William and Harry's TV Interviews about Diana: June 2007


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I noticed that Matt Lauer did not refer to them as "Your Royal Highness" and "Sir." Maybe the young men indicated to him that would be acceptable (if so, I think that's a breath of fresh air -- remember how Prince Charles demanded his girlfriends call him "Sir"?). If not, they didn't seem ruffled by it.

Lauer might have addressed him diplomatically at first (off camera) and they cleared it up between them that they didn't want to be called by the formal addresses. I think the purpose of the interview to be a casual, conversational interaction made it apparent that casual references were preferable. On these things, I think one goes by what the signals are, and the princes clearly gave the signal that being casual was what they wanted. You could see it not just in their way of speaking, but also in their relaxed body language throughout the interview.
 
We didn't really learn anything we didn't already know. Besides the Ginger nickname. I am so proud of them and happy that they are ready to share their mother as they knew her.

I thought the Ginger part was one of the funniest. Harry tries to downplay it and William interrupts and says "except that you are."

I thought they were both just adorable and the "filler" words do not come across as badly during the interview as in the transcripts. I use the work "like" alot myself.
 
Is there a link to the Fearne Cotton interview?
 
I have seen the two interviews with the Princes, and eeerh......, despite their impressive Etonian education both of them came over as superficial and shallow boyish men, with a limited vocabulary ('yeah you know' after almost every sentence) and it was the least 'royal' interview I have ever seen ("thank you chaps!" by the interviewer).
:ermm:

Especially Prince William really needs lessons in presenting himself and articulating words. I wished I have not seen the interviews anyway. They made the two Princes ranks the lowest in my esteem as 'best fit for the kingship' in comparison to all other royals.

:neutral:

Even the goofiest European Prince (the Duke of Brabant) makes a more intellectual impression. And that tells a lot!
 
Last edited:
A friend of mine saw the interview and said she was pretty impressed with how they sounded.
 
A friend of mine saw the interview and said she was pretty impressed with how they sounded.

An example: Prince William was asked what the best point of being a prince was, and all he came up with nothing more than "well eerh, you know, we live in this great house, surrounded by beautiful things ,you know'....

Pardon. What about the many opportunities they get as a Prince to meet people? What about focusing on world problems? What about contributing to society? What about continuing the monarchy, with their grandmother's excellent example and the immense heritage the Royal House represents?

It was a negative surprise for me that the Princes couldn't come up with a better answer. They should not portray themselves as plain ordinary lads as William Windsor and Harry Windsor. They both really need lessons vocal and personal presentation.
:neutral:

I wished I have not seen the interviews.
:ermm:

For an example: how goodnatured the Prince of Orange might be, how accessible he might seem to be, he is and remains The Prince of Orange. He has the same attitude as his mother (Princess Máxima has softened it a bit in the latest years): he can show a most 'unamused' face and freeze completely, even in front of 30 camera's and ignore the interviewer completely when he is addressed in a 'disrespectful manner'. An interviewer saying "thank you chap!" to Prince Willem-Alexander is simply un-imagineable.

That the Princess William and Harry allow it, maybe makes them more sympathetic than their Dutch colleague's picking attitude, but I think Prince Willem-Alexander realizes much better: where is the end? Will they adress me and my spouse as Alex and Máxi?
 
Last edited:
I have to agree with Henry M.
After watching the whole interview, I had very low opinion of it. It was interesting, sort of funny, with many jokes but not interview of the Princes.
I guess they did mean to sound like 'normal chaps' but I would hope they didn't forget they are not chaps, they are Princes of the United Kingdom. And that 'you know' really annoyed me, they repeated it a couple of times in every sentence. Prince William did especially poor job, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
I didn't see the interview unfortunately. However, I was surprised at the different reaction my friend had to a lot of the royalty watchers.

She's pretty saavy as far as the media goes but doesn't know a lot about royalty.
 
I'm finding it hard to see something in this interview worth devaluing your opinion of the boys over. I really am. So they said "you know" a lot. Big deal. They're human, they may not be fully comfortable giving interviews and they stammered. If they came across snooty and posh-sounding, I'd have turned it off one syllable in. I get the feeling that's what some people wanted. Their use of "umm" and "you know" is better than the dead air some people give when they're trying to formulate their response. To me, that's more rude than saying "umm".


Royals should appear human, not robotic.
 
I'm finding it hard to see something in this interview worth devaluing your opinion of the boys over. I really am. So they said "you know" a lot. Big deal. They're human, they may not be fully comfortable giving interviews and they stammered. If they came across snooty and posh-sounding, I'd have turned it off one syllable in. I get the feeling that's what some people wanted. Their use of "umm" and "you know" is better than the dead air some people give when they're trying to formulate their response. To me, that's more rude than saying "umm".


Royals should appear human, not robotic.

Interesting opinion (which I respect very much) and some wonderful points.
However, with all due respect, Prince Charles, Princess Letizia, Princess Mary, Prince Willem-Alexander, Prince Felipe, Duchess of Cornwall, Princess Maxima, Princess Anne, Prince Frederik, Princess Mathilde..., not even speaking of the Monarchs and their spouses, all manage to sound and appear human, without sounding like people, who haven't ever seen the face of University or books. This goes for 'younger' Royals as well - Princess Madeline, Prince Carl-Philip, Casiraghis and others don't speak like that as well (on official functions, that is).

I'm not saying how they talked is not normal - I talk like that to my friend, but should I appear on the TV, I would make sure I talk properly, even if it did sound posh-sounding.

I know that most people say 'Royals should be like us' (which usually doesn't go far enough to accept they can drink, divorce or make other mistakes like us), but I think younger Royals should not forget they are Royals. What would be the point of the Institution of Monarchy, if Royals were exactly like us?
 
I have seen the two interviews with the Princes, and eeerh......, despite their impressive Etonian education both of them came over as superficial and shallow boyish men, with a limited vocabulary ('yeah you know' after almost every sentence) and it was the least 'royal' interview I have ever seen ("thank you chaps!" by the interviewer).
I too have watched both interviews and found them an embarrassment.
Avalon said:
but I think younger Royals should not forget they are Royals. What would be the point of the Institution of Monarchy, if Royals were exactly like us?
Well said! :flowers:
 
I know that most people say 'Royals should be like us' (which usually doesn't go far enough to accept they can drink, divorce or make other mistakes like us),

How true Avalon. The wish to see royals as more like us often doesn't extend to some not so nice things that normal people do (drinking too much, divorce, affairs, etc.) So when the royals make mistakes like the rest of us, they get criticized for forgetting that they are royal. Only rare people like Diana are accepted flaws and all and even then not all the time by everybody.

but I think younger Royals should not forget they are Royals. What would be the point of the Institution of Monarchy, if Royals were exactly like us?

I'm agreeing with you yet again. :flowers:

On the plus side, William and Harry were very honest that they will never be like normal men and I think that is a very wise statement. However, it seems that they were trying to act and sound less intimidating which is very commendable but it had the unfortunate result of making them sound a little less intelligent.

I don't know because I didn't see the interview myself, but that's what I get from listening to the people who did see the interview.

Certainly their bond with the common man on the street cannot be a lack of intelligence. That would be too depressing.
 
I'm not trying to say that they should forget their lineage. I'm saying people should remember that underneath the lineage they are two grown men and sometimes when two grown men are asked questions, no matter their level of education, they will sound like what we heard in that interview. Something I've read a few times here that has really started to grate on me is this concept that because they went to good schools, they should talk better. I went to a good school.....a private H.S. and one of the top universities in the state and my English sometimes sounds like I wasn't even born here. I make dumb grammatical errors both when I write and when I speak and that has nothing to do with my level of education. I'm not stupid and I'm not a poor speaker and neither are they. Sometimes I slip into more colloquial speech because I feel more comfortable expressing myself in that manner. Who's to say that Will and Harry aren't the same way? That's just something that I've read several times in this thread and it has continually rubbed me the wrong way.

I think people are also forgetting this was an informal interview. Informal being the key word. The two of them strike me as not feeling comfortable with all the pomp and circumstance and that probably had a lot to do with why the interview was conducted the way it was. They didn't wear suits, they weren't interviewed in some grand and formal room and they weren't addressed by titles on camera. I'm sure the time will come for an interview like that to occur, but this wasn't it. They wanted it to be like this AND this was for American TV so they wanted to probably come across more accessible to the Americans who were watching. I don't blame them for that.
 
I think people are also forgetting this was an informal interview. Informal being the key word.

Sister Morphine, I don't think people are inferring that the boys are dumb or we are forgetting that this was an informal interview . I think that the informality is what some people don't like or to use your words, the informality grates on their nerves.

But you may be right that the informality may be appealing to most Americans which is why my friend who is not a royalty watcher was very impressed with the interview.
 
They wanted it to be like this AND this was for American TV so they wanted to probably come across more accessible to the Americans who were watching. I don't blame them for that.
One interview was for American TV, the other for the British. Both have been shown on British TV now and their speech did not improve for the BBC offering.

Why do some mention they went to a good school - because it is considered one of the top public schools, where boys from all over the world, have to have their names put on a waiting list. That William and Harry should come out speaking like any thicko, is depressing! :neutral:
 
it is considered one of the top public schools, where boys from all over the world, have to have their names put on a waiting list.

Then it should be considered a good school, right? ;)

I wonder if they way they look and sound is the result of any public relations advice they may have gotten.
 
It should be, if any of our boys (or girls) spoke like that.....:bang: :ROFLMAO:
LOL but I can't agree with you more! Personally, I don't understand why some find it appealing for educated young men to speak like they need a tutor. If that's their idea of how "normal" people talk, it's a rather condescending attitude.
 
There you are Prince William and Prince Harry. Embrace your heritage and destiny. Don't be apologetic about who you are. We find the 'you knows' a trifle irritating and totally unnecessary. You can stand up tall and be proud of who you are. You have proven yourselves to us by your handling of the 'Concert for Diana' that you are very capable young men.
Learn from the Prince of Orange of how to maintain royal dignity while maintaining the common touch and I daresay, he will have a few things to learn from you too.
 
Queen's English

Another example was yesterday's Concert for Diana.

Is it really too hard to say some spontaneous words of gratitude to all who made the Concert possible, to honour their unforgettable mother?

Did they really need written lines to say these basal things? Why did they need to peek in that note in their hands. What was so difficult to remember. Let your heart speak. Really, the two give the impression they have to learn a LOT.

:neutral:

And then about the non-understanding about my negativeness about Etonians having such a limited vocabulary and a non-articulating way of speaking: in the Netherlands we have always been told to listen to the BBC, if we wanted to hear proper English. It is not the English we hear in American sitcoms or on MTV.

Dutch students are also told about Queen's English (or King's English) which is the idea that the monarch’s usage of the language should be a model in speech and writing.

Seen in that light, there is still a LOT of work to do.

:neutral:
 
Last edited:
My opinion is that they are trying too hard not to stand out as belonging to a privileged class. But as expressed by others in this forum, some of us prefer the royals to maintain some sort of aura around them.
Striking this balance is something they will have to work on. Perhaps in a more formal setting (maybe the memorial service ??), their more formal selves will be on display.
 
I noticed it too, that William was very insecure, peeking at a piece of paper for every sentence. Maybe he did not prepare at all and when he stood there it was more difficult than he thought it would be.

Also, if they could not improvise, why did they not use an auto q or whatever those things are called, you look in the camera and what you are going to say flashes in front of you

Another example was yesterday's Concert for Diana.

Is it really too hard to say some spontaneous words of gratitude to all who made the Concert possible, to honour their unforgettable mother?

Did they really need written lines to say these basal things? Why did they need to peek in that note in their hands. What was so difficult to remember. Let your heart speak. Really, the two give the impression they have to learn a LOT.

:neutral:

And then about the non-understanding about my negativeness about Etonians having such a limited vocabulary and a non-articulating way of speaking: in the Netherlands we have always been told to listen to the BBC, if we wanted to hear proper English. It is not the English we hear in American sitcoms or on MTV.

Dutch students are also told about Queen's English (or King's English) which is the idea that the monarch’s usage of the language should be a model in speech and writing.

Seen in that light, there is still a LOT of work to do.

:neutral:
 
I noticed it too, that William was very insecure, peeking at a piece of paper for every sentence. Maybe he did not prepare at all and when he stood there it was more difficult than he thought it would be.

Also, if they could not improvise, why did they not use an auto q or whatever those things are called, you look in the camera and what you are going to say flashes in front of you

Autocue.

:flowers:

But still: just "On behalf of my brother, our family and myself I want to express our gratitude to all who have made this an unforgettable evening. It will always remain in a special place in our hearts.
Thank you, thank you so very much!"

Ready. Three sentences. No autocue. No note.

:flowers:
 
speaking in public is very trickly for some people. even the easiest things can be so hard to say. and remember - they were speaking live in front of approx. 70 000 and then countless numbers on t.v. so given his inexperience at live public speaking in front of such a large audience i think we should give him this one.
 
well, it was an adoring public full of good will, he will have to face sceptics and others too in the future. Still needs some training in that department, not a natural public speaker.


speaking in public is very trickly for some people. even the easiest things can be so hard to say. and remember - they were speaking live in front of approx. 70 000 and then countless numbers on t.v. so given his inexperience at live public speaking in front of such a large audience i think we should give him this one.
 
Autocue.

:flowers:

But still: just "On behalf of my brother, our family and myself I want to express our gratitude to all who have made this an unforgettable evening. It will always remain in a special place in our hearts.
Thank you, thank you so very much!"

Ready. Three sentences. No autocue. No note.

:flowers:

==========

Give these guys a break. They are not seasoned public speakers, who can speak extempore in front of 70,000 people. Whilst it would have been great if the boys could have spoken without referring to their notes, that is certainly one way of ensuring that they manage to communicate all the messages that they want to. If William needed notes for small speaches like this one in 10 years from not, it would be a cause for criticism - but as of now it is totally unjustified.
 
Having watched the media headlines since the concert, I think it's funny that the amount of people there has grown from 63,000 to 70,000. Unless people snuck in, there were only 63,000 places available and police estimates suggest that just over 1000 people didn't turn up because of the weather and the bombs! :ROFLMAO: By this time next week, it will have grown to at least 85,000. :ROFLMAO:
 
the reason for the discrepancy, i think, is because during the concert the news agencies here in north american were estimating the seating capacity and after the fact it was actually lower. the reason could also be that during concerts so many seats are lost to technical equipment and, as you said in this case, for the weather and terror threats. those reasons aside, i think william harry did a great job speaking in front of 10's of thousands of people and the critics are being a bit too hard on them.
 
Can someone tell me where I can find the NBC interview? Is it downloadable somewhere? -cause I can't find it at youtube.. Where are people outside the US supposed to find it..?

thnx
 
well, it was an adoring public full of good will, he will have to face sceptics and others too in the future. Still needs some training in that department, not a natural public speaker.

i partially agree...speaking in front of an audience that likes you is a lot easier than speaking in front of one that doesn't and that he does indeed need some training. i think the training will come when he starts taking on more engagements and becomes more comfortable with larger groups and crowds.:flowers:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom