William, Harry, their Girlfriends and the Press


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Another idea that was thought of at the time of Diana's death was to develop a material that celebrities could wear that would destroy the image of any photograph that was taken of them while wearing it.

Therefore the celebrity by wearing the metal on a necklace could effectively prevent decent photos of themselves being taken when they so wanted and thus could drive down the price of paps photos.
 
Part of the problem is the same as what we were seeing with Kate Middleton before they broke up. We'd see photographs of her shopping maybe two or three times a week, and people would start "doesn't she do anything other than go shopping?" Well, given that the shopping trips in question maybe took six hours out of her week, it's a fairly safe bet that she had time to do a lot of other stuff. It's just that we didn't get to hear about it in the tabloids and glossy magazines either because it was too boring for them to want to bother reporting or because they were trying to give the impression of spendthrift drifter in order to stir up people's emotions and get them buying more papers to read about this terrible person.
In some circumstances that could be true, but the British tabloids are generally favorable to Kate and promote her because they want ‘the royal wedding’. And given who she is dating, a bonafide job or career would most certainly have been reported in some way as that would be a positive for her.
Unfortunately, she gives the impression of having very little ambition beyond being loyal to William and from what we have seen so far from him, he is similar (in ambition). If they marry, this royal couple will likely be far less exciting than the press and/or public expectation is of them currently, as a future king/queen.

I must say that I have long wished Prince William would have private parties instead of going out to those horribly overrated places like Boujis. I don't understand why Boujis is better than a private gathering of loyal friends. After all, Clarence House is bound to have a nice bar, possibly a screening room and god knows what other amenities and luxuries...
It’s probably quite simple. There would be no new women for him to ogle, possibly meet, flirt, etc. And yes, whether he is seriously back with Kate or not, he is 25 and his eyes most likely wander. Despite his press complaints, he and his loyal friends go to these trendy exclusive clubs in large part to see and be seen (inside of course)!
 
But, and I shall be controversial for once....

For once??! :ROFLMAO: No, Sam, please be controversial some more! Your controversies bring so much entertainment to the forums. Whatever would we do without them?

Luv2cruise said:
R&B tunes are probably about the best thing about those clubs. Certainly better than the Abba's greatest hits--enough to make ME snort vodka.
Well, I was being subjective. I'm not a fan of either R&B or Abba, so if the nightclub music is down to a choice between these two.... I'm running even further away. :D

susan_alicia said:
He could be doing much worse things, there often are callgirls in these gatherings of young men, but none there as we can see, he is just behaving silly with his mates.
I dunno, as some callgirls can be mighty discreet....but in any case, the stories about him in the clubs have a way of filtering out, and we haven't heard about this kind thing.
 
I think it would be appropriate, now that William is going to be doing more public speaking, if a voice coach or somone of that sort took him in hand. The speech at the memorial concert for Diana was excrutiating to listen to.
 
Oh please, let him be the way he is. It's more than good enough. We don't want an "actor-like ,American -politican -type" polished speaker anyway.
 
I wouldn't like to see Willliam become "slick" or more polished than he is--if that means that he'll be artificial. I'd just like to be able to make him out better when he's speaking. He'll be making a lot of speeches in his life.:flowers:

Oh please, let him be the way he is. It's more than good enough. We don't want an "actor-like ,American -politican -type" polished speaker anyway.
 
I wouldn't like to see Willliam become "slick" or more polished than he is--if that means that he'll be artificial. I'd just like to be able to make him out better when he's speaking. He'll be making a lot of speeches in his life.:flowers:

A little work on his diction would not be out of place. It makes it very difficult to understand what he says when he mumbles and swallows his words. Let him spend some time with a vocal coach, s/he would whip him into shape without sounding like a slick politician. :)
 
Yes, definitely. Just not Peter Settleton, please!:ROFLMAO:


A little work on his diction would not be out of place. It makes it very difficult to understand what he says when he mumbles and swallows his words. Let him spend some time with a vocal coach, s/he would whip him into shape without sounding like a slick politician. :)
 
public speaking is hard for most people but it gets easier and the speaker gets better with experience. william will become better at in time.
 
It will be interesting to see how the media wave turns in her favor, however, when the time comes for engagement. At that point, it must certainly be in the media's interest to pump her up in a favorable light.

It really will be interesting, especially consider Prince William's reluctant relationship with the press. I would imagine that the more negative the media is about his wife, be it Kate or someone else, the more closed off he will become. It might end up that the media will have to be at least moderate in their reporting if they want any access to William at all beyond basic royal reporting.
 
It really will be interesting, especially consider Prince William's reluctant relationship with the press. I would imagine that the more negative the media is about his wife, be it Kate or someone else, the more closed off he will become. It might end up that the media will have to be at least moderate in their reporting if they want any access to William at all beyond basic royal reporting.

That's a good point because at least William will need the media as much as the media will need him. He and his family will have to become much more open to convince the public that there is still a need for a monarchy.
 
Interesting how William's training in the armed forces are constantly deride as useless waste of time and money, yet Kate is berated for not working in a non-family related environment. It strikes me as a reaction to the lack of William-Kate photos than anything about the persons in question. How the discussions skids to a trickle and grinding over and over the same story when William was on the Iron Duke. IMO, papers like the Daily Mail thrive on royal stories. They have banked on William and Kate as their key to sales in the volumne of the Diana-years. The fact these two choose to live their lives in relative privacy, doesn't suit the papers' agenda. They have now latched on to two themes surrounding Kate: job and play. Judging by the comments left after each article on the Mail site, I think there are a lot more posters influenced by what's written to sell papers than they would like to admit. Most of them take the tone that the article was written, a nice Kate one gets "pretty Kate" comments. Others such as the latest about their visit to Raffles club gets "how dare they" reactions.
 
Great points, Incas! I agree with you entirely about the tabloid press influencing the way people see William and Kate. The two of them aren't creating a negative image for themselves; papers like the Mail are doing it for them, and some people are jumping on the bandwagon.
 
That is what is really scary about tabloid journalism. When you are the only ones talking, your views on things get listened to by the public at large because they are the only source of "information". Eventually, if the sames things are said over and over again, it doesn't matter if they are true or not because people have heard them so many times they accept them as fact.
 
That is what is really scary about tabloid journalism. When you are the only ones talking, your views on things get listened to by the public at large because they are the only source of "information". Eventually, if the sames things are said over and over again, it doesn't matter if they are true or not because people have heard them so many times they accept them as fact.


That is so true. The tabloids have been influencing how people are seeing things, particularly about the royals.
 
I believe that a tabloid circulation war broke out just about the time that a certain young aristocrat married into the Royal Family in 1981 (see, I didn't mention the name:)). One proprietor in particular, Rupert Murdock, was supposed to have said to take the gloves off where the Royals were concerned.

That is so true. The tabloids have been influencing how people are seeing things, particularly about the royals.
 
Judging by the comments left after each article on the Mail site, I think there are a lot more posters influenced by what's written to sell papers than they would like to admit. Most of them take the tone that the article was written, a nice Kate one gets "pretty Kate" comments. Others such as the latest about their visit to Raffles club gets "how dare they" reactions.

I'm not sure why there are so many negative comments on DM regarding Kate and Wills. Do they represent majority of the public? Are they the same Kate-haters who fuel other forums? I've heard that the DM has a preference for negative comments, but I just find it hard to believe that so many people can be influenced by clearly irrelevant speculations. Perhaps the sensible/quieter readers should start sharing their views as well.
 
The Mail doesn't print all the comments it receives. I know that some of our members have sent comments to the Mail disagreeing about negative articles about Camilla, and those comments tend not to see the light of day. The paper can make it look as though the article has widespread public support by being selective about the comments that get into print.
 
Screening the comments would make sense if the goal were to present a representative range of opinions, but the Mail does it, IMO, to support the main goal of tabloid journalism: to present a sensationalized version of a story, rather than a balanced one, to help drive up sales. That's one of many reasons that I commented in one of the William/Kate threads that I wouldn't consider a negative view of the couple in a tabloid as representing public opinion.
 
Especially when it's the same few people repeatedly signing up and posting under different screen names. Not many people pay attention to the comings and goings of the Prince and his girlfriend. It's pretty obvious to me that it's the same handful of people who post at the hater forums who are fueling this stuff.
 
Those comments are only in the online edition and only those specially interested in royalty will enter those pages. So I don't think the average person would know about this hate campaign at all. When you read through a paper you take a look at most of the pages, but when you read the online edition you don't. I have f.inst never even seen the sports pages of Daily Mail. So I don't see that Kate; William or anybody who cares about them would be too bothered about these comments or posts.
 
The Mail doesn't print all the comments it receives. I know that some of our members have sent comments to the Mail disagreeing about negative articles about Camilla, and those comments tend not to see the light of day. The paper can make it look as though the article has widespread public support by being selective about the comments that get into print.
None of the pro Camilla or pro Catherine comments that I know were sent have ever got into their comments section. Not even the letters I have sent complaining of their obvious bias! :D Then again, they don't bother to reply to letters pointing out errors regarding other people/matters. The only correspondence they occasionally reply to, are letters from solicitors, (and they tend to say 'see you in court')!:rolleyes:
 
I have tried to comment a few times lately, and not one of my comments has been printed;) But that won't stop me, I'll tell them what I think.
On Friday they had a pic of Kate where you could see her underwear. I wrote an angry comment, like alot of others I'm sure. And very soon the picture was gone. It was probably CH or BP or their own bosses, but we can hope we have a little influence too;)
 
That's very interesting, atina and Skydragon. I occasionally pick up the weekly edition of a British paper, but not that often. They're hard to find in my (literal) neck-of-the-woods.:)

I have tried to comment a few times lately, and not one of my comments has been printed;) But that won't stop me, I'll tell them what I think.
On Friday they had a pic of Kate where you could see her underwear. I wrote an angry comment, like alot of others I'm sure. And very soon the picture was gone. It was probably CH or BP or their own bosses, but we can hope we have a little influence too;)
 
The really nasty stories all seem to come from the Daily Mail that has already been caught stealing verbatim quotes from TRF and sell them as "Royal insider" information and whose Royal "correnspondents" Richard Kay and Katie Nicholls not only contradict each other but hardly ever get it right also What they can't make up with credible information, they try to cover with screaming, eye-catching headlines. I think the DM just found their "niche" when it comes to royal gossip. There are those who feed the "official gossip" of which there is not too much and which can only be aquired through true sources - the DM clearly lacks - and then there is the DM which caters to those that always have to add another layer of conspiracies and negative snide remarks.
Currently the article has about 52 comments of which an estimated 40 are negative. 40 negative voices not even all from the UK - that's really something to worry about if you want to represent a people of 60 million especially since neither William nor Kate have even started their full time "job" as Royal representatives yet. :rolleyes:
 
I've found the Daily Mail incredibly negative for awhile now. Even if it came in a weekly edition on this side of The Pond, I wouldn't buy it. We get a weekly edition of the Daily Express and the Daily Telegraph. I prefer the Telegraph if I can find it.:)

The really nasty stories all seem to come from the Daily Mail
 
Its interesting how very quickly the press especially in Britain made comparisons between Kate and Diana and Chelsy and Fergie. Kate (like Diana) is seen as the smart, elegant and sensible girlfriend and most likely candidate to fit in with the Windsor family. Whereas Chelsy (and Fergie) is described as the wild, party-loving, some would say silly and laking in fashion sense option. At the moment the press do seem to favour Kate and Chelsy does not like this Fergie comparsion. However if you look at the facts it is Chelsy who is most likely a lot smarter than Kate and Chelsy's parents are far wealthier than the Middleton's. Maybe the press should reconsider when comparing Chelsy to Fergie as she probably isnt the giddy air-head they try to make her appear to be.
 
I read stories like that with amusement not at the royals but at the inventiveness of the person who wrote it- as in, how they sometimes seem to clearly be biased and how they seem to think people believe them. Then again, people actually buy the papers and must read them or they wouldn't be printed.

You can't believe anything really unless its a really reputable news source and even then take it with a grain of salt. Look at the scandal with the NY Times not too long ago- a reporter was faking his stories and no one bothered to check his sources were real.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom