Why clamour over glamour wears thin
By MICHELLE CAZZULINO
April 5, 2005
AS someone with princess-like tendencies myself (albeit none that would have a real prince beating a path to my door) it was with some consternation – nay, outright horror – that I learned that Australian-born Crown Princess Mary of Denmark is becoming too glamorous.
Yep, that's right, folks: when it comes to all matters regal, it seems all the looks, style and elegance in the world don't mean anything unless you've been caught on film in your daggiest trackies, preferably looking a bit bloated, and possibly also picking a particularly stubborn foodscrap from between your front teeth.
At least that seems to be the message from the so-called "royal insider" quoted in the cover story of this week's New Idea.
Hailing from the same revolting, tedious mould as the alleged "close friends" and "sources" so often relied on in stories like these, the insidious "insider" hides behind a deeply-convenient veil of anonymity to vent his or her bitchy spleen over two glossy, whinge-filled pages.
Princess Mary's crimes, recounted in all their shocking detail, appear to be, firstly, that she just looks too damn good all the damn time, and secondly, that because she looks too damn good, her husband Crown Prince Frederik doesn't get a look in.
But don't take my word for it. Let's give the "royal insider" his or her 15 seconds of fame: "[Frederik] married a girl who didn't mind being photographed in jeans, but now she travels with a hair and make-up guru," he or she said.
"It has not gone unnoticed that when the couple appear at functions together, the cameras zoom in on Mary.
"Of course, it's not Mary's fault that this is happening, because a beautiful woman is much more interesting than a man, even a handsome one, but Mary does seem to seek out the cameras just as [Princess] Diana did."
Now, for those of you already baying for Mary's semi-blue blood, there's more. It seems in addition to being photogenic, she's also made the heinous mistake of regularly "upstaging" her husband.
Her punishment, apparently, is to submit to a team of six palace "spin doctors", who have been instructed to create a "more serious image" for Mary.
Presumably this means her next public appearance will involve her walking a respectful 3m behind her husband, wearing one of those 1980s power suits (sans power, obviously) and surrounded by an entourage of pallbearers.
Unsurprisingly perhaps, we learn that the royal insider's need to be speak out against the princess has its roots in something other than serious jealousy, or an aTRFuistic desire to fill pages for the staff of New Idea.
Instead, the insider says Mary – and all her pesky glamour – are taking the focus off what really matters . . . her charity work.
"[The Danish palace] want her to be photographed cradling an ill child rather than arriving at a society luncheon dressed to the nines.
"And journalists are not doing anything to tone down her popularity as they write about Mary's clothes before they mention the humanitarian aspect of the function the two were attending."
What a load of claptrap. As one of the journalists who spent the better part of last month covering the couple's Australian tour, I'm having trouble believing that the royal turncoat – I mean, insider – has any clue what he or she is talking about.
If anything, Mary and her considerable wardrobe of "glamorous" dresses has been the best international Danish PR exercise since Hans Christian Andersen first picked up a quill.
I will readily confess to being among those who "did not do anything to tone down her popularity" while Mary was in Sydney – quite the opposite, in fact.
I wrote glowingly about the amount of goodwill that existed towards her, of the number of people who turned out to see her during her public appearances and even, God forbid, that she looked terrific in her aforementioned dresses. So sue me.
Just quietly though, during the charity events she and Frederik did attend, there was plenty of attention paid to the incredible work of the organisations behind them – even if they did occasionally share the limelight with the breathy details of Mary's hairstyle.
But isn't that exactly why charities are queuing up to have her endorse their work?
FOR most of the tireless workers who encountered her during the tour, there was a good-natured acceptance of the hoopla surrounding her visit, and genuine gratitude that she had taken the time to schedule it in.
I can't recall a single one of them producing a faded old T-shirt and a pair of ripped jeans and demanding that she muck in or get out.
It would be ridiculous to suggest such a thing – just as much as it's ridiculous to suggest that a princess should be stripped of her "glamour" because people can't see beyond the clothes she's wearing or the bag she's toting.
You have to feel a bit sorry for Prince Frederik, too. He probably thought he was on to a good thing by finding an incredibly intelligent, attractive woman to share his life with . . . and now it turns out she stole his thunder while she was Down Under, to bastardise a Men At Work song.
The best thing he can do for himself, clearly, is divorce Mary and marry someone plainer and less likely to outshine him at every opportunity.
Someone who has an intimate understanding of royal protocol, and who is used to being reminded of her place on a regular basis. Someone like, oh, say, Camilla Parker Bowles.
But then again, she's not very glamorous . . . .
|
04-07-2005, 09:27 PM
Crown Princess Mary Current Events: April 2005 - May 2005
