I’m going to show my age now, but this video production (it may be film - it has that quality look), is very much like the ultra expensive ads you would see in the cinemas before the movie started when I was a kid.
Eg Place: The French Riveiera, short cut after short cut of a good looking young middle aged couple, obviously rich, money is no problem, well coiffed, dressed in a number of expensive well cut outfits, in grand places such in luxury cars, onboard fine yachts, expensive hotels that look like palaces, tables of expensive colourful food spreads laid out before them, crystal glasses and champers, (royal family not pictured here about to partake of food or wine, but then they rarely eat in public), stirring music. All followed by the caption - ‘When only the best will do’ - light up a Stuyvesant, a Peter Stuyvesant , then shot of rich couple lighting up cigarettes (except no smoking here because Royals not seen smoking in public).
This was an extraordinarily expensive production (or would have been when I was a kid), only big cigarette companies could afford.
What is it this vid is saying? ‘You’ve got them, but really it’s us’? Charles was almost an afterthought, and Camilla was on the periphery. Perhaps it’s my imagination, but it does say at the very end that it’s ‘Kensington Palace’ authorised, (in small lettering) so am I right in thinking that there might be an attempt to sideline Charles, or is it just the RF recognising that the younger members need to be pushed front and centre to stay relevant for a younger generation?
That horribly snarky Sunday Times article (no one should make fun of old people just because they are old), which wasn’t all of it unamusing, released almost concurrently with the DM article making fun of the Kensington Royal video. I think the RF may just find themselves being served up for breakfast daily, when the media can’t find anything nasty to say about H&M -that they haven’t already said ten thousand times before. Maybe H&M criticisms are hitting saturation point? Are appetites for those toxic flavoured articles dwindling? Maybe the the hit piece on Harry and his ghost are the beginning of the end of the anti H&M press? I mean, when you get to the point of a very average journo trying to take the piss out of a Pulitzer Prize winning writer, you may just have jumped the shark - it’s just going to take a while for the shark jumping to be recognised, and digested, and no longer marketable because we are all full up.
The court cases will feed us more for a while, but the problem is that while they are metaphorically hanging Harry, they are also doing the same to people all the public see as victims of media. Ultimately, perhaps, in doing so, these big media policy makers will also hang themselves. It’s happened before. The world turns as the stomach turns after all.