I think you have deliberately misunderstood my post.
I am saying, in general, that “popularity” to a large extent is a chimera isn’t it?
To a large degree, it depends on how much of themselves the RF present to the public and how skilfully that is done? And their attempts to control the narrative?
Eg Catherine and William’s video of a supposed carefree day of them and their children playing among wooded dunes? It was made to look like casual snippets from family videos with George looming in to the camera saying “is this filming?” when in fact it was shot by a man (and a film crew) who created ad campaigns for Uber Eats and who made Tesco’s Food Love Stories commercials.
Don’t get me wrong. William and Katherine may have the perfect family and be great people in reality, they certainly seem very pleasant and professional - I am not really interested in any of them personally - but my point is that we all think we know them when we don’t. And therefore “popularity” ratings to an extent are built on manufactured narratives.
(And fwiw I think these PR exercises to present W & C as bordering on saintly is a very dangerous strategy imho. It’s more likely they are neither saints or sinners and are just doing their best in a very pressured situation they have found themselves in.)
Anyway, I used the example in Lownie’s book to explain it, eg we used to see the late QE2 as someone who always put duty before her personal affairs, but we now know that she covered up for Andrew and his sexual and financial wrongdoings over many years. And that spins a slightly different narrative around her doesn’t it?