The Duchess of Cornwall presents the Man Booker prize to Paul Beatty

Started by Jennifer, October 26, 2016, 03:32:33 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Jennifer

QuoteThe Duchess of Cornwall has presented the Man Booker Prize to author Paul Beatty, after his book, The Sellout was deemed worthy of winning the prestigious literary award.

Mr Beatty's satire book centers around a young black man who tries to reinstate slavery and racial segregation in Los Angeles.

The Man Booker Prize was first awarded in 1969 and is one of the most prestigious literary awards. The Duchess of Cornwall presented the literary award at a ceremony at London's Guildhall.

Read more:
The Duchess of Cornwall presents the Man Booker prize to Paul Beatty – Royal Central
"You've done it before and you can do it now. See the positive possibilities. Redirect the substantial energy of your frustration and turn it into positive, effective, unstoppable determination". ~ Ralph Marston

sandy


TLLK

@sandy-Camilla is Patron of the National Literacy Trust, Book Trust, The Wicked Young Writers Award and First Story, all of which help to promote literacy in young people.

I believe it is due to these literacy based patronages is why the Duchess of Cornwall has presented the Man Booker prize for the past three years instead of the PoW or DoCam.

Here is a list of her patronages.
Patronages

sandy

I think she's patron because she's wife to the heir which still does not mean she's an appropriate choice.  She was assigned this patronage. I don't think she's the best role model for this cause. And I stand by my opinion

TLLK

^^^If she had only one literacy oriented patronage then I'd be inclined to agree with you. However with four of them, it does appear to be a focus of hers. :)


sandy

She showed no interest or inclination toward charity or literacy before her work with Bolland. She is the wife of the heir and of course will get patronages. But whether she gets four or forty literacy patronages, I don't see her as the best spokesperson. I stand by my opinion. There are authors, teachers, and so on who would be light years better as reps. But she gets this because she's married to the heir.

TLLK


Our Patron | National Literacy Trust

A little information about the Literacy Trust and its patron. "The Duchess has long had an interest in literacy and describes herself as a passionate reader."

sandy

She is describing herself. It still is because she is the Prince's wife. I stand by my opinion. If only she had been interested in literacy and reading instead of being involved with Charles once she married someone else. I don't see her as the "bookish" sort.

TLLK

^^^I believe that Camilla like many people has a variety of interests which for her includes reading.  It is not unusual for royal families to have a member who is focused upon literacy.  So I'm not surprised the British Royal family also has someone who has taken up the cause. IMHO the Man Booker group made a logical choice in having the member of the BRF who has a number of literacy patronages deliver the prize, but I understand that you feel differently. We'll have to agree to disagree. :friends:

sandy

Lots of people read. But she is the wife of the heir which is the decisive reason for her to be on this and other patronages. What is wildly inappropriate IMO is for her to be a patron of abused women.

Duch_Luver_4ever

I can see both sides here, I dont want to speak for others, but it seems to me for the Diana fans its the attempted whitewashing of Camillas image, anytime the press tries to show her as this nice little old lady who could never hurt a fly, we throw up in our mouth a little.

But at the same time, what are we to do, keep the woman in stocks for the rest of her life? Shes got to go out and do engagements, and most of that is charity work. For me, as long as she stays out of Diana's "alleys" and literacy, along with animals are good choices, it'll keep me from foaming at the mouth too much. Of course, she'll be given patronages based on who she is, all royals do.

Its hard for us Diana fans, we see her and its like a priest seeing the devil, instant, apoplexy and rage, but we need to temper it otherwise it dilutes it for the times when its a valid response to things. Just my opinion, a good compromise since I've probably offended everyone LOL


"No other member of the Royal Family mattered that year, or I think for the next 17 years, it was just her." Arthur Edwards, The Sun Photographer, talking about Diana's impact.

sandy

It is a given that she has to do these appearances. This is why Charles spent megabucks on Bolland working on her PR. She was in a way  reinvented in 1997 as a woman who did charity work. Camilla spent her time previously on country pursuits as well as being Charles' mistress while married to another man. She does literacy work but did not have a really great education and was and is no scholar. She gets her name attached to various charities as wife of the Prince of Wales and Charles is IMO out to make her Queen Consort so he wants to project this image of this "kindly" "caring" woman who does charity work. She is no saint so it is a bit much for Charles to go overboard on the PR.  I have no "rage" so Duch, please don't generalize that this has anything to do with "hate" or putting her in stocks. It is how this woman is promoted as something she is not. The worst is pushing her as someone compassionate to abused women when she undermined and put down Diana and condoned Charles ugly treatment of her. I don't like the phoniness of her "reinvention."  What also bothers me is how Camilla is buddy buddy with Penny Junor who writes lies about Diana even accusing her of phoning in death treats to "poor" Camilla when she was alone in her house. Making up lies about Diana is loathesome and this is another reason why I don't care for Charles and Camilla. She is decidedly not going to end up in "stocks" because Charles has the PR gurus reinventing their story and whitewashing what they did.  Do you recall Duch how ready Camilla was to step into Diana's 2007 Memorial Service but was stopped in the nick of time by unfavorable reactions by the public. This woman is no saint, and her PR is cringeworthy.  Charles really blundered, big time--he deserves her.

TLLK

Quote from: sandy on October 31, 2016, 01:00:25 AM
Lots of people read. But she is the wife of the heir which is the decisive reason for her to be on this and other patronages. What is wildly inappropriate IMO is for her to be a patron of abused women.
But at the same time, what are we to do, keep the woman in stocks for the rest of her life? Shes got to go out and do engagements, and most of that is charity work. For me, as long as she stays out of Diana's "alleys" and literacy, along with animals are good choices, it'll keep me from foaming at the mouth too much. Of course, she'll be given patronages based on who she is, all royals do. Yes. Ulitimately Camilla like all of the working members of the BRF has taken on patronages for a variety of reasons. Yes there are some that are associated with her as she's a senior member of the BRF  just like her predecessor Diana, Princess of Wales ie: Honorary Regiments There are those organizations that didn't have representation by a member of the BRF  in the past ie: Literacy organization Book Trust. Others required  a new patron because the past one's association with the group had ended ie: Countess of Wessex took on the late Princess Margaret's presidency for the Girl Guides. Finally there are those causes that are of a particular interest because of a personal reason ie: Osteoporosis.

As for types of patronages, IMO it is up to the organizations to decide if a public figure is the right fit or not. I'm not a member of their governing board so I won't involve myself on is it "appropriate."  They are the ones who know what their organization requires. The organizations are the ones who typically seek out the public figures to be  patrons so often times, they'll reach out to see if there is a member of the BRF who is willing to take on the patronage. Many are hoping for a high profile patron who can bring attention  and much needed funding to their cause.

If a group decides that the Duchess of Cornwall is what they require in a patron, then I believe it is their business.  :shrug:

sandy

I would say she is assigned patronages and courtiers and advisors work with her on their selection. I don't think she had any choice but to take them on. Her training began by Mark Bolland back in 1997 and she had no experience at doing so prior to that, except perhaps charity banquets and so on that she attended.

Duch_Luver_4ever

Quote from: Duch_Luver_4ever on October 31, 2016, 01:38:42 AM
I can see both sides here, I dont want to speak for others, but it seems to me for the Diana fans its the attempted whitewashing of Camillas image, anytime the press tries to show her as this nice little old lady who could never hurt a fly, we throw up in our mouth a little.

Im in agreement with you @sandy about her reinvention being an attempt of PR rehabilitation, as I said above, however often times royals are assigned charities that are outside their area of knowledge, for example Diana was patron of the Lung Foundation, but she wasnt a respiratory technician. I think its better she do something like this than say work with children or other areas associated with Diana, we both agree and ive posted before about her working with abused women, ive no quarrel with you there, but also it doesnt have anything to do with literacy either. We all know shes a pretender compared to Diana when it comes to charity work, Diana di a lot of it before she was married.

But at the same time, what are we to do, keep the woman in stocks for the rest of her life? Shes got to go out and do engagements, and most of that is charity work. For me, as long as she stays out of Diana's "alleys" and literacy, along with animals are good choices, it'll keep me from foaming at the mouth too much. Of course, she'll be given patronages based on who she is, all royals do.

Im not saying you want to put her in the stocks, what im referring to is that short of putting her away somewhere away from the public, shes going to be out and about doing engagements, so its better she do something not seen as stepping on Diana any more than she already is, just by being Charles husband.

Im also not saying you personally have rage, youre taking my words much too literally, I know when i see a picture of Camilla it does make me angry, and im guessing it does you as well, but ill let you have the say on that. I do however feel, at the risk of escalating this, that many of your posts are very dogmatic in nature. While I agree with you that Diana is the injured party and C&C are the injurers, there is some grey areas, Diana is not 100% pure, white and good, and C&C are not 100% rotten,dark and evil.

Im trying to both make the case for Diana and win over the hearts and minds of others that may not share my opinion, and its only my feelings, but I feel the best way to do this is to be as objective as possible. To constantly knee jerk criticize C&C at all times no matter what and praise Diana at all times no matter what, only dilutes the points one is trying to make, and only becomes an echo chamber of people who agree with each other only listening to each other and dismissing the other side out of hand.


Its hard for us Diana fans, we see her and its like a priest seeing the devil, instant, apoplexy and rage, but we need to temper it otherwise it dilutes it for the times when its a valid response to things. Just my opinion, a good compromise since I've probably offended everyone LOL




Quote from: sandy on October 31, 2016, 01:49:23 AM
It is a given that she has to do these appearances. This is why Charles spent megabucks on Bolland working on her PR. She was in a way  reinvented in 1997 as a woman who did charity work. Camilla spent her time previously on country pursuits as well as being Charles' mistress while married to another man. She does literacy work but did not have a really great education and was and is no scholar. She gets her name attached to various charities as wife of the Prince of Wales and Charles is IMO out to make her Queen Consort so he wants to project this image of this "kindly" "caring" woman who does charity work. She is no saint so it is a bit much for Charles to go overboard on the PR.I said as much in my previous post, we're in agreement there.

  I have no "rage" so Duch, please don't generalize that this has anything to do with "hate" or putting her in stocks. It is how this woman is promoted as something she is not. The worst is pushing her as someone compassionate to abused women when she undermined and put down Diana and condoned Charles ugly treatment of her. I don't like the phoniness of her "reinvention."  What also bothers me is how Camilla is buddy buddy with Penny Junor who writes lies about Diana even accusing her of phoning in death treats to "poor" Camilla when she was alone in her house. Making up lies about Diana is loathesome and this is another reason why I don't care for Charles and Camilla. It also bothers me as well.

She is decidedly not going to end up in "stocks" because Charles has the PR gurus reinventing their story and whitewashing what they did.  Do you recall Duch how ready Camilla was to step into Diana's 2007 Memorial Service but was stopped in the nick of time by unfavorable reactions by the public. I do remember that, im not saying she is a saint, her PR is cringeworthy thats why I said the part about Diana fans seeing rage and apoplexy when they see her doing it, im included in that as much as others when i see her. The whole sum of my point is that since we are stuck with seeing her about, Id rather it be doing something unrelated to Diana, which she is doing with the literacy. This woman is no saint, and her PR is cringeworthy.  Charles really blundered, big time--he deserves her.Yes Charles does deserve to be stuck with her, and he certainly did not deserve the best years of Dianas life, all i'm saying is that to make the most effective argument for Diana, one needs to be as balanced as possible, otherwise it just gives ammo for the C&C fans to use against us, its hard enough with some of them trying to re-write history. :flower:  :flower:  :flower:
"No other member of the Royal Family mattered that year, or I think for the next 17 years, it was just her." Arthur Edwards, The Sun Photographer, talking about Diana's impact.