Prince Albert and Princess Charlene Current Events - Part 2: March 2012 - March 2013


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Last edited:
I thought Charlene was awkward and inarticulate for a 34 year old woman. I'm rooting for them; let's hope she gets better at presenting herself. Albert didn't seem too comfortable either.
 
That reporter, Holy Williams, should find herself a new career. She's atrocious, as were her questions!

Prince Albert often fumbles for words (think wedding speech). I think it's just his way.

Princess Charlene I think was takenaback by the nature of the questions which really were quite rediculous. She did look uncomfortable.
 
That reporter, Holy Williams, should find herself a new career. She's atrocious, as were her questions!

Prince Albert often fumbles for words (think wedding speech). I think it's just his way.

Princess Charlene I think was takenaback by the nature of the questions which really were quite rediculous. She did look uncomfortable.

I get taken aback (I thought Holly Williams was ridiculous too) but to ask Albert how she feels about being a princess? How would he know?

Besides, you have to get used to stupid questions in their position.
 
It's very sad to see them interviewed here; as a PR attempt, it fails miserably.
I don't see how the questions asked are ridiculous - they pretty much add up the kind of routine stuff asked during any interview with a new royal couple and a royal wife who's adjusting to a new role, stuff which is usually answered likewise in a routine way, though not here.
Neither Albert nor Charlene are particularly eloquent, to put it mildly; the two moments of interrupting the interview with Prince Albert signaling that he wants the cameras to stop rolling are truly embarrassing.
His way of speaking by the way sounds simply typical of someone who quite successfully overcame a serious stammer (which he did); the reasons why her speech sounds noticeably slurred can at most be speculated upon.
Quite a painful experience, watching them.
 
I'm surprised they didn't know the questions ahead of time. Even so, I didn't think the questions were very hard and they were predictable. PA has never been a good interview and PC hasn't had alot of practice. Her previous inverviews were about sports, not personal questions.

I wish the American news wouldn't rely on the English for news about non-English royalty. I find them to be very biased towards the English royalty, sometimes snobbish and they don't really seem to know much about Monaco.
 
Last edited:
If they had a family together a lot of the rumors that follow them would eventually disappear. The longer this takes to happen the stranger this marriage will appear. I really like them but that interview was very strange I just wish she would have a baby soon as after a year of marriage I can't see what the hold up is. I noticed they were not asked about this as I bet the interviewer was told not to.
 
That reporter, Holy Williams, should find herself a new career. She's atrocious, as were her questions!

Prince Albert often fumbles for words (think wedding speech). I think it's just his way.

Princess Charlene I think was takenaback by the nature of the questions which really were quite rediculous. She did look uncomfortable.

I couldn't agree more. Their family life is nobody's business but theirs.
 
If they had a family together a lot of the rumors that follow them would eventually disappear. The longer this takes to happen the stranger this marriage will appear. I really like them but that interview was very strange I just wish she would have a baby soon as after a year of marriage I can't see what the hold up is. I noticed they were not asked about this as I bet the interviewer was told not to.

The reporter may well have been told not to ask such a personal question. I suppose it would be too much to hope that a reporter would simply have manners enough on their own to know not to ask.
 
Having trouble viewing the video but I'm interested in how Albert compared with Prince William (I'm thinking engagement interview). And was thre an engagement interview with Albert and Charlene?
 
This was tabloid stuff. I look at the whole of it and this is what I take away -

- William and Kate were married last year about the same time. (Not interesting in this context and a strange choice to give video time to Will and Kate. Is the interviewer trying to shine up to the British couple?)
- William and Kate are more famous than Albert and Charlene. (Not for those wanting to hear this interview. As well, an interesting decision to diss the subjects of the interview about to be shown. There is - has to be - some animus present).
- There were a lot of scandals and gossip regarding events around Albert's and Charlene's wedding - which a year on the couple seem uninterested in talking about (but the interviewer made sure we knew about - again, animus obvious).
- Albert is 20 years older than Charlene.
- We found out what Albert and Charlene think of married life. (A mindless question since the answer has to be a positive - so why ask it? It's waste of good interview time. I can see the wheels turning: is this why I set aside time to sit down and grant an interview? to answer tabloid questions?).
- We didn't find out what it's like to be a princess. (An interesting question - Charlene's response is interesting - we are so used to PR polish that we fail to identify an unspoilt affect).
- The interviewer/producers of this piece made sure we saw every burp and hiccup and made some interesting editing choices clearly intended to show the couple in a unflattering light. We have no idea what the agreement was before the interview started - I believe we were seeing the result of the interview taking a course Albert (and Charlene) had not agreed to. We won't know that - but we have been shown the effects without the real context.
- In the side clip that indicates Charlene is going to be asked about her aid to impoverished women - Charlene directly answers - not about impoverished women - but about her work with children. A bit odd.

Overall -
- Albert comes across this way in every interview I have seen of him. The comment that he speaks as he does because he has overcome a stammer makes sense.
- It is clear the interviewer did not gain the confidence of her subjects before they sat down. Or, she was ambushing them. They seemed honestly surprised at the questions as though an agreement or understanding was not being followed. Charlene's response to the princess question is wholly unguarded. She's surprised at the route the interviewer is taking.
- That the interviewer was given only a half hour says to me that 'the palace' - Albert - ended the interview early. This speaks volumes - something happened that we, of course, were not shown.
- When answering the question about impoverished women which wound up being an answer about her work with children (another botched agreement?), Charlene was articulate - but I had a sense that she was not particularly pleased with the interviewer.

I agree that the 'interview' is uncomfortable to watch - and I have to say that that is precisely what this highly edited piece intended. The interviewer was cut short - so she did a bit of a hatchet job. What could possibly be the rationale behind this series of comments -

- the interviewer was surprised at the informality
- as she did not have to curtsy to the couple
- but she had to address them as Highnesses

What exactly was that all about? Overall, an unpleasant piece because probably 'payback' for some thing that happened in the course of this gig (why the interview was cut short to a half hour).

The only tidbit that was worth the trip was the interviewer's final assessment of Charlene: that she is a strong woman and would not do anything she did not want to do - like an interview?

My take-away is that I saw a clear close relationship between the two - Albert knows Charlene and she knows her man. It's possible that when we are shown Albert calling 'time' at the beginning of the interview that was when he actually ended the interview.
 
Last edited:
This was tabloid stuff. I look at the whole of it and this is what I take away -

- William and Kate were married last year about the same time. (Not interesting in this context and a strange choice to give video time to Will and Kate - is the interviewer trying to shine up to the British couple?)
- William and Kate are more famous than Albert and Charlene. (Not for those wanting to hear this interview. As well, an interesting decision to diss the subjects of the interview about to be shown - there is some animus present).
- There were a lot of scandals and gossip regarding events around Albert's and Charlene's wedding - which a year on the couple seem uninterested in talking about (but the interviewer made sure we knew about - again, animus obvious).
- Albert is 20 years older than Charlene.
- We found out what Albert and Charlene think of married life. (A mindless question since the answer has to a positive - so why ask it? It's waste of good interview time).
- We didn't find out what it's like to be a princess. (An interesting question - Charlene's response is interesting).
- The interviewer/producers of this piece made sure we saw every burp and hiccup and made some interesting editing choices clearly intended to show the couple in a unflattering light. We have no idea what the agreement was before the interview started - I believe we were seeing the result of the interview taking a course Albert had not agreed to - we won't know that - but we have been shown the effects without the real context.
- In the side clip that indicates Charlene is going to be asked about her aid to impoverished women - Charlene directly answers - not about impoverished women - but about her work with children. A bit odd.

Overall -
- Albert comes across this way in every interview I have seen of him. The comment that he speaks as he does because he has overcome a stammer makes sense.
- It is clear the interviewer did not gain the confidence of her subjects before they sat down. Or, she was ambushing them. They seemed honestly surprised at the questions as though an agreement or understanding was not being followed. Charlene's response to the princess question is wholly unguarded. She's surprised at the route the interviewer is taking.
- That the interviewer was given only a half hour says to me that 'the palace' - Albert - ended the interview early. This speaks volumes - something happened that we, of course, were not shown.
- When answering the question about impoverished women which wound up being an answer about her work with children (another botched agreement?), Charlene was articulate - but I had a sense that she was not particularly pleased with the interviewer.

I agree that the 'interview' is uncomfortable to watch - and I have to say that that is precisely what this highly edited piece intended. The interviewer was cut short - so she did a bit of a hatchet job. What could possibly be this rationale behind this series of comments -

- the interviewer was surprised at the informality
- as she did not have to curtsy to the couple
- but she had to address them as Highnesses

What exactly was that all about? Overall, an unpleasant piece because probably 'payback' for some thing that happened in the course of this gig (why the interview was cut short to a half hour).

The only tidbit that was worth the trip was the interviewer's final assessment of Charlene: that she is a strong woman and would not do anything she did not want to do - like an interview?

My take-away is that I saw a clear close relationship between the two - Albert knows Charlene and she knows her man.

I did get the feeling the interviewer was trying to manage the impression by how she opened the segment with Will & Kate's wedding rather than focusing on Albert & Charlene.
 
Why Albert and Charlene gave this interview? What was the purpose of it? Did they want PR for Monaco? Did they want to assure people that their relationship and marriage is wonderful? If that was the purpose, they didn't succeed.
They seemed so puzzled that I start to believe that they didn't ask the questions before the interview was made. If they had done so, the result = the interview could have been better. Now it was just painful to watch. The interviewer managed to make 7.35 long clip out of almost nothing.
 
Why Albert and Charlene gave this interview? [...] The interviewer managed to make 7.35 long clip out of almost nothing.

Well, that's the point - and we will never know because it's the interviewer and producers who have the final edit control. We are presented with a highly weighted impression to one side - because of the editing. Nothing of substance appears to have happened in that interview - except 1:41 seconds on work with children that is not even included in the main piece. Bizarre.

For those inclined to dislike the Monaco couple - which as we have seen are many (and tend to be British as I think they see the Monaco couple as 'competition') - this piece will confirm those inclinations with the added bonus of being something to snicker at.

For those truly interested in the couple - which would be most of the people who would watch - it is a curious artifact of no redeeming interest.
 
Hmmm?!?! I am a bit baffled by this interview. Why would the question "what are the qualities that drew you to Princess..." be such a taboo. In light of all the negative publicity that they had at the time of their wedding and even now (somewhat), you would think that this would be the perfect occasion for him to deflate all of the "rumors". Even if he had said something as cliche as "her smile" or her "love of animals" (of course neither of which were said) it would have been something. Now I am left wondering what,if any, qualities he admirers in her. If you marry someone for the right reasons (as they say they did) even a bumbling Prince should be able to say SOMETHING remotely positive about his Princess. I have never even met Charlene and I can list at least 10 qualities I find attractive about her just from what i see in the tabloids. I am perplexed!!!!
 
Well, that's the point - and we will never know because it's the interviewer and producers who have the final edit control. We are presented with a highly weighted impression to one side - because of the editing. Nothing of substance appears to have happened in that interview - except 1:41 seconds on work with children that is not even included in the main piece. Bizarre.

For those inclined to dislike the Monaco couple - which as we have seen are many (and tend to be British as I think they see the Monaco couple as 'competition') - this piece will confirm those inclinations with the added bonus of being something to snicker at.

For those truly interested in the couple - which would be most of the people who would watch - it is a curious artifact of no redeeming interest.

TSHs are no competition for the BRF - strange idea. I find the family interesting because they have managed to survive which is quite a feat.

Still trying to view the video gggrrrr :bang:
 
TSHs are no competition for the BRF - strange idea.

I think they are when one reads the comments. I think that's the way some view all royal couples - as competition that needs to be dissed. And not so strange when you observe the (obvious) Will and Kate fans who come onto this Board. There are some fans of the British royals who appear unable to hear other royal couples praised. You find it on the Danish Board as well - fans of the British royals seeing the Danish couple competitively.

Just an observation.

P.S. Consider that this 'interview' with Albert and Charlene is nested within preliminary video footage of William's and Kate's wedding and comments about them being more popular - almost as though to 'assure' the audience (I assume British) that 'never fear, we are loyal to Will and Kate'.
 
Last edited:
Never crossed my mind - they are all so very different - different cultures, role requirements, history etc etc. Complete fruit salad
 
Never crossed my mind - they are all so very different - different cultures, role requirements, history etc etc. Complete fruit salad

I agree, that's my assessment as well. I view all the royal families as completely different from one another with no house better or worse than any of the others. I did feel that the interviewer had a bias in the way she presented the interview. Still, I thought both Albert & Charlene both did terribly.
 
It was an awkward, stilted interview, and I think very little of that had to do with the interviewer herself, and more to do with the interviewees. The more I see of them together, the more I'm reminded of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. Not because I think he's secretly gay, because I don't. More because they don't appear natural together. There's an aloof nature to the way they relate to one another, both physically (in terms of body language) and through words (the way they talk about each other). You would think, that after a year of marriage, either one of them would be able to say in a few short words, what they see in the other person. You would also think that Charlene could articulate in some small way, what married life is like. Not everyone is married, not everyone who is married is married to a Prince. These were not difficult questions, it's not like Holly Williams was sitting down with the President of the United States and asking him questions about foreign policy. This was essentially a fluff piece, and they both failed miserably IMO.

People of their stature are not interviewed without knowing the questions ahead of time, to be assured that nothing "out of bounds" is asked. It stands to reason that if they knew the questions they were going to be asked, they could have prepared better for it. This will do very little to convince people that they are gee golly gosh so in love with each other. Lest anyone accuse me of thinking there's only one way to communicate love and affection with one's spouse, I'm not suggesting they should be making moon eyes at each other, and pawing at the others clothes like a cat in heat. However, there is something between that and what we currently see from them. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge don't act like newlyweds on their honeymoon when out in public with one another, but you can clearly tell just by the way they interact with one another, that there is deep love and affection there. Same with Victoria and Daniel, Mary and Frederik, Maxima and Willem-Alexander, Mette-Marit and Haakon.....the list goes on. You can be royal, and suitably decorous, without being icy and robotic.

Something about those two has always been "off" to me, and this didn't do much to shake me of that.
 
Hmmm?!?! I am a bit baffled by this interview. Why would the question "what are the qualities that drew you to Princess..." be such a taboo. In light of all the negative publicity that they had at the time of their wedding and even now (somewhat), you would think that this would be the perfect occasion for him to deflate all of the "rumors". Even if he had said something as cliche as "her smile" or her "love of animals" (of course neither of which were said) it would have been something. Now I am left wondering what,if any, qualities he admirers in her. If you marry someone for the right reasons (as they say they did) even a bumbling Prince should be able to say SOMETHING remotely positive about his Princess. I have never even met Charlene and I can list at least 10 qualities I find attractive about her just from what i see in the tabloids. I am perplexed!!!!
Isabel Kumar did a wonderful pre-wedding interview with pa ad pc. She asked sensible questions and both of the couple answered them well. The questions included asking about children and what they like about each other and they were happy to answer them then so I don't know why they are being so defensive now. It is on youtube BTW if anyone wants to see it and it is in english:-/
 
Never crossed my mind - they are all so very different - different cultures, role requirements, history etc etc. Complete fruit salad

I didn't notice either. I don't often see the main BRF commentator on this tread. If we are looking at what Tyger is saying same can be said about fans of other royals (Danish and Albert and Charlene) that goes into the BRF threads.

I don't think that the case. People can dislike one couple and like the other, it has nothing to do with competition.

Albert and Charlene have been asks these type of questions before. Plenty of time when they were giving many interviews before the wedding. I don't know why these questions are out of bound now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Piers Morgan (CNN) will be interviewing Charlene and Albert on Friday's show.

As for the current interview, I agree that it was awkward. They were asked pretty easy/standard questions, so I'm a little surprised that they had such a difficult time answering them.
 
Last edited:
Excuse me all of you!!!!!! Personal questions?? What on earth would you have asked these two instead of "how is married life"?? The interview was made on the occasion of their 1 anniversary, it is clear at the beginning. Would you have asked CW about how Monaco´s economy didn´t boost after this joke and failure of marriage? NOOO, you make simple questions. After 1 year of being a princess you can imagine that one of the questions is going to be "How is it to be a princess"?? Do they really need to have those silly questions printed in advance so as to rehearse a silly answer as if they were in kindergarden? All she can say is ehmm........!!! great!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is how much she cares about her role NOTHING!! There is only one thing CW cares, SHE, her face, ahd her clothes. I have always said it and I´m glad this kind of interviews prove it.

My god, I feel so embarrased for PA. He usually gets nervous in interviews but he feels even more stressed when he´s with her. She makes him stammer even more because he knows she cannot make up a coherente sentece of subject + predicate. No wonder she cannot learn French.
You can see in his face how embarrased he is. He wants to run away an be miles away from her! The interview was laughable, hilarious. I´d be laughing loud if I didn´t feel sorry for him! Get rid of that embarrasing woman!
 
Last edited:
Piers Morgan (CNN) will be interviewing Charlene and Albert on Friday's show.

As for the current interview, I agree that it was awkward. They were asked pretty easy/standard questions, so I'm a little surprised that they had such a difficult time answering them.
OMG I hope they are ready for this one. Pier Morgan is a ferocious interviewer it's not that he's nasty but likes to ask the questions everyone wants asked and he didn't usually agree to having what he asks being controlled by the subject. If pa and pc come across well here it could be the making of them but it really will be do or die as there will be no where to hide.
 
OMG I hope they are ready for this one. Pier Morgan is a ferocious interviewer it's not that he's nasty but likes to ask the questions everyone wants asked and he didn't usually agree to having what he asks being controlled by the subject. If pa and pc come across well here it could be the making of them but it really will be do or die as there will be no where to hide.

I think Piers asks some of the silliest questions ever including his standard "when was the last time you were properly loved".
 
this interview is just not pleasant at all to watch. i always get the same feeling when watching their interviews. PA seems uncomfortable, i don't find him the best public speaker in the first place. of course, he does great things for monaco, but public communication is really not his best attribute. PC always comes across unprepared, too candid, maybe too informal. she obviously doesn't seem to have much experience in front of the cameras, but she's clearly liked. i think she will gain confidence little by little.

i need to give them a bit of "benefit of the doubt" though. maybe they are just tired about these kinds of questions... "what's married life like?", "what's charlene like?", "what do you feel about the rumours", etc. the interviewer could have asked about charlene's newly founded foundation, about their involvement in the london olympics (since it's clearly something they are both very involved in)... but she chose rather inconsequential questions.

yet, i think charlene could have articulated a better answer to the question on what it is like to be a princess, since people want to know about it. a more prepared and articulate answer would have been appreciated by the interviewer, i bet.

how odd that they showed how albert asked for a bit of time in the middle of the interview...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom