William and women's football

[Nono22972]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-12413893/amp/Prince-William-not-attend-World-Cup-final-watch-Englands-Lionesses-face-against-Spain.html

One again, William's neglecting women's football. The Lionesses made history. It is the first time that the English team (male or female) reached the World Cup final since 1966. We all know that if the men had reached the final, he would've been there and probably would've brought George with him.

Queen Letizia and her daughter Sofia will be attending. What's William's excuse? You are président of the Football Association.

This is really disappointing but I'm not really surprised. The young generation of royals are such a joke compared to previous generations. Yes, the Queen’s children had their controversies but when it comes to royal work, they always got the job done.

I don't watch it, but I've seen enough clips of different hosts and shows across all SM to gain an idea.

Absolutely!

I stopped even reading the thread because it's such a non-issue. Poked my head in just now and to applaud you and a few others @Serenster @MrsFinkelstein for your efforts.

This thread has made me wonder if the President of the FA has any particular duties, and whether the members - if that's the right word for them - of the FA expect anything in particular of a President, but that's a soccer thread, not a Royal Family thread.

No specific duties, they kind of write their own job descriptions

Yes, it will blow over. I was a bit surprised to see William being so criticised by groups that historically have supported anything and anyone royal.

What this controversy does show is that, contrary to the claims by some that the media is in the back pocket of William in order to make him look good, they clearly aren’t and will turn on him on a whim as what’s happened here and the tour in the Caribbean.

I can’t remember anyone on here saying that the media is in Williams back pocket.

I do think Royal Family members and the media have a transactional relationship at times. Sometimes it works in the royals’ favour, sometimes it doesn’t.

Some other members of the RF held the presidency for just a few years although the Duke of Kent had it for a long time. I wonder what were the reasons why they each stopped doing it.

It’s a 100% transactional. Always. Something Harry never got. They don’t like you or dislike you. You don’t matter. It’s the story.

Nice.

Looking at the current postholder it seems that previous football experience or qualifications are irrelevant. Might give it a go myself.

@PatientZorro are you a name changer?
The constant twisting of words is tiresome.

@AuroraCake have you read what harry said about the media. He 100% said it was transactional and explained how it worked down to the press coming to the palace for comments on a story and being offered a juicier story if they agree not to publish the original one the royal family want to keep quiet.

Yes, asterdaisy, but we also recognise that Harry has a huge axe to grind, and has a shaky relationship with accuracy.

In the real world, if the media has a story against Royal A, and gets offered a story against Royal B on a plate, they then have two stories about two Royals to use when they choose.

I think it is more like the RR approach Royal A and say we are thinking about running a story on Dot Dot Dot, could we have some comments please. Royal A thinks 'oh no, this is not going to go down well as far as me'... and Royal A saying I feel this story is not in the public interest, but I can offer you a story about Royal B if you are interested... (much juicier and let's Royal A off)

No one can tell me that does not happen, its been like that since time immemorial. I can't imagine anyone does not believe this sort of symbiotic relationship between Media and Royals does not exist.

There have always been opposing Royal Households briefing against each other to show themselves in a good light.

Exactly. Why wouldn't they choose to publish both stories instead? It would generate more views for them if they can get two controversies going instead of just the one. The media have no loyalty to anyone, including the royals. The same media personalities who have been criticizing William this week were the same ones who were praising him not too long ago. The positive press by these media figures were seen by a few as William having the means to control the media to his liking when clearly this controversy (and the Caribbean your) shows it’s clearly not the case. I think William is smart enough to know that the media aren't his ‘friends’, and has learned to play their game. To those who say he has poor PR skills, I think it's actually the opposite. He has been accused by his own brother and his wife of all sorts of things via a documentary, interviews, a book, and has also been accused of infidelity, racism, laziness and liking a sexual activity more commonly associated with homosexuality. None of those accusations/efforts to smear him and Kate have worked as the Wales are still very popular not only in the UK, but also the USA, and possibly Canada and Australia. He hardly ever reacts to minor controversies, instead he keeps things private that would make him and kate seem ‘boring’ but it gives the press nothing juicy to report. This strategy isn't unique to him, famous A list celebrities and politicians do the same.

As a Scot I can honestly say when it comes to the English and football and the World Cup all sense goes out the window.

It's funny to watch.

@MamoruHisaishi exactly.

For literally decades it’s been bounced around among royals like a - well - football. PW is the second longest serving royal president I believe. He’s been the first to take the job properly seriously and tackle all kinds of issues (like Heads Up and ending racism in football). Which is why as someone who follows the sport it’s so weird reading this thread as if his role is just spectating.

My first job was in the evil media (doing grunt work, the kind PH hates like fact finding 😂). If every main character involved in the story was always leaking it would be so much easier.

By the way it would be 3 stories - Story A, Story B, and Person A has fallen out with Person B!

But if they publish story A and story B, that’s it. If they publish story B and not story A, or publish a very toned down version of story A, then they might continue to be fed story C, D, E… they get invited to events involving A (where they might get stories on others). Particularly helpful if story A might be hard to prove.

If story A is big enough and possible to prove well enough the lawyers aren’t nervy, they might publish both, but it would have to be good enough to switch off the supply of other stories and invites.

I know. I had to look up the SFA website to find out who exactly the board members are. All I know is they are a bunch of useless twits and have organised it so we Scots can't watch Scotland matches on terrestrial TV

The accusation though is that the papers are turning down stories on much more senior members of the royal family in exchange for the possibility of extra stories on more junior members. It doesn’t really make sense. The papers would much rather have dirt on W than H.

Well said