What a beautiful piece-both in writing and in sentiment. I think she captures what a lot of Americans have been thinking and feeling compared to our “British brethren”, as she says, and she tries to acknowledge both sides of a very thin coin.
As we often say around here, “both things can be true”, and for me this piece does a great job of holding space for multiple ideas in a thoughtful and delicate way.
I’ve so enjoyed both points of view this week. Thank you for providing this, Elizabeth!
I haven't commented on here in a long time, but this one has my blood pressure rising.
I fundamentally disagree with pretty much everything this woman said. For someone who started out their piece with "There is no question that the Princess of Wales is, of course, entitled to keep her medical information private." she then goes on to immediately offer a "but" and give a litany of reasons why she doesn't actually believe that. Then she engages in further speculation and comparison, much of which has nothing to do with "the palace," and everything to do with her own entitlement and loyalties. It's a bit sad at this point, and the hypocrisy glaring.
I would think the “basic human response” when someone asks for privacy and gives you a timeline, is to respect it. This is not about "the palace," or their real and perceived mishaps -- it's about Kate Coyne and all the journalists and conspiracy theorists who were poking and prodding a woman going through something horrible, and now need a scapegoat for why they behaved so horribly toward her then, and continue to do so today.
Clapping and co-signing this essay! I think the points were made clearly and reasonably. I’ve said it before but crisis PR agents will be discussing what went wrong for years to come.
I think this whole thing can be summed up with “There is no question that the Princess of Wales is, of course, entitled to keep her medical information private. But nature abhors a vacuum.”
The RF as a whole needs the press and by extension content creators to remain relevant. If no one writes about them there is no point to what they do (beyond the constitutional duties that a single person could do, leaving aside age/ illness) and therefore they court coverage routinely.
I would question what were they expecting to happen especially announcing planned but unexpected surgery requiring a way longer than usual stay — cancelling a tour and engagements then saying nothing whatsoever.
I don’t disagree this saying nothing was no doubt best for Kate and her children though, and I would never want to be in her position, fwiw. I just don’t think think they can expect to have it both ways to suit them (beyond the laws of privacy).
What I would find interesting though is a discussion around how to separate “news” and where the line around editorial interest is, and how that can be driven by something else other than seo, clicks and whatever drivel is being discussed on social media — the race to the bottom of the doom spiral is sad; I feel like we are so let down by everyone from politicians to institutions to big brand cover-ups that it is all too easy to question the truth of anything and everything when it is not always necessary.
I wish Kate very well. We have a lot of work to do on our media literacy and culture of fame consumption.
However, I've been thinking about this whole debacle a lot, and I keep coming back to the fact that it's hard to see how the royal family can go on as they have. They want and in fact need the public to care about them in order to survive. Not just to approve the tax money they use, but to care when they show up places. If no one's below waving back, why does anyone have to appear in a pastel hat on a balcony as jets fly overhead?
But they want us to care *precisely* on their terms. To be thrilled when they appear, but not to pry. To gobble up the nasty gossip they leak about each other in the tabloids, but not to take their picture in public. To yell and wave to Catherine whenever she attends an event, track her clothing, romanticize her love story, swoon over her mothering, but not to ask questions or speculate when she's suddenly vanished and likely very ill.
It's not mutual boundary-setting; it only goes one way. When famous actors or singers do it, they have something to offer. Beyoncé has a private life, and we both accept that (to a degree obviously - paparazzi still exist) and still support her because she makes something that enhances people's lives. She creates. The royal family's only creation is themselves. They have nothing else with which to bargain. The public is finding it less and less palatable to accept their terms.
What a beautiful piece-both in writing and in sentiment. I think she captures what a lot of Americans have been thinking and feeling compared to our “British brethren”, as she says, and she tries to acknowledge both sides of a very thin coin.
As we often say around here, “both things can be true”, and for me this piece does a great job of holding space for multiple ideas in a thoughtful and delicate way.
I’ve so enjoyed both points of view this week. Thank you for providing this, Elizabeth!
I haven't commented on here in a long time, but this one has my blood pressure rising.
I fundamentally disagree with pretty much everything this woman said. For someone who started out their piece with "There is no question that the Princess of Wales is, of course, entitled to keep her medical information private." she then goes on to immediately offer a "but" and give a litany of reasons why she doesn't actually believe that. Then she engages in further speculation and comparison, much of which has nothing to do with "the palace," and everything to do with her own entitlement and loyalties. It's a bit sad at this point, and the hypocrisy glaring.
I would think the “basic human response” when someone asks for privacy and gives you a timeline, is to respect it. This is not about "the palace," or their real and perceived mishaps -- it's about Kate Coyne and all the journalists and conspiracy theorists who were poking and prodding a woman going through something horrible, and now need a scapegoat for why they behaved so horribly toward her then, and continue to do so today.
Clapping and co-signing this essay! I think the points were made clearly and reasonably. I’ve said it before but crisis PR agents will be discussing what went wrong for years to come.
I think this whole thing can be summed up with “There is no question that the Princess of Wales is, of course, entitled to keep her medical information private. But nature abhors a vacuum.”
The RF as a whole needs the press and by extension content creators to remain relevant. If no one writes about them there is no point to what they do (beyond the constitutional duties that a single person could do, leaving aside age/ illness) and therefore they court coverage routinely.
I would question what were they expecting to happen especially announcing planned but unexpected surgery requiring a way longer than usual stay — cancelling a tour and engagements then saying nothing whatsoever.
I don’t disagree this saying nothing was no doubt best for Kate and her children though, and I would never want to be in her position, fwiw. I just don’t think think they can expect to have it both ways to suit them (beyond the laws of privacy).
What I would find interesting though is a discussion around how to separate “news” and where the line around editorial interest is, and how that can be driven by something else other than seo, clicks and whatever drivel is being discussed on social media — the race to the bottom of the doom spiral is sad; I feel like we are so let down by everyone from politicians to institutions to big brand cover-ups that it is all too easy to question the truth of anything and everything when it is not always necessary.
I wish Kate very well. We have a lot of work to do on our media literacy and culture of fame consumption.
However, I've been thinking about this whole debacle a lot, and I keep coming back to the fact that it's hard to see how the royal family can go on as they have. They want and in fact need the public to care about them in order to survive. Not just to approve the tax money they use, but to care when they show up places. If no one's below waving back, why does anyone have to appear in a pastel hat on a balcony as jets fly overhead?
But they want us to care *precisely* on their terms. To be thrilled when they appear, but not to pry. To gobble up the nasty gossip they leak about each other in the tabloids, but not to take their picture in public. To yell and wave to Catherine whenever she attends an event, track her clothing, romanticize her love story, swoon over her mothering, but not to ask questions or speculate when she's suddenly vanished and likely very ill.
It's not mutual boundary-setting; it only goes one way. When famous actors or singers do it, they have something to offer. Beyoncé has a private life, and we both accept that (to a degree obviously - paparazzi still exist) and still support her because she makes something that enhances people's lives. She creates. The royal family's only creation is themselves. They have nothing else with which to bargain. The public is finding it less and less palatable to accept their terms.
I really enjoyed hearing an American journalist’s perspective on this! Thank you for sharing, Elizabeth!
omg the pearl clutching on this page is beyond parody. So glad I canceled my ‘subscription’