Duke & Duchess - To Clear Their Calendars for August (Threads Merged)

[Canuck]

Yes, if you ignore everything else I listed, then that's accurate.   :orchid:

If someone can explain to me why it matters that some outings were in Aus/NZ rather than the UK, I'm all ears.  Maybe a few hundred people ever actually get a glimpse of the BRF on an official outing; the other 70 million or so see it in pictures and videos.  I just fail to understand why it matters that the pictures/videos were shot overseas rather than in the UK.  They were still at official engagements for the BRF and covered exhaustively in the UK press.

[Limabeany]

The only other thing you listed were papped photos, are William and Kate to be credited for those?

[PrincessOfPeace]

Well, it's only been a year since Prince George was born, so it's hard to say exactly how much Wil land Kate plan to share him during his childhood.  That said, so far there's been:
-hospital steps photocall
-two pictures of him with W&K in the first month after his birth
-christening pictures and video
-mothers' day family photo
-two official engagements during the Aus/NZ tour
-five embarking/disembarking plane photocalls during the Aus/NZ tour
-fathers' day polo outing
-three pictures for his first birthday

(And that's leaving aside the unofficial photos of him:  in the park with Kate and then with the nanny, those taken through car windows, on the tarmac with Kate on vacation, etc.)

So in terms of official exposure to the public:  there have been ten events/outings where the press could take photos and video, and four occasions on which the BRF has released their own pictures of him.  In one year--especially his first year--I just don't agree that's insufficient. 

Maybe Victoria/Daniel have chosen to do more or different things, but nothing says their method is the one that every Royal family must follow.  Especially since the BRF generally does things differently than the continental Royals, and especially since there is WAY more worldwide media attention on W&K than there is on Victoria and Daniel.

I missed this earlier before I posted  :goodpost:

[Limabeany]

Only once is live in the UK, the rest are papped, abroad and photos released.  :shrug:

[PrincessOfPeace]

Before/after the Christening was open to the press, which is how we got all the videos and candid photos.  I don't blame them for wanting to have a small ceremony free of a bunch of photographers -- AFAIK, the BRF never allows the media into the ceremony itself.

And yes, many of the appearances were in Aus/NZ.  But they were open to press from all over, and certainly the British press published a ton of pictures and videos.  I don't really see why it matters where those events were, they were part of Royal duties and they allowed all of the public to see George.

Another  :goodpost:

[cinrit]

That still leaves Daniel and Victoria more thoughtful, and graceful about sharing the family with the public who are their subjects than William and Kate. 

That depends on two things: how Daniel and Victoria would act were they in William's and Kate's shoes; and how William and Kate would act if they were in Daniel's and Victoria's shoes. 

Cindy

[Lady Adams]

^^ I'm not sure what you mean, Cindy...I think they're both in very similar situations.

[Canuck]

The UK public saw him on every occasion I listed.  And even if you're only counting things on UK soil (which, as I said, I think makes absolutely no sense), there was also video at the Christening and the polo match was access for the press rather than photos released by the family. 

As for being "thrown pictures" -- I don't understand the need to minimize what was done.  Numerous photos have been released, some of which were more casual and some of which were professionally taken.  They were all clearly quite thoughtfully chosen -- from choosing to do a photo shoot at one of Kate's patronages, to the extensive photo session with the whole family after the Christening, to the carefully composed mothers' day picture with Lupo.  Whatever you think of the BRF, I think it's extremely clear they aren't just throwing out random pictures of anyone, and least of all of George.

[cinrit]

They're not in the same position.  Victoria is Crown Princess.  William is not Prince of Wales.  Daniel and Victoria are in Sweden where the press is not as intrusive as the press in the UK.

Cindy

[Limabeany]

That is incorrect, Canuck, the UK people saw photos of him on every occasion you listed, they were ONLY presented George outside the hospital.

Cindy, if William is high up enough to be deserving of a 6M pound home gift, he is certainly high enough to be as thoughtful as Victoria and Daniel.

The press are more intrusive in the UK, but both the press and the public are treated with much more thoughtfulness by Swedes Victoria and Daniel when it comes to sharing the future queen, and regardless of how low they are, George IS the future King.

[Canuck]

There's also just far less interest in Victoria and Daniel, worldwide, than in W&K.  The BRF are by far the best known of the Royal families, and receive the most press attention.

[Limabeany]

More interest gives William and Kate MORE reasons to be thoughtful and considerate NOT less...

[DaisyMeRollin]

There's also just far less interest in Victoria and Daniel, worldwide, than in W&K.  The BRF are by far the best known of the Royal families, and receive the most press attention.

Who determines the level of interest in each family? The sun has been setting on the British Empire in the past half-century.

Also, Lima,  :goodpost:

Sweden and the UK are different when comparing education, quality of life, socio-economics, etc.

[Canuck]

More reason to be thoughtful and considerate, yes.  More reason to release a larger number of photos and videos?  Not necessarily. 

Daisy, are you seriously suggesting that there's more or equal interest in the Swedish Royal family worldwide as there is in the BRF?  Count the number of newspaper and magazine covers devoted to each and I think the difference will be clear.  I don't think I have a single friend or relative who could name a member of the Swedish Royal family (and many who wouldn't even know there WAS a Swedish Royal family), while the vast majority of the world would know who Will, Kate, and George are. 

[PrincessOfPeace]

The UK public saw him on every occasion I listed.  And even if you're only counting things on UK soil (which, as I said, I think makes absolutely no sense), there was also video at the Christening and the polo match was access for the press rather than photos released by the family. 

As for being "thrown pictures" -- I don't understand the need to minimize what was done.  Numerous photos have been released, some of which were more casual and some of which were professionally taken.  They were all clearly quite thoughtfully chosen -- from choosing to do a photo shoot at one of Kate's patronages, to the extensive photo session with the whole family after the Christening, to the carefully composed mothers' day picture with Lupo.  Whatever you think of the BRF, I think it's extremely clear they aren't just throwing out random pictures of anyone, and least of all of George.

I agree and I think the BRF do an excellent job of of giving us access to photos of Prince George without overexposure. Like the saying goes, 'keep them wanting more'

Remember the words of Walter Bagehot - "We must not let daylight in upon the magic"

[Lady Adams]

They're not in the same position.  Victoria is Crown Princess.  William is not Prince of Wales.  Daniel and Victoria are in Sweden where the press is not as intrusive as the press in the UK.

Cindy

Are we talking about the same press that published accounts of Princess Madeline's then-fiance cheating on her?  Or the press corps that reported widely on Victoria's eating disorder? I'd say they are much more intrusive than the British press, because they don't have the same sort of laws and honor codes British journalists need to abide by.

( Here's a good synopsis of the press coverage re: Madde, for anyone curious:
Royal wedding called off amid cheating claims - CNN.com )

[DaisyMeRollin]

More reason to be thoughtful and considerate, yes.  More reason to release a larger number of photos and videos?  Not necessarily. 

Daisy, are you seriously suggesting that there's more or equal interest in the Swedish Royal family worldwide as there is in the BRF?  Count the number of newspaper and magazine covers devoted to each and I think the difference will be clear.  I don't think I have a single friend or relative who could name a member of the Swedish Royal family (and many who wouldn't even know there WAS a Swedish Royal family), while the vast majority of the world would know who Will, Kate, and George are.

No, I'm saying both have different societies as a whole, which their monarchies are reflective of.

Who determines their interest?

[Lady Adams]

Remember the words of Walter Bagehot - "We must not let daylight in upon the magic"

I seem to remember another quote:


"I must be seen to be believed."

--Queen Elizabeth II

[Canuck]

More reason to be thoughtful and considerate, yes.  More reason to release a larger number of photos and videos?  Not necessarily. 
Daisy, are you seriously suggesting that there's more or equal interest in the Swedish Royal family worldwide as there is in the BRF?  Count the number of newspaper and magazine covers devoted to each and I think the difference will be clear.  I don't think I have a single friend or relative who could name a member of the Swedish Royal family (and many who wouldn't even know there WAS a Swedish Royal family), while the vast majority of the world would know who Will, Kate, and George are.

No, I'm saying both have different societies as a whole, which their monarchies are reflective of.

Who determines their interest?

I think we're talking about different things, Daisy.  I'm not saying the BRF is more interesting, or that its place in society is more important.  I'm saying there is more press attention focused on them than on the other Royal families.  I don't think there's any serious argument to be made that's not true.

[PrincessOfPeace]

Look at RIF for example. I'm willing to wager there are more threads and comments dedicated to W&K and escpecially the BRF than all other royal families combined.

Thats a lot of interest.

[DaisyMeRollin]

More reason to be thoughtful and considerate, yes.  More reason to release a larger number of photos and videos?  Not necessarily. 
Daisy, are you seriously suggesting that there's more or equal interest in the Swedish Royal family worldwide as there is in the BRF?  Count the number of newspaper and magazine covers devoted to each and I think the difference will be clear.  I don't think I have a single friend or relative who could name a member of the Swedish Royal family (and many who wouldn't even know there WAS a Swedish Royal family), while the vast majority of the world would know who Will, Kate, and George are.

No, I'm saying both have different societies as a whole, which their monarchies are reflective of.

Who determines their interest?

I think we're talking about different things, Daisy.  I'm not saying the BRF is more interesting, or that its place in society is more important.  I'm saying there is more press attention focused on them than on the other Royal families.  I don't think there's any serious argument to be made that's not true.

I never said that either or are more interesting either.

Who creates the demand for which the press obliges?

[Canuck]

Well, I think of all the Royal families, the BRF naturally attracts more attention because the Queen is still the head of state in 16 countries.  Additionally, the U.S. has a particular interest in the BRF (I suspect some of this is down to the country's fascination with Princess Diana, and some because of its own history with England).  And then the BRF has probably the best known history of the various Royal families, from Richard III to Henry VIII to the Edward/Wallis Simpson episode to the BRF in WWII (much of which has been popularized in books, movies, Shakespeare, etc.).  They do pageantry extremely well, which helps to keep interest up, and they're English speaking, which makes them easier to follow for the portions of the public in other countries that speak English.  So I suspect it's a combination of a lot of different factors.

[HistoryGirl]

I think the interest in them helps keep them running to be honest so I'd wager that they'd rather have the situation of being the most popular house. Media attention is not a faucet; you can't just turn it on or off whenever you feel like it. It would be nice if you could, but you can't. There is either demand or there isn't, there is either notoriety or there's not. 

[Canuck]

Oh, absolutely.  But they don't need to be pushing George down the street in a stroller every week or releasing hundreds of photos for media attention to stay focused on the family--the past year has made that clear, and is in line with what was done with Will and Harry as babies. 

I think the BRF as a whole does a good job of balancing the need for exposure of family members and events with the need to avoid overexposing the real people in the family.  There is such a thing as too much media attention--Princess Diana is evidence of that.

[HistoryGirl]

They don't need to take George anywhere they don't want to and I agree that if a law is broken to get a picture the photographer should be dealt with. But complaining about photographers in public places or where a law is not broken, and acting as if the photographer or journalist should be ashamed of himself is ridiculous. I'll never forget that rude comment that William made to that journalist during the floods.