Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

William & Kate 10 year wedding anniversary video

702 replies

Crimsonripple · 29/04/2021 19:34

Has anyone else seen this on Instagram? It's so lovely and natural. Their PR camp are hitting the right buttons! The Oprah interview now just seems so trashy in comparison!

OP posts:
Rupertbeartrousers · 01/05/2021 08:02

I think the video was a little overproduced and upmarket ad like. I wonder if they were doing a photo shoot for still photos simultaneously hence the posed over-smiling from Kate. I would have gone for something with a more home video/cine camera quality to give it more of a timeless/vintage feel. But that’s just me.

Onlinedilema · 01/05/2021 08:03

Ricki no I speak the truth.
It is a fact that goes around fathering bastards, use a dictionary if the word confuses you. The laws of illegitimacy still stand in this country. His current ‘partner’ was shagging him knowing he was married.
He was also married when he fathered another illegitimate child, at least one, which he denies yet you call him a good father are you serious?
He refuses to answer the simple question of how many children he has, it’s not a difficult question is it? You say his beloved child. Hmmmm his older children have cut him out of their lives hardly the actions of those who feel their father lives them. For now he is enthralled with CS. The same way he was with DC funny watching DC throw him under the bus.
Yet here we are questioning the morals of Prince William.

sycamore54321 · 01/05/2021 08:20

Where is the stuff about six living former Irish Presidents coming from? And a consequent need for massive security arrangements? There have only been 9 Irish Presidents in total and of those, two former office holders are alive today. Their children are almost entirely anonymous, including of the current President - except for one daughter who has her own career in politics. None of the children of current or former presidents have been funded from public money.

In any case, the fact that someone doesn’t become President

Wabe · 01/05/2021 08:28

@sycamore54321

Where is the stuff about six living former Irish Presidents coming from? And a consequent need for massive security arrangements? There have only been 9 Irish Presidents in total and of those, two former office holders are alive today. Their children are almost entirely anonymous, including of the current President - except for one daughter who has her own career in politics. None of the children of current or former presidents have been funded from public money.

In any case, the fact that someone doesn’t become President

I assumed that poster was talking about US presidents, not Irish ones?
sycamore54321 · 01/05/2021 08:31

Ah thanks! That is totally different though and not a good comparison in my mind - US presidents are not a comparison for a ceremonial head of state. The comparator there would be UK Prime Ministers.

In any case, I forgot to say that cost shouldn’t even be a major consideration in all this. Even if a democratic meritocratic head of state is more expensive (which I think unlikely...), then isn’t it money well spent as a statement of values?

Roussette · 01/05/2021 08:32

I imagine the poster means the USA. There are 6 living Presidents but as the country is about 20 times richer than us per capita, I think they can afford to look after them and their spouses!
The children aren't.

HeadNorth · 01/05/2021 08:38

I found the video too revoltingly saccharine to stomach - and the fawning toadying of the BBC news presenter introducing it. Why is this news?!

Although it made me want to hurl, reading this thread it seems many loved the chance to doff their cap and gawp in awe at those born to reign over us, so I guess they know their audience.

Wabe · 01/05/2021 08:42

@sycamore54321

Ah thanks! That is totally different though and not a good comparison in my mind - US presidents are not a comparison for a ceremonial head of state. The comparator there would be UK Prime Ministers.

In any case, I forgot to say that cost shouldn’t even be a major consideration in all this. Even if a democratic meritocratic head of state is more expensive (which I think unlikely...), then isn’t it money well spent as a statement of values?

Absolutely. And the costs are in no way comparable, anyway.

I knew someone who was doing dentistry along with one of Mary McAleese’s kids and was friends with her, and she certainly had no security.

Whereas I was at Oxford when Chelsea Clinton was there, and she had at least three people around her all the time — they were supposed to blend in, but looked like terrifying preppily-dressed hired killers. Her female agent had an intimidatingly perfect French plait daily, and looked as if she could kill with a twist of the wrist. You’d see them jogging with her in the mornings. Looked like no fun.

A friend ran a student society CC joined and all other members, premises etc were vetted, and re-checked before every meeting. Actually they lost a lot of members because of it.

And Mary Robinson went straight from the presidency to working for the UN end was based in Zurich but mostly travelling for years — she’d have needed UN security then.

JADS · 01/05/2021 08:56

@Roussette

I imagine the poster means the USA. There are 6 living Presidents but as the country is about 20 times richer than us per capita, I think they can afford to look after them and their spouses! The children aren't.
20 times per capita seems an awful lot. The closest I could find was 2x as much. Given from that list that Switzerland and the US were almost twice as much as the next closest (Sweden), I would make the assumption that it due to the non punitive tax of the very rich skewing the results.
artquejtion · 01/05/2021 09:02

They have loosened up a lot over the years, for a young couple everything about them used to be so formal. The video is lovely, even if it is very stylised and staged.

derxa · 01/05/2021 09:12

@HeadNorth

I found the video too revoltingly saccharine to stomach - and the fawning toadying of the BBC news presenter introducing it. Why is this news?!

Although it made me want to hurl, reading this thread it seems many loved the chance to doff their cap and gawp in awe at those born to reign over us, so I guess they know their audience.

I don't doff caps or gawp in awe at anyone. Rhetoric like that just makes you seem unpleasant and arrogant.
Roussette · 01/05/2021 10:11

JADS
Oh heck, did I put 20, I meant 2 !!

Redact · 01/05/2021 10:19

Too staged and stylised to come across as natural. It's an advert for their brand. Does it make me want to buy into what they're trying to sell - no, not at all.

mermaidsariel · 01/05/2021 10:33

@Redact

Too staged and stylised to come across as natural. It's an advert for their brand. Does it make me want to buy into what they're trying to sell - no, not at all.
Its a sad thing isn't it, when people and their personal lives become 'brands'. This is what I hate about M and H and now the Cambridges are doing the same thing. It is nauseating.
ufucoffee · 01/05/2021 10:49

I think it's lovely. Not cringe at all. It's not far removed from anything. Anyone can take their children to the beach.

Comeinoutoftherain · 01/05/2021 10:54

Of course their PR is in overdrive.

It's their 10 year wedding anniversary, the Queen just turned 94, Prince Philip just died and H&M branded the entire Royal Family as bullying racists.

(By not revealing exactly who said what about the skin colour of their future children/Archie, they tar the entire family rather than protect the one who said it).

The entire future of the Monarchy is potentially in jeopardy.

The passing of Philip and then the Queen was always going to be a sensitive time. The Queen is the only monarch most people can remember.

Charles is less well liked, and the timing of The Crown moving into the Diana years may resurrect the bad feelings towards Charles and Camilla that 20 years worth of PR has been smoothing over.

Covid has prevented them from doing their usual engagements, and has prevented the Cambridge children from being seen a bit more in public. other than their birthday snaps and the claps for the NHS.

Then you've got Prince Andrew, who at the very least, is associating with convicted sex offenders (and not remotely sorry for it). God knows what grim skeletons are hiding in his closet.

Save for the affair rumours (which have not been substantiated so far) W&K are pretty much the only members of the Royal family who haven't put a foot wrong. They and their children have to be the flag bearers for the monarchy going forward after the Queen dies.

I thought the video was a bit odd and pointless in terms of message, and I'm not really sure why it was released rather than just the photographs, but it's relatively inoffensive and shows off the children in familiar surroundings without subjecting them to hoards of press.

I happen to like the Monarchy and I have no issue with Charles becoming King - I think he's done quite a lot of good since his divorce, and I think if Diana hadn't died so young and in such tragic circumstances, it would now be a non-issue.

But they need the support of the majority and not the few if they want to remain.

I think that's why the Queen hasn't abdicated in Charles's favour, like has been done in other countries. She knows that the next few years are going to be turbulent.

She probably at least wants to let The Crown run it's course and let Andrew and H&M fade into the background. That won't happen if she abdicates now.

Ghislane Maxwell's trial is set for this year, and until that is over, and the ramifications are felt, she will have no idea whether the FBI has sufficient evidence to suggest Andrew has committed criminal offences.

She has to hang on a bit longer, and push William and Kate and Edward and Sophie to the front, as they are those least controversial.

Roussette · 01/05/2021 11:12

Is the Crown that influential? I'm asking a genuine question here.

If so, I had no idea. I'm just not a fan of anything like it so haven't watched it and just assumed it was only huge royal fans who actually watched it who wouldn't be swayed by anything in it. Oh... and Americans of course!

whoopsnomore · 01/05/2021 11:21

@Roussette

Is the Crown that influential? I'm asking a genuine question here.

If so, I had no idea. I'm just not a fan of anything like it so haven't watched it and just assumed it was only huge royal fans who actually watched it who wouldn't be swayed by anything in it. Oh... and Americans of course!

I'm a raging republican but watched it and enjoyed as a costume drama - I found the political aspects interesting too, how the Queen may have interacted with Prime Ministers over the years. Loved HBC as Princess Margaret!
ajandjjmum · 01/05/2021 11:25

@Roussette

Is the Crown that influential? I'm asking a genuine question here.

If so, I had no idea. I'm just not a fan of anything like it so haven't watched it and just assumed it was only huge royal fans who actually watched it who wouldn't be swayed by anything in it. Oh... and Americans of course!

I've seen a number of people on various threads (not this one) referring to 'facts' they've learned from watching 'The Crown'.

I find it really interesting and have enjoyed watching it on the whole, but take it with a huge pinch of salt.

GlencoraP · 01/05/2021 11:29

Personally I though Vanessa Kirby absolutely nailed Princess Margaret in the first two series, HBC was too old to play someone of 35,she’s a brilliant actress though rather wasted on those scripts, the same goes for Olivia Coleman. I think I must be the only person who wasn’t a fan of the actress playing Diana , although Princess Anne was brilliant and we could have done with a bit more of her .

On the serious question I do think it means that many younger people cannot distinguish between history and the fictional crown, and for example for PC it’s just another hurdle to climb in the popularity stakes.

Roussette · 01/05/2021 11:33

I find it really interesting and have enjoyed watching it on the whole, but take it with a huge pinch of salt

Exactly!
I imagined it was like a Royal soap but appreciate I haven't watched it so don't really know. Maybe I ought to give it a go!

On the serious question I do think it means that many younger people cannot distinguish between history and the fictional crown

Do younger people watch it, I just cannot imagine my adult DCs or their friends being interested.

SaturdayRocks · 01/05/2021 11:34

@Roussette

Is the Crown that influential? I'm asking a genuine question here.

If so, I had no idea. I'm just not a fan of anything like it so haven't watched it and just assumed it was only huge royal fans who actually watched it who wouldn't be swayed by anything in it. Oh... and Americans of course!

Is the Crown that influential?!

You’re asking a genuine question here. Grin

Hilarious. How do you even have time for Mumsnet?!

Roussette · 01/05/2021 11:37

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean SaturdayRocks. Can you explain please

What has me having time to post on MN to do with a question I've asked?
Glad I amused you though Hmm

allthegoodusernameshavegone · 01/05/2021 11:37

I am a royalist and really liked the video but natural it ain’t, it’s a carefully choreographed PR film that’s making people happy.

SaturdayRocks · 01/05/2021 11:40

Maybe you should just, as you say, ‘give it a go’!

If you can bring yourself to slum it with the plebs for as long as it takes to watch an episode, of course. Or your adult DC. Wink

Swipe left for the next trending thread