Charles financially supported the Sussexes until summer 2020

[SnottyLottie]

news.sky.com/story/duke-and-charles-paid-substantial-sum-to-harry-and-meghan-after-megxit-but-couple-paid-back-rent-for-frogmore-cottage-12340192

Prince Harry revealed in his Oprah interview that the Sussexes stopped receiving money from the royal family in the first quarter of 2020. However, newly published accounts reveal that Prince Charles continued to financially support the Sussexes until summer 2020.

I wonder if this is going to be a case of their truth or incorrect wording on Harry’s behalf. Interesting!

As for the polls, well, to put it simply :' There's a poll for that !'

I agree with that DeRigeur

That's because what you've watched is the avatar "Tom Cruise" - a character he's created as his public image.

And this applies to all actors? Like the Judy Dench, Emma Thomas, Joanna Lumley, etc.

@DeRigueurMortis I wondered the same about some of the other things the press wanted skewer her on - the “bump clutching” was a fairly controversial one. If you look at videos of her while pregnant, she did often place her hands on her bump, and also quite obviously adjusted her clothes to make sure her bump was visible in photos. To me, it seemed she had, quite sensibly, realised that still photos were the “money shot”, and did her best to ensure that she gave the photographers the opportunity to take the photos that she wanted. To be honest, that seems entirely sensible to me, and likely in line with what she had put in practice when photographed as part of her job as an actress. Knowing how to take a good photograph on a red carpet is pretty much a skill she would have needed. And, to make my thoughts clear on this, I don’t think there is anything wrong with that!

I do wonder however if the press, who would have seen this take place in real time at her events, disliked it because it was self-evidentially “performed” and decided to push back by making a big deal of it? That’s obviously speculation on my part - but I absolutely think that’s part of their playbook.

Kate and William duel with wands - they are visiting the Harry Potter production facilities. They play sports - they are visiting a youth sporting charity. Prince Charles pours a pint in a local pub - he’s demonstrating local producers etc (Prince William tried Irn Bru this week…) . They are the channel to get the organisation publicity, not centring themselves as the story.

Sounds very much like 'centring yourself as the story'.

[quote Serenster]@DeRigueurMortis I wondered the same about some of the other things the press wanted skewer her on - the “bump clutching” was a fairly controversial one. If you look at videos of her while pregnant, she did often place her hands on her bump, and also quite obviously adjusted her clothes to make sure her bump was visible in photos. To me, it seemed she had, quite sensibly, realised that still photos were the “money shot”, and did her best to ensure that she gave the photographers the opportunity to take the photos that she wanted. To be honest, that seems entirely sensible to me, and likely in line with what she had put in practice when photographed as part of her job as an actress. Knowing how to take a good photograph on a red carpet is pretty much a skill she would have needed. And, to make my thoughts clear on this, I don’t think there is anything wrong with that!

I do wonder however if the press, who would have seen this take place in real time at her events, disliked it because it was self-evidentially “performed” and decided to push back by making a big deal of it? That’s obviously speculation on my part - but I absolutely think that’s part of their playbook.[/quote]
Surely you can apply the exact same 'money shot' narrative to other royals, even if they were described as 'tenderly cradling' their baby bumps.

@Mummy194

That's because what you've watched is the avatar "Tom Cruise" - a character he's created as his public image.

And this applies to all actors? Like the Judy Dench, Emma Thomas, Joanna Lumley, etc.

Yes put bluntly.

It's not a criticism.

I think it serves a dual purpose in the sense it is about marketing yourself in a certain way but also retaining/protecting a bit of yourself from the public gaze.

Beyoncé for example has been very open about how she channels her "alter ego" "Sasha Fierce" when she's performing.

I think it's a bit similar to that.

Nobody wants to see the boring, grumpy normal "you" that everybody is at times.

They want that "celebrity persona" and I think all actors understand (and are well equipped) to provide that.

Lorraine Kelly is another example of that. She persuaded a court that her tv persona is a character she plays, and not her just being herself. This meant she could claim various tax deductions, such as her theatrical agent’s fees (HMRC had argued that she wasn’t an actor so the agent wasn’t a business expense).

@DeRigueurMortis

I believe Beyonce is mostly a singer first and foremost, while also an actress, I don't think that is her main role or income.

Could you come up with another example of a full time, main job actor. They don't have to be black either.

[quote Serenster]@DeRigueurMortis I wondered the same about some of the other things the press wanted skewer her on - the “bump clutching” was a fairly controversial one. If you look at videos of her while pregnant, she did often place her hands on her bump, and also quite obviously adjusted her clothes to make sure her bump was visible in photos. To me, it seemed she had, quite sensibly, realised that still photos were the “money shot”, and did her best to ensure that she gave the photographers the opportunity to take the photos that she wanted. To be honest, that seems entirely sensible to me, and likely in line with what she had put in practice when photographed as part of her job as an actress. Knowing how to take a good photograph on a red carpet is pretty much a skill she would have needed. And, to make my thoughts clear on this, I don’t think there is anything wrong with that!

I do wonder however if the press, who would have seen this take place in real time at her events, disliked it because it was self-evidentially “performed” and decided to push back by making a big deal of it? That’s obviously speculation on my part - but I absolutely think that’s part of their playbook.[/quote]

I think that's an interesting perspective and one I'd not really considered before.

In that sense I can see why some of the coverage was doubly hurtful if not only did she feel the comparisons to Catherine were unfair (and I think they were) but also she felt she was behaving in a way that was helpful to the press in getting the shots they wanted and being shafted for it.

[quote Mummy194]@DeRigueurMortis

I believe Beyonce is mostly a singer first and foremost, while also an actress, I don't think that is her main role or income.

Could you come up with another example of a full time, main job actor. They don't have to be black either.[/quote]

Why?

I've already said I think most (if not all - at least not some degree) "channel" a public persona in interviews.

So take your pick of pretty much anyone you care to name.

I've also been clear I'm not being critical of M in this regard and was disagreeing with another poster who felt the behaviour was manipulative.

So I'm somewhat baffled as to what you're taking issue with here....

I think the engagement interview felt fake to me. Interesting because some of the statements I remember turn out to have been not true based on the couple's subsequent revelations.
Eg Harry has talked to my Dad and it's all amazing.
Catherine has been amazing.
The whole family has been amazing.
Harry has told me everything about the role and I am completely prepared.
I love the ring - it is perfect.

@StartupRepair

I think the engagement interview felt fake to me. Interesting because some of the statements I remember turn out to have been not true based on the couple's subsequent revelations. Eg Harry has talked to my Dad and it's all amazing. Catherine has been amazing. The whole family has been amazing. Harry has told me everything about the role and I am completely prepared. I love the ring - it is perfect.

I get what you're saying but tbh what else was she supposed so say?

"Well Hazza did his best on the ring but personally I think it's a bit shit"

Or

"I like the Queen but my god, my soon to be SIL is a PITA".

😂😂😂

It's not exactly the occasion to be anything less than gushing is it.

Look at how "whatever love means" has followed Charles through his life....

Did not realise George Clooney has some kind of 'stage name'. What's it called again? 'trickster personality'? What an odd name. Never heard or it.

It’s interesting because many of the RF use different names privately, and project a certain image which might at slight odds with their private personality

I think that's fair comment.

For example William comes across as Mr Affable in most situations but allegedly in private he's got one hell of a temper when provoked.

I think the exception is Andrew who comes across as an utter scummy fuckwit and low and behold....

[quote Cacacoisfarraige]@Mummy194

George Clooney spends his time on interviews detailing the tricks he plays on his co-stars and family. And being very complimentary to his gorgeous wife

If you look at his Graham Norton interviews on you tube you will see what I mean.

He and Rande Crawford built a tequila brand which they sold for a lot so I’d say he’s a smart guy, but his persona is a ‘loveable rogue’ which plays very well.
He’s does a lot of producing too and is very interested in politics too[/quote]

Clooney is I think along with Cruise the epitome of utilising the "Brand of Personality".

As I pp'd I think all actors do this to some degree but those two are masters of the craft.

Clooney's "lovable joker" character is as you say quite at odds with the precision and success in which he's managed his career and accumulated his wealth.

His wife, Amal is an incredibly successful, clever and accomplished lawyer in her own right and I doubt she'd be interested in someone who wasn't her intellectual equal irrespective of fame/wealth.

I think behind the public "jokey" persona is a very savvy and serious brain.

Fair point @DeRigueurMortis but the extent of the gushiness really set my teeth on edge and at some level I was not surprised when much of it turned out not to be true. Agree it is probably a cultural difference.

I think what jarred is that generally British people try to be self deprecating and not make things about themselves. Even if behind the facade they are actually quite arrogant and self serving. The American way of doing things is to big yourself up and court attention. When coupled with a background as an actress this makes for a way of behaving which isn’t what we are used to.

@StartupRepair

Fair point *@DeRigueurMortis* but the extent of the gushiness really set my teeth on edge and at some level I was not surprised when much of it turned out not to be true. Agree it is probably a cultural difference.

As I said I think it is partly cultural but also part of years and years of being expected/trained to present a certain "persona" in public by agents, PR etc

Of course most of us put our best foot forward in public, but I think it's a very different and high stakes games when it comes to celebrities and actors in particular.

Your public persona can be massively influential in what type of roles you get cast and your "approval ratings" can significantly impact your salary in so far as to how much positive publicity (and thus $$$) your involvement in a project generates.

I brought up Tom Cruise because in interviews (baring the silly sofa jumping - a rare slip for him) he comes across as a really generous, grounded, all round good guy.

Yet, you look at his intimate association with Scientology and there is some seriously questionable shit going down.

This expectation of a perfect public persona is what has been expected of M for years and years, so to switch gear and be "herself" is I think unfair.

I don't think it's about her being disingenuous, manipulative or indeed having anything to hide - rather it's just the result of years of expectation and experience in a very different "industry".

It's the difference between having a public face as opposed to a public persona iyswim.

The royals (well most) do the former and celebrities to the latter. It's a very thin line but when moving from one environment to the other it's quite noticeable.