Duke and Duchess of Cambridge: Platinum Jubilee Tour of The Caribbean 19-26 Mar 2022

[Leopoldine]

Could somebody tell me why the American media appear to be anti royal, they are not American royalty so why are they so bothered. Or are they in the minority and we just see the negative stories.

I don't think the typical American media outlets are anti-royal, but more anti-conservative. News Corps' properties are the exception -- conservative, but Rupert Murdoch doesn't cotton to royalty.

There are a lot more regional publications that are conservative, reflecting their readerships. HM is popular here. Philip was as well. Catherine and William too. The Montecito part of the family seems to be evolving in their still undefined role.

The NY Times and the Wash. Post are left-leaning all the way. For them to support a monarchy would be like Jeremy Corbyn agreeing to be Prince Charles's valet.

And, it's not a question of being "bothered". It's just writing articles that get attention and get quoted and looked at again and referred to. If this happens to a columnist or reporter enough, they are now considered a "Royal Expert".

 

[HenRach Dominion]

Regardless of whether or not the media is portraying the Caribbean tour as more unsuccessful than it actually was, HRH The Duke of Cambridge, who I assume was too busy working to read newspapers or look at social media and therefore speaks from his actual experiences there, felt that he had to comment on it.

I applaud the statement because it affirms the Commonwealth citizens' right to speak their truths, their rights to establish their own governments and relationship to both the British Royal Family and the Commonwealth. He doesn't dismiss their concerns as trivial, minimal, politically motivated, journalistically manipulated, or greatly influenced by people divorced from the British Royal Family. Some may say "Of course, HRH The Duke of Cambridge is being the bigger person," and I would agree, but he wouldn't have been criticized at all for staying silent. Instead, he used his voice to validate, not diminish, the voices of the Commonwealth people of the Caribbean, even if those voices were against him and his family.

 

[Iluvbertie]

These countries are INDEPENDENT and have their own governments. They have had the right to form their own governments and run their own affairs for decades.

Jamaica became independent in 1962 - i.e. 60 years ago. It will be celebrating 60 years of independence in August this year.

The Bahamas became independent in 1973 - i.e. 49 years ago and will celebrate 50 years of independence next year.

Belize became independent in 1964 i.e. 58 years ago and will celebrate 60 years of independence in 2024.

What they do, along with 11 other countries, is SHARE a Head of State. That doesn't make them less independent at all. They control all their own affairs.

 

[TLLK]

Thank you Iluvbertie for sharing the facts about these independent nations and their 20th century history.

 

[Lady Daly]

This article is a typical example. It writes about a “global monarchy” when there is no such thing. It talks about “constitutional links” to the royal family. What on earth are they?

Zero credibility.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...5325d8-acd2-11ec-8a8e-9c6e9fc7a0de_story.html

And this one dripping with poison:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...m-kates-cringeworthy-colonial-caribbean-tour/

"it’s good for the world to see the British monarchy for the symbolic mess that it is, an outdated relic of imperialism" absolute twaddle.

Why do they even print this stuff if not to put the boot in?

What is of interest, the author of the first WaPo article is written by Martin Ivens a British journalist and editor of The Times Literary Supplement and a former editor of The Sunday Times. His article first appeared as an opinion piece for Bloomberg and was also run by WaPo both as opinion pieces. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...caribbean-is-time-up-for-the-british-monarchy.
Both Bloomberg and WaPo state at the bottom of the article: This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

The second article is written by a 36y/o black Ghanaian-American woman who is the Global Opinions editor for The Washington Post. She was also named 2019 Journalist of the Year Award by the National Association of Black Journalists for her coverage of Khashoggi's murder. Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi was the Saudi Arabian Washington Post journalist assassinated at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in 2018 by agents of the Saudi government, allegedly at the behest of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Again another opinion piece and from someone who writes about international injustices and conflict.

These opinion pieces obviously didn't share my own warm affection for Queen Elizabeth and the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. I was impressed with the grace shown by both William and Catherine on what became a challenging tour. Impressive.

 

[angieuk]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10658875/Prince-William-Kate-vow-things-Cambridge-Way.html

Allegedly, William will now speak out, if, and when he needs to, rather than stay silent, in a bid to modernise the Royal Family.

 

[Claire]

These countries are INDEPENDENT and have their own governments. They have had the right to form their own governments and run their own affairs for decades.

Jamaica became independent in 1962 - i.e. 60 years ago. It will be celebrating 60 years of independence in August this year.

The Bahamas became independent in 1973 - i.e. 49 years ago and will celebrate 50 years of independence next year.

Belize became independent in 1964 i.e. 58 years ago and will celebrate 60 years of independence in 2024.

What they do, along with 11 other countries, is SHARE a Head of State. That doesn't make them less independent at all. They control all their own affairs.

Thank you for posting this. I no longer know what to do in this world - after catching a radio show that made it sound like the West Indies were still slave ports for the British Empire. People are been mislead about what the Commonwealth is - and are been purposefully been mislead about what the difference is Dominions and independent republics with the CW.

People are currently been misinformed everywhere - and yes it is purposeful. I have spoken to two journalists in the UK who told me directly that they were told what to write about the tour. I am done.

 

[Frelinghighness]

These countries are INDEPENDENT and have their own governments. They have had the right to form their own governments and run their own affairs for decades.

Jamaica became independent in 1962 - i.e. 60 years ago. It will be celebrating 60 years of independence in August this year.

The Bahamas became independent in 1973 - i.e. 49 years ago and will celebrate 50 years of independence next year.

Belize became independent in 1964 i.e. 58 years ago and will celebrate 60 years of independence in 2024.

What they do, along with 11 other countries, is SHARE a Head of State. That doesn't make them less independent at all. They control all their own affairs.

Thank you for emphasizing this. Most people are completely ignorant of these facts and assume HM is pulling the strings . Ignorance is rampant and opinions are the kings

 

[OwlBranch]

Regardless of whether or not the media is portraying the Caribbean tour as more unsuccessful than it actually was, HRH The Duke of Cambridge, who I assume was too busy working to read newspapers or look at social media and therefore speaks from his actual experiences there, felt that he had to comment on it.

I have to strongly disagree that Duke of Cambridge is not reading newspaper or look at social media. What is the point of a royal tour if not to generate press coverage? At the very least, his staff should inform him of these things. If not, they are failing their job.

In some ways, their staff have failed them already on simple logistic planning. They failed to get the right permission to land their helicopter on a field and there was a small protest from locals. This is an easily avoidable mistake. You saw how media can magnify a situation and makes a mountain out of a mole hill.

I think it is important for William and Kate to read the criticism so they can recalibrate their next move, and not to stick their head in the sand.

 

[Marchesina]

Look, I have followed the tour through the local media which did a wonderful job reporting via live streamings. The feedback was mostly (when not completely) positive. However we cannot deny the western media preferred to portray the tour with a more critical approach.
While I never trust rose-tinted reporting, I think local media would have been way more critical if they had spotted anything remotely controversial. IMO we, westerners, should always take a step back when it comes to analyze the things that take place in places which are so culturally different from us.

The Land Rover, for instance, which is said to be frequently used by the military for troops reviewing was suggested by the Jamaican authorities when arranging the events. They thought it best not to displease them.

IMO it was a no win situation, there was always going to be people upset or disappointed by something and it says a lot to me their main interest laid on the people hosting them rather than the global image.

 

[Susan D]

I think this tour was ill-planned because the Cayman Islands and the Turks & Caicos Islands, both colonies, were ignored.

 

[TLLK]

I think this tour was ill-planned because the Cayman Islands and the Turks & Caicos Islands, both colonies, were ignored.

Turks and Caicos is a British Overseas Territory and no longer a colony.


The last royal visit was in 2000 when the Duke of York paid a three day visit so yes I agree that it is due a visit.



The Cayman Islands are a self-governing British Overseas Territory and is no longer a colony.


The Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall visited the Cayman Islands in 2019 so considering how recently a member of the BRF visited, I wouldn't say that they've been ignored.

 

[camelot23ca]

Look, I have followed the tour through the local media which did a wonderful job reporting via live streamings. The feedback was mostly (when not completely) positive. However we cannot deny the western media preferred to portray the tour with a more critical approach.
While I never trust rose-tinted reporting, I think local media would have been way more critical if they had spotted anything remotely controversial. IMO we, westerners, should always take a step back when it comes to analyze the things that take place in places which are so culturally different from us.

The Land Rover, for instance, which is said to be frequently used by the military for troops reviewing was suggested by the Jamaican authorities when arranging the events. They thought it best not to displease them.

IMO it was a no win situation, there was always going to be people upset or disappointed by something and it says a lot to me their main interest laid on the people hosting them rather than the global image.

It’s unfortunate that the opinions and reactions of the ordinary people in the countries they visited have been lost in the noise generated by the (mainly) Western media. My aunt and uncle live in The Bahamas and, while they’re not royal watchers in general, they joined the crowds that came out to see William and Catherine, and said more people than they would have thought were excited about the visit.

 

[eya]

"PM Outlines Background and Outcomes of Royal Visit
Prime Minister Philip Davis is giving parliamentarians the background details and an overview of the recent royal visit of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to The Bahamas."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1509176301399252995

 

[TLLK]

It’s unfortunate that the opinions and reactions of the ordinary people in the countries they visited have been lost in the noise generated by the (mainly) Western media. My aunt and uncle live in The Bahamas and, while they’re not royal watchers in general, they joined the crowds that came out to see William and Catherine, and said more people than they would have thought were excited about the visit.

Thank you for sharing your aunt and uncle's viewpoints on the couple's visit to The Bahamas. I do enjoy hearing about the perspective of "the citizen on the street."

 

[Marengo]

A reflection of the visit by former British diplomat Alexandra Hall Hall, sharing some of her insights. Among other things she defends the duke and duchess:

The deliberate effort to hark back to a ‘golden era’ was a public relations disaster from start to finish.

Yet, I do not blame William and Kate for this train wreck – and indeed feel sympathetic to the couple, who, as far as I can tell, did nothing more than try to conform, dutifully, to what they thought was still expected of members of the Royal Family, and who did, in fact, receive a warm welcome by many despite the numerous gaffes.

It is to their credit that they managed to keep smiling and ploughing manfully through the tour, even as negative coverage was mounting. Less dutiful, more thin-skinned royals might have lashed out at their critics, skulked in their hotel rooms, or even simply cut and run.

Article here.

 

[iceflower]

Some yet unseen photos of the tour have been released:


** dm article: Behind-the-scenes of Prince William and Kate Middleton's royal tour: Couple's personal photographer shares his album..**

 

[shaggydog]

Funny video of guy preparing for William and Kate's Royal visit to the Bahamas...