Do you think William and Kates tour was 'tone deaf'?

[oovetolove]

I'm interested to hear from people about this.

FWIW I think it's been an odd tour - almost an unnecessary flaunt of wealth and power.

I don't understand the point of the tour tbh and whilst I don't know if I'd consider it tone deaf as the papers suggest, it's definitely pointless and a reminder for me why the monarchy are becoming so outdated and more irrelevant, though I'm interested to hear others opinions on this.

@Swayingpalmtrees

It crossed my mind after reading William's speech that even he appears to be questioning the future and their role, although he was talking about the commonwealth at the time, I couldn't help but feel the scales have fallen from their eyes collectively and now might be the time not just to slim down the monarchy but to phase it out altogether.

There is no real place for it in the 21st century - we are effectively subsiding and supporting more and more inequality and division. The future surely will not look like this.

I agree with this! And it's been widely reported that William was never that keen to take on the role of king in the first place and who can blame him?

I do think it was a very tone deaf comment by the Queen when she said in so many words that it was her wish that Charles should succeed her as head. Surely that's for those countries to decide collectively?

I feel Harry was telling the truth when he said William feels very much like him, but can't do anything about it. It feels increasingly awkward and difficult, even with the best planning and execution, I wonder how they will justify the lavish royal lifestyles when the rest of the world are facing a cost of living crisis not seen in generations? I wonder for how much longer people will tolerate it. I am a royalist, but feel it should be phased out when the Queen passes.

@SpikyJugs

So agree with your post.
I just don't know why they couldn't have put their own stamp on this Royal Tour, instead of recreating a tour that the Queen did from 1960. It just seemed so dated... eyewatering expensive dresses changed endlessly, open top land rover, stupid dancing with the locals etc.

If only they could have championed fair trade issues, dressed down a bit and really got stuck in to doing it their way. The RF just seem stuck in a time warp and the way it was done half a century ago will just not work in this day and age.

@Frangiblepins88 Great post from you early this morning.

@HangingRock25

I think they're trying too hard to compete with Harry and Meghan for attention and to show them up. I really don't like William and Kate.

That is what I felt. Kate’s uncharacteristic displays of PDA towards her husband were cringeworthy. This was made worse by William’s lack of response to said PDA. I just felt that they were trying to outdo Meghan and Harry’s South African tours which were well received. Tour was ill advised outdated, patronising and just plain embarrassing

They are just completely irrelevant to anything going on in the real world anywhere.

*when a royal goes somewhere there is usually a crowd of useful idiots fawning over them, but most of the population couldn't care less"

Well, at least the idiots are useful.

@zigzagzigzagz

I’m not sure I’ve ever seen the press criticise W&K like this before, it’s quite interesting.

…and I’m not sure I’ve felt this uncomfortable about the RF situation we have ever before.

Against the backdrop of current world events it seems so distasteful and inappropriate. Shameful that so much money was probably spent on all this.

I’d love to know what Prince Phillip would have made of all this. I think he had a better grip on reality. They’ve lost a grounding influence in him unfortunately I think.

Just as inappropriate and out of step with current times is Harry complaining about his lack of security in the UK.

@OverWorking9to5

I think all of their children even george will be encouraged to do something at university. Not just that 'little bit of knowledge about this and that' degree that Charles did. I can see George, charlotte and Louis being encouraged to have a career or maybe a creative or artistic identity that they've developed.

Is a History degree a little bit of knowledge about this or that?

TabithaHazel But just by being there you were fawning in a way - how would anyone know you were not there to gawp in awe and wonder at the beautiful princess? Out of interest what made you decide to go, as in why was it important for you to see her in the flesh rather than just watching a news video of her or whatever?

Well, Tabitha, as Boris would say to that uppity woman who won't pronounce her "g" sounds, "Good question". No-one could see inside me and tell whether I was there in spellbound awe or wonder or not. What made me go? Well, someone else was making my dinner, and if they hadn't been I could easily have made my own, the place is nice and it is somewhere that people from my area go for walks and picnics and have done for decades, I might have seen other royal people, the war memorial is worth a read because it is very straightforward and there is a good coffee shop which does awfully nice scones, and so Meghan wasn't really the only reason for my 'fawning' behaviour, but I would have definitely looked at her if I had ever got to the head of the queue, which I didn't. I don't think I fawn or scrape although I might say I do in order to take the mickey out of people.
If I stood up to clap a great point in a tennis match, or stood to applause a singer in a theatre (and I have done both) I wonder if that would be seen as fawning.

If a private in the army salutes an officer because he's been told he must, because the officer is of a higher rank, is that fawning or is it the way things are? If he is in the Trooping of the Colour ceremony is he fawning when he salutes the Queen?

Just suppose they had cancelled the trip on the grounds of the international situation, primarily with Ukraine but everywhere else as well, and the fact that prices have been rising in the UK. Just suppose William had said, "Sorry, we think it would be tactless of us to come so just squash all those preparations some of you have been making". I wonder what the papers' headlines would have been.

They went to countries where they were invited. If they had refused to go, they would have been accused of neglecting places where the Queen is monarch.
They went to the events arranged for them.
As I understand it, they were well-received, engaged with local people & got good coverage in local press.
They have a value in exercising "soft power".
It quite clearly was not 'a jolly'. The British media - for some reason - picked up on a narrative that was not entirely true.

I thought they asked to go, given it was platinum jubilee year?

I think previously there's been more visits to infrastructure - visitng factories, places of worship etc. Remember Diana wearing outfits by local designers in Pakistan? Why couldn't Kate have arranged for something like that? It just seemed very hands on and prissy. The problem with representing your grandmother I guess is that it can be difficult to be clear whether you're there to be yourself or to act as she would have done.

flouncing around in expensive dresses.

🙄 I don't think I've ever seen the Kate flounce.

It was awful. Embarrassing. Kates OTT dresses. Why couldn’t she have worn local designers? Will comes across as seething with resentment at the role forced on him (though who can blame him) I really dislike the pair of them.
Charles and Camilla on tour in Ireland on the other hand, came across as grounded and charismatic. Who’d have predicted that!

[quote MargaretBall]@moonbedazzled It’s not really the same thing though is it- QE2 is HoS because of subjection/colonialism and all the unpleasantness that went with it. The royal family are imposed ,not elected, as say the Irish HoS . Monarchy developed for a reason but it now is an incredibly redundant concept, it’s maintains an unequal social, political and economic hierarchy all based on how well your ancestors were doing a thousand years ago. The optics of this tour was poor because times have changed. The problem with having had a great big empire is that it’s hard to escape the past , no matter where you go. The power of modern monarchy might be symbolic but it ‘s also symbolic of past infamy.( and this is a problem other European monarchies too)[/quote]
The RF are HoS of the UK by the consent of the people.
Any country who has her as HoS can remove her at any time. People were removing her over 50 years,ago so it's not a new thing. Some countries have voted and decided to keep her. Some have voted and decided to remove her. It's up to individual democratic countries to decide. Some countries don't want to remove her because they don't want to lose money that the UK give them.
The UK doesn't have an empire but 54 countries are voluntary members of the Commonwealth. Most were British colonies but some of those 54 were never part of the empire. They joined because it gives them easy access to larger, more powerful countries. There are benefits. Anyone can leave the commonwealth but I'm not sure if any country has.
All countries have a past. I doubt that there is any country on the planet that has existed for a few hundred years that hasn't committed deplorable acts at some time. But it doesn't have to define a country. Times change and so do institutions. We can get rid of the Queen but I don't see an appetite for it...other than on MN. Covid has shown more than ever that sometimes it's good to have a head of state that is not involved in politics.
Social media gives the average person power to speak their thoughts and be as listened to as any powerful person. It's heady to think you can make changes to the status quo. But there is often little thought as to how situations will proceed with those changes and whether ultimately things will actually be better. We'll have the sort of Brexit phrases, oh it'll be all right eventually. But who knows if it will.

@moonbedazzled I'm not sure I've ever seen Kate do anything else but flounce about. And smile, a lot.

I'm sure she's a nice lady but let's not pretend that she achieves anything diplomatically ubstantive. Flouncing for Britain is what she does best, as we have just witnessed as she has flounced around the Caribbean in her designer gear.

@Swayingpalmtrees

They need to redesign the commonwealth to be a gathering of like minded nations that trade, support and benefit one another. It should be less about the RF and more serving the people of the nations connected to it. It could be a real force for good harnessed correctly.

The Commonwealth has as many countries that no longer have the Queen as head of state than do. It’s not something imposed on nations - membership is voluntary. The economic, cultural and sporting ties are exactly why members value the relationship - entirely unrelated to links with the Monarchy

We can get rid of the Queen but I don't see an appetite for it...other than on MN

Blimey, you're joking, MN is pretty much royalist compared to SM

@Hbh17

They went to countries where they were invited. If they had refused to go, they would have been accused of neglecting places where the Queen is monarch. They went to the events arranged for them. As I understand it, they were well-received, engaged with local people & got good coverage in local press. They have a value in exercising "soft power". It quite clearly was not 'a jolly'. The British media - for some reason - picked up on a narrative that was not entirely true.

Spot on. All the commentary I have read has been people displaying offence on behalf of others that on the whole was not demonstrated on the ground.

[quote AngelicaElizaAndPeggy]@moonbedazzled I'm not sure I've ever seen Kate do anything else but flounce about. And smile, a lot.

I'm sure she's a nice lady but let's not pretend that she achieves anything diplomatically ubstantive. Flouncing for Britain is what she does best, as we have just witnessed as she has flounced around the Caribbean in her designer gear.[/quote]
Definition of 'flounce':
go or move in an exaggeratedly impatient or angry manner.

I really like her so maybe this is colouring my judgement but when did you see her on the tour act in and impatient or angry manner? How could she be smiling while looking angry? In fact when have you ever seen her looking angry and impatient? 🤔

@OverWorking9to5

I think all of their children even george will be encouraged to do something at university. Not just that 'little bit of knowledge about this and that' degree that Charles did. I can see George, charlotte and Louis being encouraged to have a career or maybe a creative or artistic identity that they've developed.

William has a Geography degree. Kate has a Art History degree, both from St Andrew’s. Princess Beatrice has a degree in history from Goldsmiths. Princess Eugenie has a degree in English, History and Politics from Newcastle. They are the best educated generation of Royals we’ve ever had

I think that some people on this thread need to buy a dictionary and visit Specsavers!

Fashion- it wasn't the cost that bothered me- she wore quite a lot if stuff she has worn before, or was bought as vintage, and I think a few blingy evening dresses are expected. Kate has this thing about 'harking back' and has done it for years, dressing George and Louis in clothes that were William's when he was a toddler, using the pram from the 1940s at Sandringham when Charlotte was christened, wearing dresses modelled on those Diana wore to particular places. This time I thought it was most obvious with the 1940s style yellow dress with the peplum and afe diamond brooch at the waist - very Queen/Queen Mother in the late 1940s. Also the white outfit that looked rather Eliza Doolittle at Ascot. I am not sure what it's about. It wasn't appropriate on this tour. There are greater sensitivities in some Commonwealth countries than others.

Tone- The Palace PR machine needs to move on. It is very dated in how they are presented, what they are given to do and the way they are treated. Some work with some key members of the Press pack to allow them to do things differently could really help a different approach.

Host Countries- have quite a say- for instance with the open landrover thing they went round in being insisted on, with the metal fenced high-railings at the football ground. That kind of detail needs much better management.

It's like all 'celebs'. There will be people who want to turn out and shriek and wail. They do it for actors/musicians/Katie Price/the Kardashions and will do it for the Royal Family. I find it all cringey but rather Kate and William than Katie Price and Will Smith.

An elected HoS? Billions wasted on more elections. Politics involved. Power involved and the likelihood is you get nutters like Trump, Johnson, Putin whohave their own agendas in mind.

I don't know where it's going but I'd rather have what we've got (which is stable, known, has little real power) with some drastic updating than not and ending up with a Johnson, Cameron, Blair or Farage type who caught populist votes at the time. I am horribly embarrassed that we are represented by the likes of Johnson on an international stage as it is.

Givenhow many people voted for Johnson, God knows who theidiots would elect every 4 years if they had a choice.