life."
On the ultimate goal of the Heads Together campaign:
"Smashing the taboo is our biggest aim. We cannot go anywhere much until that is done. People can’t access services till they feel less ashamed, so we must tackle the taboo, the stigma, for goodness sake, this is the 21st century. "I've been really shocked how many people live in fear and in silence because of their mental illness. I just don't understand it. I know I come across as quite reserved and shy, I don’t always have my emotions brewing, but behind closed doors I think about the issues, I get very passionate about things. I rely on people around me for opinions, and I am a great believer in communication on these issues.
"I cannot understand how families, even behind closed doors, still find it so hard to talk about it. I am shocked we are so worried about saying anything about the true feelings we have. Because mental illness is inside our heads, invisible, it means others tread so carefully, and people don’t know what to say, whereas if you have a broken leg in plaster, everyone knows what to say."
Of course many of you may recall Alastair Capbell contributed to the #OktoSay series. Best known for his role as former British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s spokesman, press secretary and director of communications and strategy. Alastair has campaigned relentlessly to end stigma around mental health. In his film, Alastair talked to his partner Fiona about his psychotic nervous breakdown in 1986, his addiction issues and the chronic depression he has experienced over the years. He says: "The thing I always do now, I always say to you when I feel the depression coming on, even if it’s only mild, and it used to be I would just go into lockdown, now the first thing I say is: 'I think I’m getting depressed again."
Norman Jean Roy is a Canadian born portrait photographer. His portraits have appeared on the covers and pages of Vogue, Vanity Fair, GQ, Harper's Bazaar, and Rolling Stone. His varied career has seen him shooting portraits of everyone from Justin Trudeau to Ed Sheeran, Nicole Kidman and Reese Witherspoon. He has shot advertising campaigns for Oscar de la Renta, L'Oreal and Neiman Marcus.
The Duchess was casually attired for the photo in a sweater and jeans.
The Duchess was casually attired for the photo in a sweater and jeans.
Emi notes it very much looks like Kate wore the J Crew Italian Cashmere Long T-Shirt she recently wore for a visit to Farms for City Children.
The 'heather midnight' piece features rib trim at the neck, a rolled edge at the cuffs and hem and is described as "semi-fitted". For US readers take 30% off purchases at J Crew with discount code SWEET. The piece is also available in an array of colours at Net-A-Porter.
 |
| J Crew |
We can see Kate wore her Mappin &Webb Empress Pendant and possibly the matching earrings.
 |
| Mappin & Webb |
It also looks like may have worn her Superga Cotu Trainers.
If you're just joining us, we posted a new post last night wrapping up Pippa's wedding and fashion related nuggets. You can view it here!
Haha, Charlotte. By now we should know that whenever you post a "filler post", some news of some sort will always arrive very soon after :P
ReplyDeleteWhile it might look a bit "celebrity", being in mainstream media like this is actually a clever way to reach out with a message to people that would otherwise not pay attention to what a royal says. And in this case, getting talk about mental health into a mainstream MENS forum is a great thing!
I like how passionate William sounds in the interview. Some might not agree with how he's going about some things, but reading this there is no doubt that he cares! I especially like this quote: "I know I come across as quite reserved and shy, I don’t always have my emotions brewing, but behind closed doors I think about the issues, I get very passionate about things." It shows great awareness and you can tell the past years that he is working on showing his emotions more.
And that family picture is glorious! The fun and mildly chaotic feel is absolutley perfect!
Seems like I have to add another magazine to my slowly growing collection :) Can't wait to read the full interview and see the rest of the pictures!
Rebecca, I really liked that quote, too.
DeleteWell clearly he is passionate about the way he is raising his children. I don't think there is any doubt he "cares" about that !
DeleteThat was one good line I'll admit. It was good to acknowledge that he's often seen as reserved.
DeleteI did not like this photo at all though, it's GQ, William should look fantastic! His eyes are sunken and shadowy. Charlotte is the only one who looks good I think, the rest seems odd and out of proportion. Trying too hard to be a "candid" I think.
Pl. do share them.
DeleteRosman, that was not what I was focusing on in that comment. I was focusing on his long (much longer than comment on his kids) comment. The comment that comes right before him talking about being passionate: "I've been really shocked how many people live in fear and in silence because of their mental illness. I just don't understand it. I know I come across as quite reserved and shy, I don’t always have my emotions brewing, but behind closed doors I think about the issues, I get very passionate about things."
DeleteI don't like too much the picture either. It gives them a shadow of Addam's family...
DeleteI'm not a fan of the photo either. The photographer was trying to make it look unique but, for me, it has a post apocalyptic vibe. Im half expecting zombies to come out of the trees. Addams family analogy is spot on Paola! I think it might be Kate's hair which is slightly Morticia-ish.
DeleteDoes anyone else think this photo and the one for Princess Charlotte's birthday may have been taken the same day as the farm visit?
Funny Paola :) It's a very peculiar choice to me.
DeleteThis is a strange photo to choose, at first I didn't like it. There seems to be no composition, George is with his back to the camera and Charlotte is looking away. But the more I look at it, the more I see what the photographer managed to do. It is a photo of a couple, comfotable with themselves and surrounded by their family. The moment you have cute kids in a photo, the photo seem to be about them. But this photo is not, it is about William and Kate. Not the kind of photo you release for Christmas, but it fit nicely with a GQ article.
DeleteErika isn't that often the case? A new photographer tries to take a "new" type of photo of a famous person/couple who've been photographed to death, and in trying to reinvent the wheel just ends up doing something strange. I personally think it's not just strange but actually bad, but maybe I'm not allowing for the artistic element.
DeleteThat's exactly it, Claudia. It's a lot of pressure for the photographer.
DeleteIt does have a "post-apocalyptic" vibe Erika, lol.
DeleteHad to laugh at you half expecting zombies to come from behind the trees. So did I. Looks like they had already gotten a hold of William a tad. Not a nightstand photo for sure.
I still wouldn't rule out William playing around with the selection of photos now and in days past to have a laugh via the media that has given him so much grief in his earlier days. I mean he does have his mother's Iconic ring front and center of the world stage almost daily. Diana, in that way, "is (still) part of it all". That ring speaks on so many levels. So maybe he likes putting in a curious photo from time to time. Still don't like anything about the photo though. We are not amused. lol
Queen of the South, just wanted to let you know that I appreciated your comment.
DeleteI especially enjoyed the "There seems to be no composition, ..." and "The moment you have cute kids in a photo, the photo seem to be about them. But this photo is not, ..." parts of it. Most interesting to me: "But the more I look at it, the more I see what the photographer managed to do." Thanks.
I agree that the photo(s) fit nicely with the "target group".
I realize the level of black and white in this photo is a bit stark, especially compared to the standard W&K photos we're used to seeing, but I actually liked it. I liked the artistic portrait feeling, something we don't usually get with the royal family.
DeleteIt's not a flattering photo SG. Did you see the second one of only William with the children? I think you'll like it. Much nicer.
DeleteTo me, almost anything would be better than the first photo. Thanks Erika. I will take a look at the second one. :)
DeleteLupo!! :) Great interview by William...& nice, relaxed shot of them in the garden.
ReplyDeleteI empathize so much with William, having lost my mum in my teens too. So when he speaks emotionally, I hear and nod at every word. But I have had experience for decades of people saying "get on with it, it has nothing to do with the present." And believe me I have done that--got on with it. But it still hurts, it still affects how I look at people, what my trust level is like. It has affected my ability to be "out there."
ReplyDeleteCatherine may have her failings as a Royal but as a girlfriend, then as a wife, she has obviously meant an enormous amount to William. And he to her. To me life is really about "the one"--meaning the importance of finding individuals to bond with. People go from celebrity to celebrity, famous name to famous name. But the people we marry, the people we choose as close friends, they are the ones that matter. Without them we can be utterly destroyed. I have read so many biographies of famous people who cite that one person who was there for them, who helped them get through rough times. And biographies of those who didn't have that person either and suffered all their lives for the lack.
I am truly glad for William and his openness. It helps me feel a connection with him. Whether he ultimately becomes King or not, I think he will be just fine.
I am really glad that he and Harry are talking more about it. I can't imagine how it must have felt. I hope that at some point they will go into a bit more detail or say something new about Diana. Also happy to note that the BP press article has not muzzled them.
DeleteShe has failings as a Royal? I don't see that.
DeleteI see what you mean Rosman. But why? Honestly, why should they tell us more about her? Do we have a right to know more about her? I think it's great that they can open up about the impact of her life and death and all of that. But they also have the right to keep their memories private. It's all they have left of her and since they already have shared her so much with the world, I think they should be allowed to keep their memories private.
DeleteI agree, Rebecca. In many ways "that IS all they have left of her", as you so sweetly put it. The world has had a free for all regarding Diana for years. William and Harry don't need to add that.
DeleteThe trouble with Diana is for all his discussion of frank talk, William can't say that his father and his father's supporters have done a huge amount to damage his mother's reputation and continue to do so. I think this is what William and Harry are trying to say but can't say openly - so their remarks come out to be a bit ambiguous. I believe they are trying to fight these perceptions - particularly this latest bio of Charles - and may also be indicating that they received little support about the loss of their mother during their youthful years. It's really impossible for them to say - you know our father and step-mother have rubbished our mother and we were never encouraged to talk about our mum - and the rubbish about her is picked up and there are all these books and articles filled with nonsense about Diana.
DeleteThey've come as close to this as they probably can to saying this, and it's a good example for why talking about mental health is an excellent theory - but can be a bit harder when it comes to actually doing it - because there is often something standing in the way of honesty.
You are probably right Julia. But I am glad I am not the only one who finds their comments vague and too guarded, and very repetitive.
DeleteJulia, I think you're correct. W&H were, and remain, in an awkward position. And William is exactly right that other people can deal with such a loss with the privacy that was never in the cards for him.
DeleteI would not want to walk in his shoes; if he keeps his feelings to himself, people make unfair assumptions about him, and if he does speak out, he should be getting on with it. IMO, speaking about Diana isn't all about HIM as some people may believe to be the case; I think it is about keeping her memory alive without stating the obvious and unkind facts that Julia pointed out.
I agree - and I think if Charles had been truly supportive during those years following Diana's death - William and Harry would be saying so. I think they're trying to do their best to let the world know how much they care about their mother - and that is admirable.
DeleteLovely relaxed photo.....the children are simply adorable.
ReplyDeleteReading through this interview, totally reminded me of Mrs. M from Grantchester series telling her favourite vicar: "Sidney Chambers you need to grow up!"
ReplyDeleteI would suggest all the readers to watch the series, to William either quit the job, or grow up.
What the what? If you are gonna come down so hard on William you might want to share your thought process because I have no clue how you came to that.
DeleteWilliam had to grow up pretty quickly when he was 'persuaded' to walk behind his mother's coffin aged 15 alongside his 12 year old brother and when he was required to undertake a walkabout amongst a weeping and wailing crowd all the time maintaining his stiff upper lip.
DeleteComing to terms with his grief and being able to talk about it IS growing up. It needs self-awareness, maturity and honesty.
"Quit the job or grow up" seems way out in left field to me Anett, and rather harsh to say the least, no offense. I don't think that William discussing his life constitutes complaining or ineptness in any way shape or form. It is an era where he is expected to say something. I think, although I would have liked more detail perhaps, that William shared his thoughts reasonably and without irresponsibility in any way. No offense. :)
DeleteOkay, it is blatantly obvious that none of you is a Grantchester fan. What can I say? Pity….
DeleteWilliam says mental health is important and it is okay to talk about it. But he talks about the same all the time, I wonder who reads these interviews because frankly, one can fall asleep in a minute that boring he is. Also he needed 20 years to come to term with his mum’s death. That is not true. He still has not come to terms with that- I am not sure, it is ever possible, to lose a parent and accept it, but come to terms with the circumstances (media), causes (C&C) maybe.
I can’t imagine the pain and suffering he went through, but without forgiveness, without letting this all go, he won’t find peace and his mental issues will never go away. He is still putting ALL the blame on the media, after 20 years, he still wants to fight this battle with power and not with mind and logic. He thinks if he punishes and controls the British media, he protects his family. He might be right or might be not. The British Media which do not publish photos that could possibly hurt them. In every interview, the evil media is a recurring subject, had enough of it.
My second problem is his notion of being normal and giving the kids normality, sorry but he is not a normal guy, with normal lifestyle, etc. Why can’t we read such from other European royals? Why can they be absolutely down-to.earth and normal when it comes down to giving out photos of their kids?
If he really wants so badly to be a normal, ordinary guy, quit the royal job, go and work at Christmas, make a living out of being a rescue pilot etc.
Putting all this above, next to his lack of sense of duty (which is also up to discussion) I felt unimpressed by him yet again.
Louise, London, I was so shocked when I read that in the Daily Mail--Alastair Campbell, an ex-politico, claiming that the Royals had pressured William into walking in the cortege so that Charles would be "protected." And that William hadn't wanted to. At the time, all the papers indicated that it was William's idea to walk. Seeing that it IS the Daily Mail, I Google'd the incident. The Mirror had published the same kind of story in 2011 (another tabloid.) Back in 2004 The Telegraph had published an article predominantly about the Queen and Prince Philip as parents and quoted: "In the funeral procession, Diana's former husband and younger brother, Prince Charles and Charles Spencer, were due to walk behind the gun carriage bearing her coffin along the route to Westminster Abbey. Prince Harry and, in particular, Prince William were uncertain as to whether or not they wanted to walk behind the coffin, too. Prince Philip, who had not planned to walk, said to William, "If I walk, will you walk with me?" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1471559/We-did-our-best.html The Sun also published the story. How awful for William. But it was a reminder in the midst of grief that this was what he could expect for the rest of his life. I really do think that William is hoping that Charles lives a long, long life and that he never becomes, and George never becomes, King.
DeleteBy the way The Scotsman's article from 2011 makes pretty interesting reading. Apparently the Queen told Tony Blair (according to Campbell, his aide) "Now Blair, no more of this people's princess nonsense, because I am the people's Queen.'" http://www.scotsman.com/news/why-prince-william-took-his-place-behind-his-mother-s-coffin-1-1497173 If that is true, it puts a perspective on how even those in The Firm have to watch their step in the limelight.
Jo : if that is true - that William and Harry were uncertain about walking I would say it must have been an unbelievably cruel thing to do - having them walk like that. I do remember about that bit by Philip .. so that has been reported over and over again. The people looked like a bus had run over them. The grief was almost palpable.
DeleteI was a bit older than William at the time, but still a teenager still in high school and remember looking at those pictures and gasping. I was not very self aware at all but even I in my muddled teenage state had realized that it must have been excruciating to go through that on such a huge public forum with pictures that would haunt you to death.
We all have associations of pictures/smells/experiences with feelings. I wonder how William must feel .. he must feel newly assaulted every time he sees a picture of that walk. He talks about being shocked. That shock may have ended up imprinting on his brain like nothing else. No wonder he is so messed up. If he went through all of that on his own, was promptly packed up and sent off to Eton under strict instructions to hide his grief, put up a strong brave front for his nanny Tiggy or his father whenever they emerged, I am honestly surprised that William was able to turn out as well-functioning as he did. And I say this as someone who is not particularly fond of him, if you have noticed.
Anett- I can see where you are coming from. But deep visceral grief can take away our ability to rationalize and think clearly. William's dealing with the media is not rational.
Jo. I had read that before also. I think that rings true. I can see Phillip encouraging William like that, particularly after hearing Eugenie say that her grandfather is the glue that holds the family together. The Queen has called her "stay" too.
DeleteAnd Phillip did give William a loving pat on the shoulder when they walked under an overpass.
I'm a Grantchester fan, Anett! And, no offense, but Sidney Chambers does not need to grow up. At all. He's plenty grown up the way he is. :)
DeleteI read a Diana biography a long time ago which touched on the boys walking behind her catafalque. They didn't want to, and from what I read they were not forced, but were told if they did not they might regret not doing it later. Protecting Charles was not mentioned at all. I wish I could remember which one. It might be the one where the guy looked at the accident and the week immediately after.
How ironic to consider this... during the week after Diana's death, the royals were criticized for remaining silent and being out of touch while they remained at Balmoral. The official "reason" given was that they were anxious to protect the boys...the same boys who were encouraged (I'm being kind) to walk behind their mother's coffin while their own emotions were so fragile. Had the boys not done so, most likely, other members of the Firm would have been subjected to a reality check or two.
DeleteBluhare, you dirty sly young dog!😀😀😀😀😀😀🐩
DeleteGood morning (USA time anyway). I will definitely look forward to getting a personal copy of GQ. The preview makes for a very good interview with Prince William in his "prime". Thanks Charlotte for always bringing us current and relevant info.
ReplyDeleteWilliam needs to stop complaining about the media. The British media in particular. They probably get photos from a paps all the time but don't publish them even though they have every right too. Personally, if I were the British media and I were treated as badly as I had been by KP I would start publishing them because what are they getting out of the deal other then contempt from William
ReplyDeleteWilliam needs to realize the press didn't kill his mother and a drunk and high driver did. His mother constantly reported her movements to the press and sought out the attention so I had never really felt sorry for all the press attention she got. She died because of a drunk driver who was speeding
Do I understand why William hates the press attention? Yes but he needs to the press in order to stay relevant. He thinks he can go around them by using KPs social media but i guarantee very few people actually get their information about William and Kate form KPs twitter but from other sources
Sorry for the rant but as a former reporter in the USA I am sick and tired of the press treatment
THAT is what you got out of these quotes? Half a sentance mentioned the media, in connection of the kids moving about. He didn't even say which media.
DeleteThe problem, Sarah, is that the media has tremendous power and often exercises little responsibility. A recent example was that a young blogger who had stopped the global cyber attack that had badly affected the NHS was subject to probing into his life and relationships. There is no public interest there, no possible grounds for going after the young man in the way sections of the media did.
DeleteLast year a candidate for the leadership of the Labour party here in the UK withdrew from the contest because he did not want the media crawling all over his life and that of his partner and their families.
We know that Pippa and James, two private citizens who went out of their way to facilitate media access to George and Charlotte as pageboy & bridesmaid, were rewarded by being papped on their honeymoon.
We know William and his family face ludicrous intrusion, from horrible crotch shots taken of Diana using a hidden ceiling camera in her gym to the photos taken of Kate on holiday, even bugging of phone calls and voicemail hacking.
I think the situation is worse and worse these days because online media wants clickbait so a large UK based global news site, for example, will spin 3 or 4 or more articles out of one piece of news each with a contrived angle designed to generate clicks and advertising revenue. Last week, that UK site produced 20 plus articles about Pippa's wedding day including one alleging George was driven standing up in a car. The tenor of the article was quite clearly designed to provoke outrage and criticism of Kate, and more importantly clicks. One commenter pointed out that it was clear from the background that the car was stationary outside the church. But, hey, let's not let that get in the way of a story.
If I was in William's position and had a young family I would respond in the same way.
Rebecca - that is a relevant part of the interview, especially since it's a subject the Cambridges have issues with regularly. It's not as if it's the first time they complain about the media while simultaneously using it to their advantage.
DeletePippa had a private (LOL) wedding, is on a private island, with private paps.
DeleteI think I might know where Anett and Sarah are coming from in a way. They can correct me if I'm wrong. First off, let me say that I fully support HT and what they are trying to accomplish. I think people do need to talk about their pain to lead healthier lives. That being said my gut visceral reaction to what I have read about William's interview was along the lines of "oh, no, not again". When the same thing keeps being said it comes across as a bit whiney. Im saying this as someone who lost a parent in the teen years too. Although, its one of the worse things that can happen and it is horrifically painful, it's not an uncommon experience. A lot of people have to go through it and come out the other side. As a matter of fact, for most people, it means a loss of income, a change in lifestyle and many more hardships that William and Harry probably can not fathom. I feel like saying to him, "I'm very sorry about your mom and how it affected your life but some of us have had to suffer to a much greater degree because of the early death of a parent. You really have no idea." I'm sorry. I know I'm not expressing myself well here. I feel a great deal of empathy for anyone who experiences loss and I feel empathy for the princes but I just feel they don't have any idea what real bone breaking suffering is.
DeleteAlso, ok, he wants his children to have a childhood. I agree. However, the are not going to have a normal childhood because they aren't a normal family. I never know what he means when he says this.
First, many tabloids are not innocent, not by a long shot. But not all. And what about The Telegraph, The Times?
DeleteAlso, the British press do not take pics of the family off duty, and editors do not print any if offered. That is a press code of conduct they abide by, and get regular warnings and legals from KP as well just in case they forget.
Finally, Jason Knauf himself recently admitted in an interview that "80% of our inquiries come from British newspapers. We're still very reliant on traditional media to get our message across." (Jane Martinson The Guardian)
Which begs the questions, why go out of your way to rile them up and bypass them via Twitter etc?
So, if William has complaints about paps be specific about that, or maybe the European and Australian magazines that publish these shots. (notice he didn't take any shots when pics were published on tour) But to just say "the media" as if to imply the British media, was careless and foolish, and will rub the royal correspondents and editors who abide by KP's rules, the wrong way.
First of all, Pippa made herself into a celebrity - this was a choice of hers for better or worse. I think the publicity regarding the wedding day itself was handled reasonably well - but once you seek attention - appearing on chat shows and writing articles, press is something hard to turn off - every celebrity and politician deals with it. This is separate from William and Kate. They are royal - she is not.
DeleteThere is never going to be a complete way for royals to turn off press attention to their children - as far back as Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret, there was worry about the huge amount of attention. The best thing to do is to control it. I think the Swedish, Danish, and Spanish royals are overall doing a superior job with controlled press appearances balanced with requests for privacy (which aren't always honoured).
Being out there and giving the legitimate press real news that they have to cover helps as well. For now, what is happening is royal news is being much more marginalised than it used to be (most of the established press members are republicans) whilst silly stuff is put out there - i.e. the housekeeper story. More appearances that must be covered would certainly help. Other than some loyal readers on this blog - few people believe William and Kate are doing anything for their country when they aren't out there - they must be seen. (By being seen, you can build up a reputation for hard work - few engagements of Anne's are covered, and many of Charles' are not but they are reaping the reputation of being hard workers.)
If we were asked all of us probably have things that make our life tiresome - taxes, roads, trying to get children in the right schools, the best health care, work commitments, difficult fellow employees, elderly family members to be cared for, whether some terrorist is going to blow up the tube station.... Many of these are worries royals don't have - the best care, the best schools, will always be available to them. But the press is the price of that. Without the press, there would be no royal family today - the press is completely necessary and a resource that must be used - but just as good roads get us places but traffic can be a nightmare, the press won't always function as royals wish. My opinion is William has said enough on this subject and has overused his complaints about the press. Complaints obviously makes him unpopular with the established press who in turn look for negative things they can publish. So just as we may not like our boss but are grateful we have a job - it is best to have a working good relationship with the press. No, they won't ignore the children because everyone, including us here, wants to see them - like the other royal children George and Charlotte need to learn this runs in the background.
Erika, I am so very sorry for your pain at your parent's death. Like you say about your own empathy (paraphrasing so sorry if I don't get it exactly the same) I understand the kind of pain that comes from a parent's death but I can never feel the pain that you do because each person's circumstance is different. I have similarities with what you said: my whole life was turned upside down with a change in lifestyle too. In the space of eight months I lost a grandmother, a beloved great uncle, my mother and then another grandmother. My father lost his job, my sister moved hundreds of miles away, etc., etc., etc. I don't expect anyone to understand what that was like even if people have similar, or worse, experiences. But I appreciate when people try. Even though it was almost 50 years ago and I have been through counseling and such, it is still so much a part of who I am. Most of the people I know now never knew my mother, my sister, who also died young, my father, because they are all dead. I can't ask them what they think, they can't show their pride at my family's achievements. William still has Harry and the rest of his family and I am glad for him but I understand that from his perspective what he went through was soul destroying.
Delete(Not addressing Erika anymore, the following is my own musing and not related to anyone's post): William isn't saying that his suffering is worse than anyone else's. He has exposed himself to enough suffering in his work as a rescue pilot (that poor young man who drowned last weekend!) and in visiting hospitals and homeless shelters, that he knows exactly how privileged he is. But what I take from what he is saying is that everyone suffers. And that suffering affects us, in the way we relate to people and the things that drive us. Privilege also affects us. I remember being told once by an employee that I could have no understanding, as a privileged white woman, of what it was like to be black and poor. I agreed but I also pointed out that I was a white woman who had grown up in a man's world where I was expected to serve coffee and keep quiet, that women in my world didn't go to college so I fought for that right, that I was not "really" Catholic, not "really" Protestant, in a world where both were at each other's throats and I walked a razor thin line trying not to offend either part, that I was a single parent who scrabbled for every penny to support myself and my daughter. Sometimes we can look privileged but there are hard stories behind the mask--abuse which happens no matter how much money is in the bank account.
I apologize for making this so personal but as I have said before, I feel like we are in a conversation here that, although based on the Duchess and her family , reflects a lot on who we are and what is important to us. And tolerance is so very, very important to me.
There are too many senior royals and if Charles lives as long as the Queen it will be the end anyway. The world is looking for younger leadership it seems only the British are not.
DeleteViva William and Catherine!
Erika 2003 I had the EXACT sam reaction but was afraid to say it!
DeleteSimply. Thank you, Jo. I am so thankful you made it through all of that. Empathy and tolerance don't come naturally for the most part. Thank you for sharing and encouraging us to cultivate those things more. x
DeleteThanks for sharing, Jo, and for your words that each person's circumstances are different (we can't ever know what other people think and go through, even if their situation seems similar to ours) and also reminding us that often there's "a story behind the mask". I'm so sorry for all the suffering you had to go through and I believe your life experience has made you the compassionate person you are now.
DeleteJo, I cannot imagine going through all of that and I do respect you for sharing your story. My goodness...
DeleteI also agree with your interpretation of William's comments.
Suffering is relative and it's isn't defined by one's bank balance, nor should the response to it be determined by it! I've known people who may be rich, yet they are bankrupt in the kindness and compassion department. And I've know people who are not very well off, yet they would give you their last dollar if you needed it more.
I raise my glass to Anett!
DeleteErika, I am so sorry about your loss. And I agree with everything you said.🌷
DeleteMoxie
DeleteCheers!!😁🍸
The same Erika.
DeleteThank you Jo and Anett:), and Jo so very sorry that you are part of our unfortunate exclusive club. The human spirit is resilient- no doubt about it.
DeleteWell, I did preface what I wrote with a warning that it is my honest, unedited and not necessarily politically correct reaction. I figure there is little point in discussion if one isn't honest.
I will read the article in full and see if I change my opinion. I understand it is unfair to form a judgement from out of context quotes.
That said I think if PW varied what he said about the subject it would come across better and not seem repetitive. Also, I must say that his comment that his grief was more difficult than that of others because it was in the public eye really ticked me off. I do get that but I do feel that it was an insensitive, self absorbed statement.
I did not mean for my previous comment to sound as if personal struggle and grief is a contest or that the privileged feel any less than ordinary people. Obviously, Diana's death has had very profound reverberations on the lives of her sons to this day. Yet, at the same time, they are some of the lucky ones and, perhaps, as a public figure who is becoming vocal on the topic he needs acknowledge that. I am sure I was not the only one who reacted this way.
Sarah, I agree with you about Diana's death...not the result of the paparazzi....the result of a speeding and drunk driver. But ultimately the fault of Dodi Fayed and the "bodyguard", (who did not have the right background and training to be protecting someone like the Princess), who came up with the plan to dupe the press by leaving out the back door, bringing in the head of security to do the driving, telling him to try to outrun the photographers, treated the whole thing like a game, like they were filming a scene from a James Bond movie instead of a simple drive from point A to point B. Why the need to outrun the paparazzi? There already were photos of the couple printed in the papers. Why such a dire desire to avoid them that night? Dodi Fayed needing to act the big hero and the protector, to impress the Princess, is the real reason she died. However, what she needed that night was not to be protected from the Paparazzi, but to be protected from her erratic boyfriend and his arrogant, inexperienced "security team."
DeleteThank you Julia ☺
DeleteSarah and Pam, absolutely agree that Diana died due to poor security, not paparazzi involvement. Both Ken Wharfe and Trevor Rees-Jones said that had she still been protected by the royal's security team instead of the DIY Fayed security effort, she would be alive today.
DeleteGreat photo and great interview! He is so mature! :)
ReplyDeleteThank you for posting!
Great interview yeah i love the family photod maybe. There. A lots pics in magazine i love the interview very inspiring. Story about prince william. Coping for losing his mom in her teens
ReplyDeleteI hate to be a grump on a bank holiday/Memorial Day weekend (depending where you are!) but what's the point of this interview? Usually you do something like this because you're adding something new, in my mind William is talking again but not actually *saying* anything. "The most candid interview he's ever given" is how GQ is promoting it -- what nonsense!
ReplyDeleteHe circles around Diana (again) but no specifics on what really happened to him, what he dealt with. And I gave him a lot of leeway on this before the marathon, saying maybe in his position he can't reveal as much as Harry, and I understand that. But in my mind, if that's the case just let it be. Don't keep saying these vague lines that really mean nothing and reveal nothing. He and Kate should stick to the more standard promotional elements.
You know, I actually agreed with others who said recently that the Queen could have given instruction on the more traditional work she expects from the younger royals, without smacking their hand about the Heads Together campaign. But honestly with this I can almost see her point. And Campbell himself would be howling over this interview if he wasn't part of it! Particularly tiresome - William throwing in his standard complaint about the media, while using the media to promote this campaign! Honestly.
Of course, before anyone jumps on me, I know talking about the importance of mental health in a publication like GQ is a good thing. But it's starting to feel a bit empty after that. I'm not sure William is doing anything to further the campaign or cause. It feels a bit self serving really come to think of it.
Glad I'm not the only one who is driven nuts by Williams hypocrisy. Stop complaining about the media and then using it to meet your own ends.
DeleteI might be alone, but I still see the mere fact that William is talking (although vaugly) about these issues in male dominated forums as a big thing. I actually think him opening up more might deter "manly men" from hearing what he's saying. That he might be written off as "he's one of those emotional men" as an excuse for these men not to take to heart the issue. The mere fact that he is a buttoned up, football loving, burly joking, non-fashiony and traditional man's man is kind of what makes him so good for this cause. Harry has always been more emotional and is right now very popular with my generation. It fits very very nicely that he is more emotional in this work as well because then he has the potential to reach deeper. But William still keeping rather "stiff" might actually help him reach a wider group of men. The kind that shuffles away all such talk generally because the openness is scary. And it can be when you see openness as weakness. I know this is what the royals are trying to remove, but it IS still there, and ramming down the doors with full on emotions and reveals might work in some cases, but you also need the "sneaking" approach where it is more vaugley mentioned to not frighten away those that actually the most might need to talk. I hope my ramblings make sense.
DeleteThey certainly make sense, Rebecca.
DeleteGood points that I hadn't yet considered. Pertinent to remember we are talking about the male mindset. And upon reflection, he is the future Head of the Armed Forces and future world leader so I can understand why he isn't coming out full tilt boogy with his heart on his sleeve.
Hi Claudia. Enjoy your posts quite a bit because they invariably start or include something along the lines of "I hate to be a grump". LOL.
DeleteI think it's a bit thing too, but it seems to be too big for what he's saying. Sort of like MEN, LISTEN. MENTAL HEALTH IS IMPORTANT. also I'm learning to cope with my mother's death and I don't like the media. Like he could have gone deeper with this.
DeleteYour comment - this one and the other ones - makes very good sense, Rebecca, and I agree with what you say. I think William did well to give this interview, it's a good step even if he doesn't say anything "new". There is self-reflection which is important. The questions he raises about why it is so difficult to communicate openly, even within families, about mental issues are valid and deserve consideration. It is sometimes the case that a family member attends e.g. psychotherapy without telling his/her own parents/children/spouse/siblings because s/he is afraid it would shock or frighten them. Talking about these issues IS difficult, especially as they are often (not always ofc) connected with problems in the family. How can William be "more open" or more specific about what he went through without saying things which would grieve or insult his father, or put his mother in bad light? He is their son and I believe he loved/loves both of them. It is very easy to want him to say more or new or go into detail but not so easy to imagine what any of us would say or do in his place.
DeleteRebecca no worries! Lord knows I ramble on far too much so we're in good company :)
DeleteVancouver that gave me a good laugh and an "oh no!" at the same time. It makes me think I'm being too negative, too often! I'll definitely think of you next time I'm about to type that ;)
Bravo! What a wonderfully incisive comment Zora. You really get it. He would come off as condemning his parents as well as perhaps the Queen.
DeleteThis is precisely why he will never go into great detail about his struggle to cope. When he's talking to world leaders he needs to give the appearance of strength and confidence. Something his grandmother has done so well. His father not so much.
Zora, yes. Good point.
DeleteIt was a dichotomy for sure. If William reveals too much about his innermost feelings regarding his mom he might very much alienate one side of the family or the other and just when they seem to be all in peaceful terms.
I agree. Also it must have been very difficult for them when they were growing up having all their parents dirty linen exposed in public -(mainly due to actions taken by Diana and Charles of course!) And because William was older he may have been more exposed than Harry was to all the media speculation and felt it more because of that.
DeleteMaybe he is more expansive in the article. GQ certainly isn't going to post all the 'good stuff' on a press release. No one would buy the magazine. And the interview was in April, at the height of the HT campaign. Maybe he really ties it in to what Harry said in his interviews.
DeleteI made this comment on the previous post when I should have put it here. Though I like the setting and the tone, I find this photo a little odd. Because it is b&w William's hand looks looks like Catherine's and dear little Charlotte is lost in the weeds. As an amateur, I would have trashed that shot from my camera. So I am a bit mystified why that would get into GQ. I'd love to hear others' ideas. That's how you learn!
ReplyDeleteI agree, it is a strange photo.
DeleteI actually like the slightly 'odd' nature of the photo. To each his own, I guess.
DeleteI will go a step farther Philly.
DeleteWhen I first saw the photo I thought someone had fabricated it as a bad joke and had just put Kate and William's heads on other people's bodies. Yikes. And William's head doesn't look very healthy. The positions of their bodies is unsettling. The children and Lupo in the tall grass look photoshopped (yes, photoshopped) in there like a cover of The Beatles's album (I forget the title of at the moment). Then I realized it was actually, amazingly, part of a real publication. yikes.
Why are they "relaxing" in tall grass/weeds? Then there is the darkness of the photo. Rather goth, don't you think? That is one of the strangest photos I have seen, for sure. It does remind me of the photo of them in the window with George who is supposed to be looking at Lupo. (Another weird photo.) There is another weird photo I could mention but I won't. A weird photo trend? An attempt of William's to say "okay I'll share but I'm going to have some fun with it if I do"?
This photo has only gotten stranger as I took a second and third look. This photo is definitely anything but a good photo. It is bizarre. Just my (very strong) opinion. No offense to anyone who likes the photo. No offense to anyone else.
I agree about getting the Heads Together Campaign into a men's magazine. That's a good thing. But I agree with Claudia that the content of the conversation was still guarded and somewhat superficial.
People will, though, be left with a strong visual impression from the cover photo that William is a "Prince in His Prime", whether they want to believe that or not. I personally do. And, I think William is making good progress and is carving out a sane and loving life for himself and his family while contributing in significant ways to society. I don't know exactly what he meant about providing a normal life for his children but not wanting them behind Palace walls and "out there" but at the same time wanting them protected from the media. He has a delicate dilemma but I think his children will enjoy a much, much better childhood than he and Harry had, for sure. And kudos to William and Kate for that. (Now if he would just stop playing games with the photos, lol).
Not strange at all. It's real! Perfection is overrated in photos. Honesty is better. It gives a better feel of who the subjects really are.
DeletePhilly,
DeleteI don't think the children are lost in the weeds. Looks to me like a wild flower part of the garden. I have a small portion of my garden---it's supposed to encourage bees and butterflies.
I would go as far as to say this is a bizarre photo.
DeleteCreepy.
I think it's odd because Kate is front and centre in an article about William. I like the fact that the children and Lupo are off doing their own thing but think it might have worked better if William had been in Kate's position and Kate had been doing something with one of the children or the dog. I guess she is where she is either to sell more copies or because she is seen as the glue at the centre of the family. I do think the composition is slightly off.
DeleteJean.I hear what you are saying, but... lol. Not to beat a dead horse (and, sadly, this photo kind of reminds me of a dead horse) but what family really chills like that? Kate would most likely be watching the children closely so as no snakes, no bee stings, etc. Kate does have a photo history of doing more than a little mom hovering. William wouldn't be sitting so awkwardly. Not natural. Not comfortable, couldn't be. Bad photo composition. And chilling in a sports jacket? And wouldn't they be gathering everyone up to head inside as the darkness would indicate a heavy storm as being very imminent. Not a realistic photo at all in my opinion. Unless they are the Adams family. lol
DeleteI don't like any of the photographers photos. Period. Just my opinion. And it is a mystery to me why they hired him and even more of a mystery to me why they actually used his dark art. Maybe the author was in his depressive stage. (no offense to anyone who suffers from anything, including depression. I have a family member who has suffered from bi-polar and that definitely affected her photography, her writing, her perspective in the past.)
Critique finished. No offense to anyone.
That's why it is art. It is suppose to spark conversation. Mission accomplished! It is a bizarre existance, isn't it?
DeleteAs Jean pointed out,the photograph is taken in a wild flower meadow where they don't cut the grass but let flowers grow naturally. Charles has a similar one at his country estate. William is wearing a jacket as casual wear, but he and Harry aren't into T shirts. The British upper classes don't dress like the rest of us, especially when they are relaxing or in the country - Prince Charles is even more formal. We don't expect the Queen to be wearing sneakers so it is a refreshing change to see some relaxation of the "rules" by younger members of the royal family.
DeleteI like black and white photos, but I realize that not everyone does. I get it. But the photographer DID capture some very relaxed moments. The photo of William with the children is lovely.
Deleteroyalfan I agree with you, I do like black and white photographs, but usually because it *softens* the image. Think of the iconic images we know, or just the ones you have at home, the b&w give them a softer, more timeless glow in my opinion. To me this is the opposite, very stark and harsh. Just not my cup of tea, I understand it does seem to be this photographer's style.
DeleteSuch a lovely photo and a great work from Prince William.
ReplyDeleteThe Cambridges look so amazing and relaxed, wow!
Thanks Charlotte for your work here with the blog, you are so fast and keep us updated about the Duchess' life and sartorial choices with lots of grace. I was just looking my timeline on Instagram and found out that there are people who ask you to give them a like (and their likes are counted by the site "like to know" so they took profits from that) if you would like to know what's the brand of Kate's clothes. And then I thought that there are so many incredible people like you who share for free the exact same informations and even in a better way! That made me think a lot. So thank you for your kindness, first of all, and for your hard work for us. You're truly appreciated.
Amen, 15:40. :) Thank you again Charlotte. 🌷
DeleteSuch a lovely and fun family photo. Would have liked William & Kate embracing each other. And to what William said: I'm sure Diana is watching them from above ❤
ReplyDeleteI love this family photo!! It's good to see different perspective of them. This is more of Normality for them.
ReplyDeleteI LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE this photo for so many reasons:
ReplyDelete-The whirlwind that is parenting (furry babies too!)
-The casualness to it
-The black and white-timeless feel of it. Family is family is family no matter what decade!
-Love Kate's laughter!
-Love that the kids are running in all directions-so true of their ages
-Love that Lupo is on the run with them-so true of a dog at his age and the kids' ages!
LOVE LOVE LOVE-ALL of it.
I agree! Sure, one can find things they don't like with it. William isn't looking his best, the sharp contrast is kind of harsh etc. But the general feeling of the picture is wonderful!
DeleteCouldn't agree more. Life is not staged. They look like a real family. Love it!!
Delete18:19. The Adams family? lol
DeleteI really like your comment, Tammy, and I agree :)!
DeleteI 100% agree with you Tammy California! I absolutely love this photo for all of its chaotic, natural, and so called imperfect attributes!!
DeleteI was going to post why I like the photo, but Tammy you pretty much nailed it! The photo captures what appears to be a very happy family moment, hope that they will look back on it and remember what a fun time they had!! cc
DeleteI get the sense that unless William speaks to the press (and some of us) as he would to a private grief counselling professional, nothing he says will satisfy. Ever.
ReplyDeleteI'm puzzled by that as there is so much to read "in the air," the volume of what he says between his words. There is much to read in micro expressions and deeply nuanced revelations.
In addition to having the support of Catherine, I believe that both Carole and Michael Middleton will have been able to offer a safe place for William to open up emotionally. I think part of closing down Pippa & James's wedding as tightly as they did is all part of maintaining a well-fortified safe place for their children (which also includes their sons in-law) and grandchildren.
I honestly don't want him to open up that much Philly! I said way back when they started this campaign, that they should mention "why" they feel so passionate about mental health. So I'm happy that he's mentioned his mother and that Harry did his interview.
DeleteIt's hard to perfectly explain in writing why this feels off for me, it's one of those topics that is easier discussed in person. Usually when a royal of William's stature does an "exclusive" interview, front page stuff, it's for a very significant reason. But what was the news here? Frankly exclusive is a stretch because it's nothing that hasn't been said before. At least from the early snippets I've seen. But since media tend to promote their best material, I don't think there's much more meat on the bone.
Maybe I'm concerned we're treading too much into celebrity territory? I'm also concerned about comments William makes which I think are foolish and won't play well.
I also understand William is in a tough spot, talk too much about what he went through it could be seen as a slight to his father, or grandmother. But that's part of my point as I mentioned above. Since William's in such a different position, with more scrutiny and responsibility, maybe just let it be? Don't try to give "in-depth" interviews if you're really just scratching the surface, and they end up sounding a bit superficial, like a puff piece.
Just some random thoughts. We do agree the photo is very strange ;)
Very valid thoughts Claudia, and sometimes we can feel something slightly off even though we can't pinpoint what exactly it is or what we want.
DeleteHe IS in a very difficult position with this. Because while he wants to change the taboo, the taboo still exists and he will be sitting in meetings with world leaders from very different cultures. What we differ in is that you would rather he not say at all (and that is fair enough) while I think him saying something (even though it has to be a bit on the surface) is better than nothing :)
Regarding your closing comment Claudia, I most certainly agree. It is beyond "very strange".
DeleteClaudia, As far as I can see, the only reference to this being an "in-depth interview" is made by GQ, not by William. We don't know that the interview was pitched to him as being in depth. All we know is that in-depth is what they chose to call it. William may feel just as off-put by it being call in-depth as readers are.
DeleteI completely agree with something feeling "off". That is what I meant in my last comment as well Rebecca - I didnt express it right. I don't expect William to share more details, but there is something just a bit too vague and repetitive about what he says .. makes it seem insincere almost.
DeleteI suppose that Jullia is right - he simply cannot say too much without compromising the royal family and the role they played in decimating Diana's life and memory. Maybe once the older members are gone we will learn more about how exactly he feels.
True, Becky. They will pitch the article as "in-depth" to get the most clicks. I have read so many articles recently where the headline certainly did not live up to the content of the article.
DeleteBecky that's a good point, as surfer girl mentioned, how much is the media manipulating how something plays.
DeleteHowever ;) my previous point still stands, that when a royal(particularly such a senior one) does something as significant as this it's going to be interpreted by the public that there's a very good reason for it, something newsworthy. No matter how the media play it. If there isn't any substance, he does run the risk of crossing too far over into celebrity territory. Feeding the ego a bit. Just my opinion.
I think that it is fabulous that both William and Catherine did not go the glamour route when doing a magazine cover. The are real people who live a public life but know who they are and stay true to it. I am so tired if everyone bashing them because they don't do things the way others would like. They shouldn't have to sell their souls. I thought everyone loved the streak of defiance in Diana but not William. Hypocrisy much!!
ReplyDeleteFor me,I'm a little bit disappointed. I find the photo very strange. It's not the best one for a family photo. I can't get the choice of this photo.
ReplyDeleteMany elements are strange ( George's back/black and white/ choosing the garden..) I think the issue isnot the photographer but who choose this photo.I couldn't beleive it's Kate because I m sure she has a lot of taste and a good eye. That's why I think there's a story behind the closed doors for this choice.
The same story for william again and again. As a royal watcher, I m tired from his complaining about media. He needs to grow up and to understand his role. He's not a normal He's a prince and a future king. For all these privileges, his obssession for "normal life" becames nonsense.it's a bad message for the people (including me) who consider him as a hope for a modern monarchy.
Amy
Georges back, charlotte of to the side, the overgrown garden. All these things with the kids and dog whirling around with William and Kate sitting solid in the middle makes me love this picture. It's a bit harsh in the black and whiteness but the general feeling of it and how it very easily conveys booth the movement and "chaos" of the kids and the happiness and calm of the adults is very well done, in my opinion :)
DeleteI like it but I find it odd William mentioning the media being bad... when appearing on the media. It's a double standard that I think most journalists are getting tired of and that will only complicate their future relationship with them.
ReplyDeleteThe truth is the truth. What do you think is going to happen when George starts school? Do you read some of the hateful articles written about the children. Media is not full of fair and good people.Stop acting as if they don't have agendas. Too often they do.
DeleteCudos to William for protecting his family.
Is Norman Jean Roy "Goth"? Does anyone know?
ReplyDeletewhoa, come over from the dark side NJR. ⛅️
I feel at this point, I can't speak with certainty on the article without reading the entire piece. I do think it's good that William is speaking out. (Victoria of Sweden has done so as well.) But things I've noticed from what I've read:
ReplyDelete1. William's desire to end the stigma of mental health is admirable and given the way his mother's mental health has been used brutally against her - particularly by his father and step-mother and their close supporters, is very understandable. But I wish there would an appreciation for the importance of speaking in the correct way, (why Sarah's blog was so helpful) and a more in depth appreciation for the dangers of speaking out - such as how it can affect employment. But given we're talking a magazine article, we may have as much depth as is possible. (And William, there are areas of physical health like cancer that can difficult to speak about as well.) To me, the best way to end the stigma and make certain people are helped is not just to say talk - but to teach people how to talk in a productive way - and make certain resources for teaching this are widely available. I hope this will be the next step of Head's Together.
2. I cringe every time William mentions raising his children in a "normal" and not just because of his remark about the press. How George and Charlotte are being raised is not "normal" by the standards of the vast majority of the people who in theory will someday be William's subjects. I would far rather William spoke about giving his children a sense of duty, responsibility and and understanding that most people do not live in the privileged way they do. Maybe that's what he means by 'having them out there'.
That was meant to be Diana's lessons to her sons but I never see it echoed in William. It may come in time, and I hope it does. But there always seems to be this disconnect in William - he wants to be a normal helicopter pilot as long as he doesn't have to live like one. For now, this remark will be interpreted by many by the way it sounds - that he's raising his children to be normal in the way he sees normal - rich toffs, who go to the best schools, live on a country estates and have lovely holidays, housekeepers who are paid what is the normal living wage to many, and whose parents work a couple of days a week at the very most. I understand George and Charlotte are too young at this point to have the world explained to them, but what I miss is the concept of their responsibilities in William's plan for them or exactly what normal means to him.
3. That goes with the third thing I don't see here - duty and the responsibility to the nation with all its varied concerns. That's what I find often missing in William - he seems very William and family focused. That's what I did see in Victoria's interview, along with an appreciation for how great that burden is and how she attempting to achieve balance in that regard. It may be that's not the focus of this article which is about mental health.
The queen was not raised normally. But she is highly revered for her duty to her nation. Princess Anne was raised behind palace walls but she seems to have an enormous work ethic and has raised children who seem to have very good and normal family lives - (Mia seems so much more "normal" than George and Charlotte but maybe we just see more of her.) I'm prepared to believe William has the best intentions - I'm just not sure I understand what those intentions are. I'm trying to decide if his version of "normal" will make George a good king someday.
As for the photograph, I like the intent of it but not the execution if that make sense. But it's always nice to see the family.
Julia, while I don't think the Cambridge's deserve the amount of criticism aimed at them, I do see your points, especially number two. WEll said!
DeleteI also agree with your comments. I could see the picture if it were in a series of photos. But for my taste it seems odd in a solo situation. And if I am correct GQ is a men's style magazine like Vogue or Harper's?? I don't think either picture is particularly flattering of William...especially the cover photo. a bit too avant guard of a style for me. I like the naturalness of the setting... but a bit more posed for this situation would be more appropriate.
DeleteJulia,, I agree with point 2, I'm not sure what his definition of normal means, because they live royal lives, I'm assuming he means normal where the media does not bother him, until he decides to entertain them, at his convenience. The photograph is creepy,,its got an end of the world vibe to it. The Reese Witherspoon picture is my favorite, If the photographer would've given that effect to this picture, the outcome would've been vastly different, Thank You Charlotte!XOXO
DeleteRegarding "normal". It would be nice (and professional) to ask William in his next interview what he means by "normal".
DeleteIt would help him image-wise I think. "Normal" can mean many different things to different people. And to ask him what other tangible things "Heads Together" is planning to help facilitate their agenda. Training like Julia suggested to help people better know how to offer reliable help would be excellent. They may have that in the works already.
Well, I think when William talks about normal, he means kids with a mom and dad, and maybe decent grandparents, not living in boarding school or handled exclusively by servants. A family unit that eats together often and talks to one another, etc. He doesn't really know what normal is, but doesn't want his kids to suffer in the manner he did. They will suffer of course. Within a year or two, some parent, kid or pap will flash the topless photos of his mom, or Harry's strip poker pic in George's face to get a reaction. At least William can say he tried to defend her and his family.
DeleteI always think of his helicopter job as the one thing he does to make his mother proud. He will lose it soon and more hair and he will look sadder. I remember her talking about real people doing real things. She was truly imperfect, but had some regular people who were her friends and she spend enough time with her children that they knew her as a mother. I admire the Queen for her work and sense of duty. I would not ask her anything about parenting.
For sure, a large part of the GQ readership will not even know who Diana was, or what William went through. The campaign for mental health will undoubtedly repeat the message in many forums. For those of you who are tired of it, maybe follow something else.
I thought the Queen was William's boss and when he married it was determined that he would work as he is now for some years, and live where he was told and progress toward the work of the family business. I have no problem with him, or his work schedule. How many little signs behind drapes can there be in the country? This weekend in the US there is an article on some news feeds that speaks of Camilla's nightmare with the press during her affair with Charles. Can't you see the difference??? Undoubtedly a publisher is using it to promote the book. When I was young I thought Charles was so ugly that when I saw a news article calling him the "jet set prince", I thought he was paying women to spend time with him...... The press loves Camilla, and I find that ironic.
As far as pictures of children--children are not responsible and must be protected. Surely you don't think the Spanish royalty are threatened or taken as seriously around the world as the British Royal Family? The Obamas said their children were not news, but the parents were and they should only be photographed when with their parents. It worked pretty well. Little George may have a job some day, but he doesn't yet. There are others ahead of him and I say leave the children alone. I was married to a military intelligence officer. He was dogmatic about not letting strangers take our daughter's picture. He knew the risks. Once after landscaping a new yard he walked around, looked out every window, and said, "We need one more tree right there"-pointing to the edge of the yard. "There is a perfect line for a shooter from that third house over, second story window". I planted the tree.
Charlotte, this blog is excellent and I have learned so much about the UK, Australia, India, and the map of Great Britain. I will keep following you, but I am done with the comments. I use to think the greatest thrill would be to travel to the UK. The comments here, the real reporters snide and insulting comments about the royals they cover, and twitter vulgarities about the children have even taken the glow off of my beloved Peter Rabbit collection. There is no way any of the Cambridges can ever work enough to justify the family wealth and position, compared to most people. This is true of all children from wealthy families. If the answer to every issue they face is, well they are rich, and spoiled and undeserving, how is that building a future for the country? They must serve for sure or walk away, but are they slaves?
If you see me here again, call me on it!
I've said this before; normal is relative and I can appreciate where he's coming from. Diana was criticized for exposing her sons to life beyond palace walls and for some of the choices that were made on their behalf but, in the end, it made them the fine young men they are today.
DeleteJulia, I so agree – particularly with numers 2 and 3.
DeleteWilliam is a public person, whose function it is to continue the royal line – to exhibit duty and responsibility to the nation. The people will accept him as heir to the throne, but only for as long as he is willing to assume the position of royal prince. So; what is this "normal" he's talking about? Being a part-time helicopter pilot? Living in royal mansion?
Life is hard, William – for you, for me, for all of us! We live in a world of social media, of war, censorship, migration, hunger, thirst, loneliness, illness. We try hard – every day – to be of use, to do something meaningful – to be someone and go somewhere!
"I cannot understand how families, even behind closed doors, still find it so hard to talk about it. I am shocked we are so worried about saying anything about the true feelings we have."
I cannot – for the life of me - understand you "shock". I find your comment immature for a 35-year-old. Our whole society is geared towards perfection and status. You and your wife present perfect exteriors; all curls, heels, and pressed trousers. You are public persons – as are your children. You are – the three of you, heirs to the throne of the realm.
Heidi
royalfan, I agree. Diana was fiercely protective of her boys, but I think she raised them well, considering the circumstances. My favourite memory/image of them was at Disneyland getting soaked & shrieking with delight on a ride. She allowed her kids to have fun & let loose, even under the scrutiny of the public/media attention & with the rigid protocol of the BRF. William & Harry are truly a credit to her.
DeleteJulia, Princess Anne did (and obviously was able to!!)choose a "non-royal status" for her children. They are no "HRH" and have no title. She did so BECAUSE she wanted a "normal" life for her children ("normal" of course means a "normal upper-class upbringing" - not "our" normal) and therefore an opportunity to let them grow up out of the spotlight as much as possible.
DeleteCharles and Diana obviously didn´t have that choice, still they were also BOTH talking very often about wanting to give their children a life as "normal" as possible (under the circumstances, that is..). The fact that William was actually able to work as a pilot and build a family first, before taking over more royal duties, is proof that it was not just talk.
Plus, although Anne and Mark got divorced, there was (fortunately) not much "capacity for drama" on both sides, so their children seem to have been able to come out of this quite "unscathed" (at least as far as we "know").
So, to cut a long story short, I don´t think Princess Anne/her children´s situation can be compared directly with Prince Charles/his children´s. Although both being the Queen´s children, Princess Anne was much more able to make HER choices regarding her family....
Princess Anne´s work ethic could be compared to Prince Charles´s because they are both the current monarch´s children, William is still the grandson. I know many think that Prince Charles doesn´t want him to be more "active" because he fears his popularity (and Kate´s) but I think it´s much more that he wants him to have the freedom to build a happy and secure family AND relationship with his wife first. Personally, I think that not only William tries to learn from past mistakes, but Charles as well (AND the Queen, for that matter). Even Diana herself acknowledged in her (in)famous Panorama interview that the pressure of being in the spotlight and having to immediately work as a so-called "full-time royal" had an enormous effect (and not in a positive way) on their relationship. I think it´s great and will help William in the future that he was able to have that "time off" with his wife and his children. In my opinion, the photo captures exactly t h a t: a very relaxed, happy family, with kids obviously being used to playing in the garden with their parents on a regular basis...
*sorry, it wasn't Disneyland, it was Thorpe Park Amusement Park.
DeleteI'm sorry Ellen if you quit reading - I always am.
DeleteAnd I have to say if William becomes sadder by royal duties - if he really doesn't want to do them, if he really doesn't want to be king or want George to be king - then I wish for heaven sake he would abdicate - go do what does make him happy at private expense - because the monarchy won't survive with someone who hates what he's doing, who has no passion for it, who is a martyr to the role. It's exhausting to witness. Somewhere down there in the line of succession, there must be someone who's enthusiastic about it (oh, goodness, we have Andrew in there.) What a pity we can't have Anne - she has worked like a trooper her whole life, raised well-rounded children, even if they aren't perfect and Britain has thrived under queens.
But it can't happen so easily - so I hope Ellen you are wrong and if William would just plunge into the role, he would find greater meaning to it in a broader sense. He's thirty-five, a mature man, not a boy - and has had years off to pursue interests - far more than ninety-nine percent of his countrymen, who slog from their twenties supporting families - doing work they need to do to earn a living.
I do think true royalists accept that royals have greater privileges and more opulent lifestyles for less work - the trick is to do enough to appear to earn these great privileges - no one realistically expects a full weeks work out of William and Kate - if they turn up once a week, it's a celebration.
As for the topless pictures and dad dancing - I'm sorry - you're in public life - paps are a hazard - I feel far more for private people who are mocked and bullied online. Long before the Internet was so developed, I stopped going topless in public because I had a professional job and might be seen. It's a tiny sacrifice for being mature.
I wouldn't say the Spanish children are less threatened than the British - (the monarchy remains very unpopular there) or that the average civilian is safer than a royal - we live in a very tricky world and assume the law of averages will protect us.
But one wonderful thing the royal family has done in the past is stand as a beacon against being afraid - and many of us would like to see them keep that role.
I agree with a majority of your thoughts, Julia. I also agree with Royalfan, that "normal" is relative. I appreciate William's wanting his children to be "out there" in life, instead of shut up behind the palace walls, but I also appreciate your wanting a definition of what exactly normal means to him and how he expects that to be played out for his children. Because, in the end, they ARE public figures. I'm overwhelmed by the thought of what it must be like to be royal and how to strike an appropriate balance. That's what it comes down to, for me. It does seem that royals of other nations have done it well and without so much drama.
DeleteWeird photo.
ReplyDeleteUncle Festus has found a whole slew of his long lost dark under-eyed relatives in the photos of this page. (Cue the theme from The Adams Family). :)
ReplyDeleteOh I find it a lovely photograph.
DeleteUncle Festus? Wow!
DeleteComment is not funny, SG. Not one bit.
DeleteLol, I thought the same thing! while I love the whole "gothic" style of these photos, they really aren't flattering for William. Oh, I believe the correct name is Fester not Festus :)
DeleteNot funny at all
DeleteI like the photo. Yes, it's chaotic but I imagine that's probably what a real photo shoot is like with small kids. We did one with my nieces and by the end, both had meltdowns.
ReplyDeleteI also am kind of over the double standard. It's completely okay for the Queen to never do interviews or share anything about herself and it's fine because she's the Queen and is 'mysterious'. But since William is not currently not King, he's supposed to share everything? Once it's out, there's no taking it back. I understand why he's more guarded.
While I also understand people having issues with him saying, 'I want George to be out there' but also jealously guard their privacy, maybe it's because nothing in his childhood seemed guarded. His first day of school was public fodder broadcast to millions. I think w/K, knowing their children, are operating out of the idea that if their kids are self confident and secure as small children, they will be confident and willing to step out as adults. Plus, (and maybe I just don't follow close enough) it's okay for Louise and James to never be out(including James at Christmas) but not okay for George and Charlotte? I realize they are very different in future roles but still. It's okay for one to be guarded but not for the other?
Or maybe I am just one of 'those people giving William and Kate a pass'.
Love it. Count me in.
DeleteActually, Louise is very much out there - she was photographed with the queen and her father attending church to honour those killed and injured in Manchester this weekend, she was recently out carriage driving too - her grandfather's hobby. I won't be surprised if she does turn out to have a role in public life.
DeleteJames has also been seen on the balcony being babysat his granny - criticised by Kate fanatics for blocking their view of her, at horse shows fun fairs and amusement parks - the latter with him rather tearful - there was a charming informal portrait of Sophie and the queen with one of the babies - so I would hardly call the Wessex children overly guarded.
I have no problem with William sharing in interviews - the queen has not but she's from a different era - but any royal who does, Charles, William or (as recently) Camilla - will have their remarks critiqued. I can never speak sharply to my plants without remembering Charles being teased without mercy for saying he did the same.
So I don't think there's such a double standard - people who work are praised for doing so - there's always a hope to see royal children. As for the photo, I like the idea of an informal family photo but the technique was odd. I asked my husband who knows something of photography and he said what makes the unusual effect is the high contrast in the black and white - I believe that's why it is controversial.
Louise being 'out there' is a relatively new thing. I would venture to say James is seen on average about as much as George. Maybe just a few times a year. But since Sophie and Edward don't make a huge deal about the media and guarding their kids, no one notices.
DeleteI do agree that Louise will end up being a full time royal. Even paring down the full time royals, you still need some and her parents work very hard and quietly. I could easily see them teaching that for Louise. It will be interesting to see how it goes for the next several years. Now that she's a teenager, most likely she will start to be more visible as she does things like carriage racing and going to church with the Queen.
Wow, I opened these comments up this afternoon and was shocked to see all the negativity and criticism, both of the photo and of William's interview. I'll start with the simple stuff: I love the photo. It made me smile. This is not a portrait where they are meant to be formal and sitting and have it framed and hung in the palace. This is a fashion photographer capturing a family outdoors in a relaxed environment. Over and over again, the Cambridges have stressed how much they love being outside with their family...and here it is, and everyone complains! It is black and white, and it is messy but that is real life. George and Charlotte aren't the subjects of this interview, so they don't need to be front and center and posed. Also, there will be more photos released later this week so who knows what's coming.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to William's comments, I think people love to take them out of context. I interpreted his comment about the media as: hey, I want my kids to grow up without feeling like they are celebrities but it can be hard when the media reports every last thing about them, including a picture of my kid's head photoshopped on a school uniform, or when my daughter's 2 year old photographs are scrutinized because her eye's don't look even. Oh, and remember the time they took topless photos of my wife? And how about the videos they published of me dancing and putting my hand on a woman's arm and then positing on whether or not I was hitting on her?
I think we have to be a bit more empathetic in regards to his feelings. He has been scarred deeply by the media. Yes, of course he needs them to help keep him relevant, but I don't think any of us here can even begin to imagine how hard that must be to live in the limelight. And I see the other side too...that he shouldn't complain. But we all have issues that are tender or "hot button" for each of us, and this is clearly his. I think we need to respect that.
Nina, I was touched by your comments. It is so good to see their sweet family in this informal setting, something the rest of us take for granted. Just to be able to step out in your own yard or woods and enjoy your family without eyes watching you all the time is precious. I love to keep up with the royals, but will never criticize them for personal choices or feelings. Please let them live a normal life by respecting their family as you would your own. Thanks again Nina for your post.
DeleteBrillant reply Nina...thanks for summing it up perfectly.
DeleteYes! I agree with you, Nina. Well said--sums it up nicely.
DeleteNina, agree with your comments. Plus it did not sound like media bashing as much as how the reality of having media around all the time can really impact a child and you have to work to counteract the negatives of that exposure, the self importance some kids can develop which is already such an issue for them simply by being"Royals" and "Wealthy". His focus on a grounded home life I read as having much to do with the the less than stable lives of his parents and how that impacted Harry and himself throughout their up bringing. I also do not hear any "woe is me" simply an acknowledgement that with so many people deeply invested in his Mothers death and their assumptions of who she was made it a different and less private time of grieving.
ReplyDeleteNina/ali, also agree. I'd rather read the entire article first and then form an opinion about it, rather than taking the excerpts out of context and tearing them apart.
DeleteThat's what I heard also, ali. It was all good.
ReplyDeleteThank you,Nina. Well said. The sad part is that for some there is nothing he can say that they would"nt find fault with. It's their hobby. Harry can tell them off and its ok. Harry being Harry! Heavy is the head that wears the crown!!
ReplyDeleteI have always loved Charlotte's blog. She shows such class and kindness. Lately though I have been astonished to read so many negative comments. Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I just can't understand the cruelty of some.
ReplyDeleteI think this picture is wonderful and fun. I love it. I will comment on William's interview after I have read it, in it's entirety.
Teri, I too notice the negative comments. I found that these same people,(won't call any names), post similar or exact comments on other sites. They use these blogs to feed their negative views, and I wish they would find something else to do! Maybe not publishing them would help.
DeleteI guess they like to stir the proverbial pot!
DeleteWhat negative comments ? People are stating their opinions - not bashing anybody personally. If you do not agree with someone's points of view why don't you argue back respectfully about why you don't agree?
DeleteIt seems that some of you do not have the confidence or ability to express your own arguments in a coherent or cogent fashion and don't want anyone else to do so. All some people do is complain about other people's opinions. Rebecca is someone who fights back admirably. Maybe you could emulate what she does instead of complaining and trying to start trouble up on the blog again. Or you could open your own blogs where only fawning praise of Kate is allowed.
And here we go with the poster bashing again. Referring to 2303 above, not you, Tedi.
DeleteBluhare, she usually comes to stir the cauldron.👏😀
DeleteI don't know if I'm one of the persons meant - I don't post elsewhere except occasionally OSS on fashion, but I'm sorry to see a suggestion of censorship and attacks on posters which are against Charlotte's specific request. We have done so well of late, respecting others opinions and I do respect everyone's opinions, even if they differ from mine - even, as is the case with friends, they are republican. I'm always disappointed to hear such views and to see they're growing, but to pretend they don't exist is to be an ostrich.
DeleteLet us hope we can again return to respect. Any article such as William's, any photograph as unusual as this is bound to lead to different interpretations. I don't see this as cruelty - more concern. The one thing I do see here is almost all of us support the monarchy, and that means by definition, we want William and Kate to do the best they can, whether we believe they presently are, or not.
I have to say, I've been thinking about taking a break from commenting. I probably wont, because I love this place. But the critique is sometimes not the best for my mental health state.
DeleteI have no problem with critique. Not at all, I like having these discussions.
Something that irks me though is how some people (I won't name names. Although it might sounds passive agressive not to...) manage to always just write critique. I understand that negative things stick out more so one might unknowingly jump straight to the critique. I have no trouble with these discussions. But it would all "go down" a bit easier with me if the posts were more "well rounded" to include what people actually liked as well. Just a thought. Because while I don't think we should all be fawning over the cambridges, I do have to admit that I sometimes go away from this comment section with a lump in my throught. Not because of critique, but because the imbalance of the critique and positiveness.
Hope this comment isn't seen as "poster bashing"
Rebecca, I agree. Healthy debate is great-this photo itself is a great example. Some people love it and others dislike it. But it's a discussion about the photo itself and its merits.
DeleteBut when all that is posted is how Kate(or William) has somehow fallen short in our expectations and nothing is redeeming, is where it gets demoralizing. We can all read those comments on twitter. I think we can all agree (for the most part) we come here because we either like Kate or like the Royal family(whether it be BRF or just European royals) and in general, want them to succeed and want to celebrate their success with other fans. There is definitely room for healthy discussion within those bounds though.
Rebecca! Your comment is not poster bashing. THIS is poster bashing: "They use these blogs to feed their negative views, and I wish they would find something else to do! Maybe not publishing them would help."
DeleteAnd I personally wish people would use names. It *is* passive aggressive to throw out a complaint like Annette did above and not name names. People then wonder if she means them -- perhaps unnecessarily. However, I also understand not wanting to name names. I don't know whether that's appropriate or not. On the other hand, I wish people would just accept others' opinions. I read stuff here that makes me grind my teeth sometimes too, but I don't complain about it because I figure there's room for everyone. The only time you see me going off on someone is when they attack someone or a class of posters just for being here and having opinions different than theirs.
Personally, I discount opinions of people who don't look at both sides. I find people who are constantly negative as annoying as the constantly cloying. And those people tend to go in my "meh" bin. If you can't see both sides of things then you don't have a very well rounded opinion. I also think there are people here who don't care about William and Kate as individuals (and I'm one) but care a whole lot more about the roles they have. It's not that we don't like them -- we don't know them. But I am more on the negative side, because I don't think they handle their public selves as well as I think they could.
Hope that helps from one of the negative naysaying nellies.
Dearest Rebecca in Sweden, when I look for comments on this blog, yours are the ones I zero in on first. This comments section to me is like a coffee morning where I drift from group to group. If something uplifting is being said I linger and if I feel "safe" I will add my comment. If the comments don't resonate with me I move along. Everyone is welcome to a coffee morning and the mor who come and the more diverse the groups so that everyone feels happy in their "space" with people who are "simpatica" to them, the better.
DeleteRebecca, I totally get what you're saying. Please don't go! As you said, you love this place, so hopefully you won't. I enjoy your balanced comments. I also enjoy everyone else's perspectives. But sometimes the negativity can get me down, too. I like positive comments & critiques...the criticism, at times, seems to out-weigh the positivity. I would like to see a more balanced approach, if possible.
DeleteIt's a very good response Rebecca, and it's worth noting we always get into the problems at a particular time - when there is a long lull with no engagements. Two weeks with nothing but a splashy private wedding and the flower show. Obviously, it's easier to praise when there is something to talk about. The garden party for the children was brilliant. We were all pleased they came to the queen's first garden party but we've exhausted comments on that.
DeleteFor the opposite reason, I sometimes feel I should give up here too and am certain it would please many who just want to admire a young prince and princess (and probably won't be around when they aren't young and attractive anymore) and don't worry about what they do or don't do.
I'm here to see a working prince and princess and get moments when I wonder why I'm following a couple who are out there so little. Certainly many others have walked away from William and Kate.
Those who say people will never be satisfied don't look at how little work is actually being done. But yes, now the reputation for not doing much is out there, building back from that will take more - but it can happen, Sophie is an example. I still hope it will. Every month I think that - every slight change - the palace gossip, engagements in January - gives me hope.
Quite honestly if most of the posters here had a fellow employee who hadn't showed for more than a couple of days an entire month - I don't think they would be leaping for joy. William and Kate are public employees.
I suppose I'm just so unhappy. A terrible tragedy occurred which shook the nation. William went to a football match and laid a wreath. I don't know what else could have been done - but I wish the young royals would just once surprise me by stepping out of the box. So I may take a break too - we're going on holiday later - that will give me a spell off and people a spell off from me.
But Harry is out there with Invictus - I do treat him the same as William and Kate but I have to say his charm is delightful.
Rebecca for what it's worth I have two thoughts on this :)
DeleteFirst, my initial protective, mothering instinct would be to say, if something causes you more stress or discomfort in life, it's probably not worth it. Life is hard enough, believe me.
However (speaking in general terms here) I'm concerned that we've become a society that cannot tolerate any discomfort caused by differing opinions. Social media I honestly believe will be the downfall of civil society. We block what we don't like, only interact with what we do like or approve. It's completely abolished the ability to have polite, but spirited, discussions and conversations. Where would we be if the generations before us had not been able to debate, discuss, negotiate? So much of our progress we owe to that and the wise people who stood up and engaged!
So, overall, I would say a little discomfort is a good thing, it means you're challenging yourself, exposing yourself, enriching yourself, they're called growing "pains" for a reason. If it becomes too much, where it's affecting other parts of your life, then yes, step away. But that will only mean I will have to type more "Where's Miss Rebecca?" comments :)
I think bluhare said it best above, with wise words on how to approach and ignore the comments you may find distressing.
I also just want to chime in on the "poster bashing" which I find very rude and disruptive to the blog. I would ask Charlotte to consider not publishing. If you have a specific complaint with something someone said, take it up with them! Don't start a thread complaining about your fellow readers. Not everyone is going to have the same opinion on everything, and thank goodness for that.
Rebecca I get where you are coming from. Sometimes it may seem that people only see the negative in others and not the positive. And being surrounded by people like that is exhausting. This is, however, just a blog on people we don't know.
DeleteIf criticisms of the royals is really affecting you so badly then you might want to skip certain posters. Also, if I were you I would also try to examine why I felt that invested in people that I do not know, that I come away with a lump in my throat at criticisms of them. Why do you care so much about these people? They are not in your life, are they? Royal watching is a fun distraction in life but if it becomes a primary hobby in place of other healthier hobbies then I can see that would really start affecting one's well-being.
That being said, I do count myself as fairly balanced in royal watching. However, when it comes to William I think that I, as well as countless others, perceive him to be completely oblivious of his duties and privilege in life. And that irks people endlessly.. to the extent that people ONLY see his worse side. I think that is what manifests in comments every time he opens his mouth to speak. People are just annoyed at his attitude and that colors their comments.
I do try to see William's perspective on things, and I do acknowledge the emotional resilience it took him and Harry to come through to the other side. Nevertheless, that does not outweigh or justify their attitudes.. sorry, I have tried rationalizing it, but I can't. There are other rich princes in this world and they don't come across the same way. They just don't.
I know exactly why it affects me badly Rosman. It's because since we don't know them, we can only judge by appearances. And people seem to jump more to judging badly/bad motives when haveing too little information. And that makes me think of how people are judging others and in line me, based on limited information. And it kind of makes me sad. But it's just my anxiety itself.
DeleteSo I was not saying that people should write in a different way because of me, just that I on purpose force myself to comment on the events before the fashion because I know I like that kind of stuff to be more in the forefront and my instinct is to talk about the fashion first. So I make a consious choice to write about the event first. And it was just a suggestion that people might want to "put into practice" making sure they put at least 2 lines of positive in each initial comment or something like that. Just something small. Because I have noticed that when I've started writing comments in a way that I would appriciate to read, that I get even more enjoyment out of it :)
Sorry, just rambling some thoughts, and not all fully rational! I know that (almost) everyone have good intentions and that sometimes feeling bad about something is on yourself and not the other person :)
Beautiful responses to Rebecca. I have read all of them. Not much more I could possibly add except that I love that I can usually count on your comment to be one of the first, Rebecca, and I look for it to read first as it invariably sums up the entire blog post through your own perspective. I consider you and Julia to be the anchors of the comment section in a way. So step away for a respite if you must ( I do that sometimes and I suspect most of us do.) but please return because I do enjoy what you have to say and I think you're a vital member of this community.
DeleteTedi, I appreciate Charlotte's blog as well, including the comments section, and I agree that everyone is entitled to their opinion.
DeleteAs far as posi/negativity is concerned, I recently came across a piece of info I would like to share with everybody. It's a phenomenon called ”negative bias” that I actually find a bit shocking. Negative bias means that our brains are built with an automatic greater sensitivity to unpleasant news. Accordingly, our attitudes are more heavily influenced by downbeat news than good news.
So in all kinds of relationships, a healthy balance between the amount of positivity and negativity does not mean a 50-50 equilibrium, as one might suspect when one thinks of balance.* Please stop reading here for a second and guess what the ideal ratio between + and - is when you aim at creating a healthy atmosphere between different people interacting with one another. What is your guess? ...
(* Did one sound a tiny little bit like a certain queen here? :) - Just trying to create some space in order for your eyes not to immediately see the answer below :))
One for you, one for me, one + for you, one - for me, +, -, + , -, ..., looks "fair" and "balanced" but results in a higher impact of negativity - even though the "amount" of + and - is mathematically the same. (That's because of the disproportionate weight of the negative in our brains.)
So, what is your guess for the ideal balance of + and - ?
4:3 ?
3:2 ?
2:1 ?
The magic ratio is ...
... five to one, i.e. five times as much positive feeling and interaction as negative ones are necessary to strike a balance. shocked emoji
Apparently, this bad-news bias is at work in every sphere of our lives at all times.(!) Occasional big positive experiences like a royal wedding, birth, tour, breath-taking appearance or photograph :) don't make the necessary impact on our brain to override ongoing every day negativity. :(
To make a long story very short, it is the frequency of small positive acts that matters most when it comes to creating a healthy atmosphere.
In view of our common good, wellbeing and mental health, we should perhaps take this reality into account when interacting with one another. Who knows what could come of it? The eagle-eyed among us might spy Charlotte far, far away on the horizon, proudly receiving her MBE for services to mental health - , of course, wearing the show-stopping fascinator we previously selected in one of our beloved polls :)
For the above, I very heavily relied on https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200306/our-brains-negative-bias In the article, there are concrete examples etc. that may help to better understand.
Claudia, I couldn't agree more about the internet/social media. It is so much easier to bash someone through an anonymous computer screen, than say the same thing to someone's face. And with the advent of like/dislike buttons, and all that, it turns things sour quickly.
DeleteI will tell you all, that the things I say to you I would also say to your face. That's *my* filter for deciding whether to post something. Would I say this to you if you were standing here? If the answer is yes, I hit send. If it's no, then I either delete the comment or redo it. And, yes, I delete a lot of comments. :)
ET, does have those photos of Pippa and James on their honeymoon available again. The link is somewhere above.
ReplyDeleteI love this photo - it shows what a happy couple they are and how happy their children are, and that's really what it's about! :)
ReplyDeleteThank you, Charlotte, for another insightful and interesting post.
ReplyDeleteI found it wonderfully appropriate to choose a Canadian born portrait photographer in the year of the 150th anniversary of Canada and wanted to know more about him:
Happy to learn that Roy is known for shooting almost exclusively on film with minimal retouching. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Jean_Roy
Very interesting remarks by Roy on pictures, photographs, and shooting on film:
A great portrait needs to first grab you and then let you sit in there and continue to draw you in. [Whereas] with a lot of fashion photography, it really hits you hard and then it slowly fades away, ... To me, that’s the fundamental difference between a great photograph and a great picture.
(on shooting on film) …, you stay very focused. Everything [becomes] hyperreal, so when you get it, you get it another time, and another time after that just to make sure you got it. As a result, you have a much better version of, I think, the moment. That’s much more real, honest, and broken, too.
Part of a perfect image is that it is imperfect. With digital photography, it’s very easy to perfect the image. You kill the image when you perfect it. You basically suck the life out of it. An image, to me, lives when you can look at it and it’s just slightly off. Like, when you put a primary red and primary green together, you have that vibrancy between the two. A great photograph, not a great picture, needs to have that vibration. It would be very easy to take any one of my photographs and I can tell you where I could have fixed this and fixed that.
(interviewer asks about fashion photographers perfecting their subjects to an inhuman degree) … the ones that do that are the ones who destroy their image. … to me, that is what I think is fundamentally wrong with fashion photography.
If and when I have to shoot digitally, I always shoot to card and never show anyone. I usually give myself a day or two before I look ... It’s the same thing you would do with film, you shoot ..., it goes to the lab the next morning and you get it back that afternoon. That space in time between [taking the photograph] and looking at it after is a really important thing.
It’s kind of like counting to ten when someone makes you really mad. If I said something awful to you and you just counted to ten, your reaction would be different than just [snaps fingers].
We’re in such a hurry to make sure we “got it” that in the process I genuinely think the results today are infinitely inferior than where they were ten years ago.
The entire article with interview: Norman Jean Roy Thinks Digital Ruined Fashion Photography https://www.thecut.com/2013/01/norman-jean-roy-digital-ruined-fashion-photos.html (In a slideshow, Jean Roy apparently talks about making portraits of George W. Bush, Cate Blanchett, Florence Welch, and others.)
This might be among his most important work: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/11/a-photographers-call-to-stop-sextrafficking
I am really looking forward to read William’s full interview.
Thanks Francis for the informative post. The photos express exactly what the photographer articulated.The photos are real and honest. Not airbrushed beyond recognition. Shows that they are very comfortable with who they are.
Deletethank you so much for an interesting post regarding the photographer
DeleteYou’re very welcome, Anonymous30 May 2017 at 05:05 & alimai!
DeleteIn the meanwhile, I checked the slideshow I mentioned above and was not surprised to find Roy’s comments to be enlightening. https://www.thecut.com/2013/01/norman-jean-roy-digital-ruined-fashion-photos.html
I really appreciate the Cambridges’ choice of photographers so far. I learned so much about (contemporary) photography as a hobby, a business, a means of communication, an art, ...
Thankful for all photographers who are involved in good causes. I appreciate that Roy has used his position as a portrait photographer to attract more attention to the plight of sex-trafficking. His photographs showcasing one perspective (of many) on the lives of the women he met speak to me. Thank you, Norman. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/11/a-photographers-call-to-stop-sextrafficking
Thank you Charlotte for the post and commentators for their views. Just some comments.
ReplyDeleteWe didn't like Kate's photography and we sure don't like the professional's. My view is the photograph was shot to support and illustrate an article so until the magazine comes out perhaps we should desist with the comment. I imagine it will make more sense in the context than viewed in isolation.
Secondly it really saddens me that normal is viewed in terms of bricks and mortar. For me a normal family is supportive loving adults/parents raising children in a good and happy environment. It speaks volumes to me of how bad William's family life must have been for it to be so important to him. I have never at any stage thought that William's use of normal referred to privilege and wealth. I didn't think the reference to the media as media bashing rather as an impediment to achieving the goal just as a 60 hour working week and hour commute are to mine.
The taboo of talking about mental health is crucial to progress in this area. Until we can each and every one of us make and respond to comments such as 'a couple of months ago I only realised I was unwell -depression because I wanted to drve my car into a tree', we will not progress with sorting out mental problems. The existence, discussion and solutions need to be mainstream in our lives not locked up in a deep dark cupboard as family skeletons.The change in HIV/AIDS only came about when this happened.
And finally we live in a world where extroverts rule so I would commend Susan Cain's book 'Quiet:the power of introverts in a world that cannot stop talking', for those of you who find behaviour of introverts like William, not to your liking. She has a Ted talk too.
The blog sadly is becoming tribal again. We really,us humans, do not like difference
I think William will make a great king one day. I look forward to that moment. Nobody's perfect, but I think he, along with Harry, are both emotionally intelligent individuals. Their empathy for others will carry them a long way. I appreciate William's introverted personality, he reminds me of the Queen.
DeleteThank you, alimai, for your insightful comments--especially on normalcy and introversion and sensitivity to others' distress. Normal is a word that escapes definition. Many people are in situations that for them are "normal" in that it's never been any different. Others might look in from the outside and find it dysfunctional.
DeleteFor example: My ex-husband's family thought it abnormal of me to keep a clean and tidy house as theirs were constantly in a state of chaos. Whereas my family and culture I never kept to the standards of my mother, her peers and my grandmothers. By comparison, I thought I was "really relaxed."
Sometimes people use the expression "in the real world" when they mean "normal" life. I have always said, "The real world is the world where YOU are." Those real worlds can also be modified. It's clear that William and Catherine are shifting the parameters of their world and the challenges they and their children face within it. They are not adhering to systems in which the Queen or Charles or they were brought up. Didn't the butler the Queen gave them a few years back quit because William and Catherine were not running their home like "a royal household?" That's quite telling--and probably desirable except for the most formal of occasions such as state dinners and high level receptions.
alimai, I appreciate when context is taken into account, too.
DeleteKiwi Gal, “Nobody's perfect”, so true.
Philly, I enjoyed very much what you said about views from the in/outside and the example you gave.
Interesting how culture, standards, family, ... have an effect on what we consider normal, real, important, ...
Here’s a link to the Ted talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_cain_the_power_of_introverts.html
I also found this review of Susan Cain's book pleasant to read: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/mar/22/quiet-power-introverts-susan-cain-review
Thank you for your comment, alimai! The book by Susan Cain you recommend is really very good (my brother-in-law, an introvert, gave it to me as a present so that I (an extrovert) could understand him and other introverts better. (He gave it to me after having known me for 20 years :) ).
DeleteOn another site I saw another picture that is just with William and the two children taken by the same photographer. I like it better... just me.
ReplyDeleteI saw that one as well. A much better photograph. No odd shadows and depth perception issues. Lovely actually.
DeleteThe main reason this particular blog is my most favorite is the many delightful intelligent discussions. In my opinion the only negativity is the discussion of negativity that then becomes negative. I hope you all understand my point.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate and respect diverse opinions from individual persepectives. We need healthy critiques as do the Royals.
Thank you Charlotte for providing a high classed medium to indulge our thoughts.
The photo is simply 100% Norman Jean Roy. That´s his signature style. I quite often buy the US Vogue March and/or September and they very often feature his photos. He loves to capture people in slightly "off" situations/positions, "off" compared to "normal" photos, especially fashion photos. Google him and you will find many photos similar in style to this one. I agree, though, that his photos often are not the ones you immediately say "Oh, how BEAUTIFUL!!"...they surely make you look twice and think about it, and I guess that´s what he wants to achieve.. Francis´quotes from one of his interviews seems to support that...
ReplyDeleteSharing William´s own issues (in this case his mother´s death) is a powerful tool to support the "Heads Together" campaign and its core message. Plus, it´s been 20 years since his mother´s death, and, as I understand, quite a few special things are planned for this occasion. So I guess it´s only natural that he talks about this quite often at the moment...
On a more private note: I have been commenting very little during the last few weeks as I have been moving to a new flat and it took my internet provider ages to get a technician to switch on internet+telephone in my new place. Some of you might remember that I suffered terribly in my own flat due to the amount of smokers that are living in the house+nearby. Unfortunately, I recently had to discover that I´m once again surrounded by chain smokers. They don´t live in the same house, but very nearby. I thought I had checked well enough before renting the flat, but most of the balconies where they smoke, are quite well "protected" so that you can´t see much from the street below.
To cut a long story short: do I think it is necessary to talk about mental health? A B S O L U T E L Y. Addiction, as an example, causes misery and despair - on all sides! Our children should be taught that smoking, drinking, etc. is NOT a "trivial offense" - it really is a CRIME. It´s not only harming yourself, but, in the case of smoking, harming perfectly innocent people as well, forcing them to become involved in your problems and causing absolute havoc in their lives. I honestly am totally in despair. I just want some fresh air - is that too much to ask?
Forgive me my ranting. The post about this interview in combination with my own personal experiences at the moment just reminded me so powerfully of how important mental health is and how much it affects your own AND other people´s life.....
Thank you Eve. I think every time William speaks recently, he opens up a little bit more. I really appreciate this side of him, as he usually comes across as reserved. This would be fine too, he has obviously found the death of his mother very difficult. Who wouldn't. I still get teary thinking about Diana, and I never even met her. Mental health awareness is everything, and being supportive of where other people are at, is imperative :-)
DeleteRoyal Watcher
Eve, I hope the new flat is better for you -and smoking is a curse. My apologies to any here who do - and if you do - please quit, for your own and your family's sake!
DeleteExcessive drinking and smoking because it's 'cool' is a huge blight amongst the young - I wish some royal would take that a cause - but don't ask me who.
What an interesting comment on the photographer, Francis! I am of two minds about the photograph myself--I wish we could see George's face and that there weren't so many shadows. But, then, if the art isn't a portrait but is about feelings--joy in family life, relaxation instead of posing--I see what he (the photographer) is aiming for. I still wish there were fewer shadows though :)
ReplyDeleteTammy from California, I like the points you made re the photo. I think the attempt was made to not "stage" a photo but give a view of a relaxed family, just simply enjoying being out side with each other and Lupo. All the comments made are great because we have different perspectives. Life is about diversity and differences. Princes William and Harry and Duchess Catherine have their perspectives also. The world is a better place when we respect each other's perspectives. I can't give a honest assessment of the life of a royal because I am not a royal. However, I do appreciate that the world is full of all kinds of people from different backgrounds and I enjoy hearing their perspectives about issues. Everyone enjoy a blessed day.
ReplyDeleteNow I see the 'gothic' style coming from Norman Jean Roy's other work. I think it's beautiful & 'artsy'...it's not staged & I like that the images are black & white. You're not distracted by colours & it almost gives an ethereal quality to the portraits. The second image with William & just his children is precious. It seems that George adores his daddy :)
ReplyDeleteI've really appreciated reading the various reasons why this photo resonates with many of you as well as those who (like me) were puzzled or even put off by it. I gained a good number of insights I wouldn't have otherwise. Many thanks!
ReplyDeleteTo me, this was an excellent example of how taste differs. While some of us loved the picture, others found it odd or ugly. Is there a better way to see how different we all are and how differently we think of what is around us? I'm also very grateful to Francis for the link to the interesting interview with Norman Jean Roy on photography.
DeleteI like the second picture of William and kids very much! I believe that like the 1st picture it captures them very well, nothing artificial or staged.
Here is my take on the situation.
ReplyDeleteApologies to those that do not share my opinion however the beauty of this blog is that we all have the ability to contribute our thoughts.
William is too focused on his own needs and desires. He appears to not think much beyond himself really.
I also feel that he lacks appreciation for the blessings he has in his life. As others have pointed out so well William does not really know (and never will) what it is like to eek out an existence (putting food on the table/keeping a roof over your head) whilst juggling hardship.
But we all know that.
You live a very pampered and protected life full of PR puff. And it is the PR that is getting on my nerves now.
Your country has just suffered a number of hideous situations and indeed there are still people suffering.
Get over yourself, cut the PR down somewhat and genuinely focus on others always.
Only then will you start to earn our sincere respect.
Please ladies and gentlemen, I just wanted to spread a little fun with the idea of Addams family. It's something, I believe, that could make their Royal Highnesses laugh too ... Just a little bit of fun. Besides, a great thank you to all the commenters of the picture. I still dislike it but the discussion was very interesting and many people gave really insightful opinions. And, as I always say to my students, when we talk about art it's never matter of "I like" or "I dislike" it, it's always matter of "what does a picture mean? Is it important or is it meaningless?"
ReplyDeleteThe new photo of William with the children is sweet - but again I don't like this photographer's style. I suppose it's a fashion magazine so they feel they must be edgy.
ReplyDeleteCamilla has given an interview - no doubt to balance all the attention to the anniversary of Diana's death. I will admit I ignored this interview and plan to continue to ignore it - I have no sympathy for her or interest in what she has to say. She has cultivated a strong relationship with the press - but 'cultivating' is what has gotten her where she is so it's not surprising she has talent in that direction.
with the Daily Mail, Julia. Her ok2say how mean people were to her when she was carrying on her affair while both she and Charles were married to others. I can't understand how she or her PR staff can possibly think this will help her image. Public opinion must be running lower than I had imagined. If it had come any other time or year, her apparent plea for understanding or absolution or whatever might have been better received. The timing is terrible. Abagail
DeleteI would have thought the grounds at Kensington Palace would be better groomed. :)
ReplyDeleteI will admit up front I have read only a few of the comments. When I saw the number of comments balloon, I thought, "Oh no!"
ReplyDeleteI will only add that the photographer and GQ have done their job by releasing this photo. It got people talking about the article and hopefully about mental health.
Also, we don't have to guess what William means by normal family life. He has stated exactly what he means in interviews, but it seems convenient to super-impose our own emotions and feelings instead of listening to what he has actually said. I don't know why the word "normal" is such a catalyst to emotions.
I think it possible that the joy and freedom expressed in this photo-outside the photographer's mode of artistic expression- may be a visual representation of William's concept of normal family life: out in nature and away from the material things that distract us; a circle of love, not duty binding them ( there is no central focus of individual attention), they are each-including Lupo!- an individual. I think it possible that this represents William's ideal of normal family life, an oasis amid the life of a BRF member. Truly the home/castle that any man may aspire to. He does say in the GQ interview that he depends on his family life to sustain and nourish him through the other, so I suppose there is some basis for the oasis analogy.
Upon reflection, this photograph to me elicits the opposite feeling to the portrait Annie L. did in the palace setting, in that all are surrounding and somehow bound to the focus of the photo-the Queen. Even Mia carries her burden. Well, I guess that's carrying my analogy a bit far-:) but maybe I made my point. Abagail.
One man's freedom is another's disorganization.
Duty....burden
shack...castle
castle...prison
You know, I read all the comments here - and I came up with a few thoughts that I expressed a bit spontaneously above - and then thought about some more.
ReplyDeleteIf William finds his role so burdensome. If he feels it's incompatible with family life as he wants it - if he feels the need to be constantly putting the expected duties off more and more, if he would rather be doing something else, if Kate really wants to be a stay-at-home mum, if they are going to fret about the children and the press, if they are going to be agitated because topless pictures were published or he can't go dance freely in a disco - why are we planning for him to be king! Why should he be if he doesn't want to be and if he thinks he doesn't want George to be? Britain has been well-served by people who stood outside the expected line of succession - our own queen - her father, her grandfather, Victoria, Elizabeth I. Why not let the crown go to one who truly wants it and who by enthusiasm. good conduct, and a fire in his/or her belly, take the crown after what will be the comparatively short and difficult reign of Charles. Because it is going to be a difficult reign - Charles is old and not terribly popular, Camilla even less so - many of us can do nothing but endure this reign but are looking towards the future. It's going to take someone who plunges in with vigor and does so soon and with both feet to keep this institution vital and meaningful to a new generation. Maybe that person isn't William. I don't know if there should be shame to that - the Japanese emperor is likely to abdicate, other monarchs and popes have - yes, they were old but this is still unprecedented. If William would like to make mental health his sole cause and live outside public support doing what he needs to do to support his family, maybe that's what should happen.
Because what isn't needed is a reluctant king! The coming monarch after Charles is going to need full commitment as soon as possible.
Honesty comes in many forms. It's honest to say - this job isn't right for me - I loathe the press which is a necessary part of it - I want to live privately. Yes, there would still be attention at first, but in time it would die away and focus on who takes his place.
Who should this person be? I don't know. Is that what William wants? I'm hearing that from supporters here - but I don't know what he really feels. This is an article on one subject in theory - although it's billed as a review of William - but what I haven't seen quoted is anything about a passion for his future role. Maybe it's there, we've only seen part of the article or at least I have. But this debate has concerned me - from what both critics and supporters have said.
It has left me feeling exhausted - as if William is carrying the weight of the world on him - we know it's a tough job - Victoria's frank interview made it clear that isn't limited to Britain - but tough jobs are best done by those who feel a compelling desire to do it - we'd not want a fire brigade full or reluctant fighters, or police with no interest. I believe the long link of royalty means it should be an inherited position but throughout history it has been best served when a person with passion took it - not always the first in queue.
This is just an idea, a balm to the exhaustion I feel with William and Kate - and which has led to the bickering here. A person with that fire wouldn't lead to this sort of discussion. I realise we have a huge problem coming with Charles in between - but the institution is going to have to plan beyond those difficult years to survive. A seventy-year-old king with an unpopular wife is not going to sustain it - the next heir needs to be out there soon. Maybe William needs to turn his reflection to this and decide whether to take the plunge or not.
This is actually a worthy thought. One I have had about the Swedish royal family as well as I've seen Estelle grow up.
DeleteThe only reason I might be against monarchy is for the unfairness of these people being born into this without a choice in their life. They cannot choose religion or even who to marry. Well, they can... but they have to give up all they know and dissappoint many. It's a big big question, much bigger than "Do William want this?". I have said before, some amount of reluctance in that role is healthy. I would even say neccesary!
I'm not sure there's a direct link between your idea, exhaustion and the bickering here, Julia. There have always been conversations about succession (as well as the abolition of the monarchy); however, change allowing the throne go to the most talented (if he/she wanted it) isn't going to happen.
DeleteAny changes to the succession also mean the whole can of primogeniture must be opened at the same time. That hasn't been the British way and might be a lot trickier than re-opening Scottish independence or Brexit. Certainly, it's not a good idea to have them all hit at once.
I see William's speaking of his coming responsibilities as being honest, not avoidance or whinging in any way. He--like Victoria--speaks without sugar-coating of the challenges he faces. That does not mean he is avoiding them. Don't forget that his grandmother and father must predecease him in order for him to take the throne. That's not a prospect I would like to think he's looking forward to. The public likely wouldn't find it endearing.
Honestly, it's not his turn now. Why should he go all kingly on us at this stage? If he did, the public would likely chastise him for seeing to push aside his father. We all know how attractive shoving someone aside looked on the global stage recently. There is his investiture as Prince of Wales to deal with first. Then, if he is still reluctant I think we could call it shirking.
Philly. Very nicely said. And I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said.
DeleteRebecca, I agree. I agree that a certain amount of reluctance is healthful.
DeleteI applaud your views Julia from Leominster!! i have always enjoyed your take on things discussed here and look for your comments first. I have always thought William has lost out on time preparing to be King by putting off being a full time royal and has lost valuable time. It seems he thinks his father will be King as long as his grandmother and he has plenty of time to come to grips with his destiny. If he and Kate had to be ready in the next ten years or less could they be ready for the top job?? i doubt it. So much potential for them to be preparing for a modern monarchy of their generation and William is fighting against it tooth and nail!!
ReplyDeletePhilly, I agree with what you wrote. Victoria is next in line, William has one more person between him and the throne. Charles isn't even King yet, and he is going to want to make his own mark on the throne. He has been preparing for decades. Victoria is learning directly from her father, she has seen what kind of King he is and the throne is just that much closer for her. I don't think Charles has been preparing William very much. I think the Queen has but always with an eye toward Charles and his feelings. He is notoriously sensitive.
ReplyDeleteI was one of the people who mused that perhaps William doesn't want to be King. I think that we can NOT want to take on a responsibility before it happens and then, when it happens, take it on and do a danged good job of it. The Queen's own father is a good example of that. Unprepossessing before he ascended the throne, he quietly led the country through its worst times. And don't forget that the Queen Mother (supposedly) never forgave Wallis Simpson for forcing her husband onto the throne. The Queen Mother (supposedly) never wanted to be Queen either. The fact that William is publicly saying what kings and queens in the past might have privately felt, well, that's the modern age. But I have no pipeline to KP that confirms my suspicions so my musings are just that, my own musings. That other people share them isn't that odd--there will always be a few people who see something the same way :) And people who see it differently.
I personally think he is doing a good job of the role he has now. Yeah, I thought laying the wreath at Wembley was kind of odd but then I am not a football fan. I have been told by my grandson that a huge percentage of Manchester is though. Manchester United and all?? (I know zilch about football.) So the FA mourning the bombing would mean a lot to the city, would have been watched by a large percentage of the city. But what I really, really admire is his helicopter work. He doesn't make a big deal of it but people notice. He doesn't call the media for photo ops but the word gets out that he has been at an emergency and every media outlet picks it up. His efforts to save a young man drowning, his apologies for landing his helicopter in a school field, his quiet way of just going about his job.
Uh oh, I may sound like I am fawning. Guilty as charged :) I agree that I am probably way too easygoing with W & K but I think that what their shortcomings are is far less important than the shortcomings of politicians and the fanaticism of terrorists who seek to shut down the free exchange of ideas and the freedom to be ourselves. By law, royalty cannot interfere with the workings of government. Government is where the real problems lie.