Duke and Duchess of Cambridge: Official Visit to India - April 10-16, 2016


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Honestly I don't know why they didn't use the real total. The new outfits (minus most accessories for I am not sure which ones are new or old) are just short of 22,000 pounds/31,000 US dollars sounds pretty big as well. No need to fluff up the amount by adding old pieces to the total (though if you do read they do mention some are old but still include in total). If they wanted to go with shock value, the real total likely would have done the same.
 
Stick a fork in this - they are going to wring every last possible silly interpretation out of the visit.
Nevermind it was really hot in Agra.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree. There's been a lot of effort to wring more column inches out of the tour in the past two days.

Frankly, in that interview, the press were practically begging William and Catherine to make an emotional confession of being shattered by visiting the Taj, and both flatly refused to do so. I think the truth is that the Taj visit means a lot more to the press and to the people carrying a torch for Diana's memory than it does to William or to Kate.
 
It's never enough with the media. You can't make them happy.


LaRae
 
Last edited:
I have to agree that it was more of a private holiday than a royal tour.

During a public engagement the only 'private time' is a bathroom break.

William expecting private moments at Gandhi’s house, the safari in Kaziranga National Park, the visit to the Bhutan’s monastery and the Taj Mahal reeks of a private vacation.

I'm not surprised that you take that viewpoint.

I am surprised that anyone takes UK press at face value. Gandhis home is considered almost sacred so do you realistically think that the curators wanted 50-60 reporters/photographers traipsing after them? No - they allowed in a few.

All the UK reporters had access at the National Park - no one said they didn't have access.

Bhutans monastery is sacred and 30 odd press following them is also unrealistic. But they posed and spoke with the press afterwards. (great pictures and quotes)

Taj - interesting. I understand that they would have liked a chance to see this on their own - without the herd following them. But to make up for it - they posed and sat on the bench.

So it seems balanced to me - unlike the UK press and those who believe everything they write.

So what really is the problem?
 
I understand fans defending their favorites, but the two quotes below are embarrassing beyond belief.

Indeed, some of Kate’s comments were banal at best and clumsy at worst. Meeting a chef who had been badly injured in the Mumbai 2008 terror atrocities, she murmured: “It must have been a surreal day.”

And when speaking to charity workers helping India’s street kids, who are mutilated to make money begging, she managed to utter: “Gosh, so interesting.”
 
:previous: doesn't seem to coincide with what Arthur said to the BBC.

But then again on the BBC piece he actively disagreed with the Sun, his employer.
 
Wills and Kate’s royal tour of India and Bhutan more like £270k private hol... and you footed the bill

If Kate did respond to a victim of a terrorist attack with "That must have been a surreal day" and on hearing accounts of child mutilations in India with "That is so interesting" then that speaks of a lack of empathy and of gravitas and of skill in drawing people out of their shells, IMO. I can imagine Diana or Charles in that situation and love them or hate them, their responses would have been very different.
 
You can't sell papers or get page clicks by continuing to write positive stories after the tour has ended.

So while, during the tour, you can talk about how open and willing to pose they were, that has to turn into being excessively stage managed.

During the tour, you can talk about how Kate lit up while feeding the baby rhino. After the tour, that has to turn into criticism that she wasn't feeding sick people in Calcutta.

During the tour, you can publish pictures and talk about how loving the two seemed on the safari (during which they had a jeep full of photographers ahead of them for all those photos, so I've no idea how it was "private"). After the tour, you can't sell that anymore, so it turns into "lightweight vacation".

At the end of the day, the press cannot continually sell the same story. They have to, and do, spin the narrative so that it's new and fresh. The difference between the royals and the press is that the royals are honest about the fact that they have press officers and a head spin doctor. The press pretends to be neutral while spinning like crazy in the service of economics; I find them painfully disingenuous.
 
Veteran Sun photographer Arthur Edwards said: “Kate and William rather skipped through India. Diana spent ten days here and she wasn’t feeding baby rhino, she was feeding sick people. She handed out sweets to the dying at Mother Teresa’s hospice in Calcutta.

“All the bottom of her dress was covered with dirt as she’d sat down next to them. It was incredible. Diana broke the mould.

“Kate and William have a long way to go to catch up. They do about two or three things a day. Charles and Diana would do so much more.”

Pretty mild compared to others but there is certainly a hint of criticism. Making it, like the rest of the article, sound more like a holiday than a serious visit. 'Feeding baby animals while Diana was feeding the sick.'

It also bothers me the comment of them sneaking out of the hotel back door when there were people waiting to see them out front. Surely their security is well versed in handling a small crowd. They are meant to be there representing the UK, not sneaking away.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The baby animals were orphans that why they needed feeding. Most of the time in Mumbai and the morning in New Dehli was with unprivileged kids. There was even meeting charity kids at the archery in Bhutan.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
:previous:
You can't sell papers or get page clicks by continuing to write positive stories after the tour has ended.

So while, during the tour, you can talk about how open and willing to pose they were, that has to turn into being excessively stage managed.

During the tour, you can talk about how Kate lit up while feeding the baby rhino. After the tour, that has to turn into criticism that she wasn't feeding sick people in Calcutta.

During the tour, you can publish pictures and talk about how loving the two seemed on the safari (during which they had a jeep full of photographers ahead of them for all those photos, so I've no idea how it was "private"). After the tour, you can't sell that anymore, so it turns into "lightweight vacation".

At the end of the day, the press cannot continually sell the same story. They have to, and do, spin the narrative so that it's new and fresh. The difference between the royals and the press is that the royals are honest about the fact that they have press officers and a head spin doctor. The press pretends to be neutral while spinning like crazy in the service of economics; I find them painfully disingenuous.

I agree hel that the media has now changed its tune since the tour has ended. The pressure to compete with social media and to meet the demands of your stockholders is unrelenting on the press who are in an unenviable position. Their industry is changing and their place in the world is shrinking.
 
The press desperately wanted Kate to be another Diana, and she's not and she never will be. She's going to raise her kids and spend time with her family and do her duty- which will always be done appropriately and well- and that isn't exciting, but it's also much more stable.
 
If Kate did respond to a victim of a terrorist attack with "That must have been a surreal day" and on hearing accounts of child mutilations in India with "That is so interesting" then that speaks of a lack of empathy and of gravitas and of skill in drawing people out of their shells, IMO.

You're being kind. Those two quotes highlight sheer stupidity because anything but is just unforgivable.
 
I have had more than one tragic day which I would describe as surreal. I think saying someone is stupid, not empathetic and unforgivable for a pretty innocuous comment is extreme.

I would imagine a lot of decisions about press presence and accessibility to the public are made for security and safety reasons, as they are for every world figure. Sounds like the press just wants to make it William's fault. Seems to me he is very open to meeting people and being seen. I think all the criticism is a tempest in a teapot. It was very successful tour in highlighting causes they care about.

The criticism about visiting the monastery is insensitive. It's a sacred place, just like visiting the Pope or a mosque--it's private.
 
I often wonder how some of the folks who jump on every little comment and analyze it to death would fare if followed by global media constantly.

My guess is "not well".
 
Perhaps not. I agree it would be horrendous. However, if I knew I was going to visit the Taj Mahal I would study the history of the building, if I was going to be speaking to workers on child mutilation I would read up on the subject so (if only for my own interest) I would increase my knowledge and be able to ask some pertinent questions, and so on. I know this because I have studied up beforehand on various trips that I have undertaken overseas.
 
Prince William and Kate Middleton retrace Diana's steps at the Taj Mahal | Daily Mail Online

Press is speculating about William possibly crying at the taj mahal.

Pretty mild compared to others but there is certainly a hint of criticism. Making it, like the rest of the article, sound more like a holiday than a serious visit. 'Feeding baby animals while Diana was feeding the sick.'

It also bothers me the comment of them sneaking out of the hotel back door when there were people waiting to see them out front. Surely their security is well versed in handling a small crowd. They are meant to be there representing the UK, not sneaking away.

So true, neither it is to create memories of their own. To me it felt totally like a holiday, not much gravitas to it. But then, they are not Monarch or heir to the throne, so maybe its intentional to go after the sugary coverage and pull the Diana card, nobody forced them to pose on the bench. So be prepared that the press is only after silly stories and Kate's fashion and that not everybody likes the royal celebrities on holiday.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: eya
You're being kind. Those two quotes highlight sheer stupidity because anything but is just unforgivable.

Is that all she said? Literally, the sum total of her conversation with those people? Please point out the evidence which shows that to be the case?

As someone who has been in the vicinity of a terrorist bomb going off which killed people, and a terrorist gun attack which killed people, I can say with certainty that it absolutely was surreal. Does that make me stupid too?

The Queen has made a career out of saying "how interesting". She says as little as she can possibly get away with.
 
I think some members of the media are ticked off that they didn't have access to some of the meetings, talks and even investiture that took place. Also, I think the heat got to some of them. Now, they're back home and venting their frustrations.

The tour wasn't a vacation folks, let's get real. Nobody in their right mind would call official royal tours a vacation. The media pretty much have their own agenda they want to push. A lot of the criticism really don't make much sense, IMO.

I happen to think the tour went very well.
 
Because the Queen says little of substance that's admirable? Anyway the Queen was given a barely adequate education really, even by the standards of the 1920's and 30's. The Cambridges are both university graduates. That doesn't mean they know the right thing to say instinctively, but you would expect something more substantive from a tertiary educated person in their thirties, who presumably follows world affairs and current issues.
 
Last edited:
Because the Queen says little of substance that's admirable? Anyway the Queen was given a barely adequate education really, even by the standards of the 1920's and 30's. The Cambridges are both university graduates. That doesn't mean they know the right thing to say instinctively, but you would expect something more substantive from a tertiary educated person in their thirties, who presumably follows world affairs and current issues.

And who has known about this trip for months if not a year, and has presumably been spending their time 'preparing' for the trip when they have been out of the public eye.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom