William & Kate

[louisa05]

3 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

I think William clearly meant “unfamiliar” when he used the word “alien.”  He used it to refer to his experience (he said it was “alien” to his generation).  He did not use it as a noun to refer to people (either foreigners or space aliens). He did not use it to refer to countries or cultures.  Unfortunately, the word “alien” has gradually acquired negative baggage that links it to establishing distance (“us” versus “them”) and people pounced on it.  He does need to pick his words extra-carefully because he is an heir to the crown, etc., but people also are not listening to what he actually said.

But, again, the word is not used in British English for people.  And I think it’s unrealistic (and a product of grandiose American notions of importance) to expect anyone in Britain to master every nuance of American English. It is absolutely acceptable for the future king of the UK to speak British English and not worry about American usages when speaking in the UK to other non-Americans. 

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, louisa05 said:

But, again, the word is not used in British English for people.  And I think it’s unrealistic (and a product of grandiose American notions of importance) to expect anyone in Britain to master every nuance of American English. It is absolutely acceptable for the future king of the UK to speak British English and not worry about American usages when speaking in the UK to other non-Americans. 

I agree completely.  I have not been saying otherwise.  On the contrary, my point is that people are so focused on what the word “alien” means to them that they are not listening to what Prince William actually said.

Whether you speak British or American English (or some other English) the grammar of the sentence is a clue that he was not using “alien” to refer to other cultures but to his own feelings and the feelings of others of his generation. He needs to pick his words carefully, but people also need to listen.

I was not aware that “alien” to mean “unfamiliar” was common usage in British English.  (In American English it is used, but not commonly.)  In this case, it is especially bad that some people are seeing this as some sort of “racist” statement.🙄🙄🙄

(I will say that the confusion is not necessarily a sign of “grandiose American notions of importance.”  It is actually very usual for people of any background to think that the meaning and best use of a word is what is familiar to them.) 

[just_ordinary]

5 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

It was an “international conflict” in the sense that it involved many countries, who came in to “help,” but the basic conflict was between neighboring communities which were split by ideology, religion and perceived ethnic differences.  In that sense, despite the involvement of NATO and so forth, it was a civil war.  This doesn’t make it less horrible.  I know people who were there. I remember donating to help the refugees. It definitely was a major crisis in Eastern Europe.

In my opinion, however, Prince William, who was a young teenager at a time may easily be forgiven for putting that “international conflict” in a different category from what is happening in Ukraine.  This isn’t a group of pro-Russian Ukrainians rebelling against the current government and starting a civil war that Russia and Belarus join in on.  This was aggression of one country against another.  It is the first large invasion since WWII, and I truly believe that the WW II parallels (how Hitler wasn’t stopped when he started) is what a lot of people would have been talking about around William.

And all he said was that for his generation a war such as the one happening in Ukraine was totally unexpected.  

I agree with everything but this- Wiliam was 17/18. That‘s not what we call a young teenager in Europe anymore. I think in the US it’s more based in the decade you are in, while we heavily look at the status of someone regarding the law and society. So to me he was a (young) adult. Young in brackets because we use that term loosely from 15/16 to 23. But in general teen describes the phase were you are no child anymore but not a legal adult yet und that’s roughly going together with puberty. A young teenager is more a 10/11 or even 12/13/14 to 17 year old. A young adult loosely creeps into adulthood but we are legal adults in the full sense of everything with 18, so there is this split between young adults that are at the end of puberty and are often in many ways treated with more adult standards (being more self sufficient, starting driving, going out late, being without much parental interference regarding romantic relationships, doctors confidentiality starts even earlier but by now you mostly definitely go to appointments alone if you are not very ill (gyn check up, contraceptives, normal check ups), having a job and pay for your own extra things, choosing a vocation or tertiary education….). After 18 it describes just that you are a new adult. The line is fluent but when you step over it, there are definitely some added expectations in terms of self sufficiency/independence and duties. And that’s not touched by the fact that of course you don’t magically know how to figure out insurances and are able to pay for your own life when you turn 18. I personally loved the phase. Tons of adult freedom (and some duties), being treated as an adult at home but also still “in training” so not expected to have it all figured out and able to rely on parental advice and help if I asked.

I am a bit younger than him, but in my experience, when Kosovo happened (can’t remember that the Croatian Crisis made it that big in the news or our lives, I definitely had to google) it was a big deal- especially because my country debated for the longest time in very heated discussions if they would send any military help (not because it wasn’t seen as needed but for the fact that we hadn’t put our military onto foreign soil and for historical reasons there was a massive aversion to it). The crisis itself was horrific too but it never threatened our own safety or purse. No one ever feared retaliation if they got involved. That’s a big difference and that’s why most have, not exactly, forgotten about it, but would definitely say we haven’t seen full on war in Europe since WWII.

So the comment was clumsy and he needs to get better at that (as I said, that’s not his first comment that went in the wrong direction. The COVID joke in Ireland and his finger pointing at the African population grow rates were exactly not his best moments ever.). What annoys me though is people running around re-defining words (in best Fundie tradition) like alien or war to fit their own personal feelings. War and civil war is not the same. Alien and never is not the same. And while the definition says nothing about the horror people have or will experience, those definitions happen after standards. That’s like saying you are married without going through the required steps to reach married status. You might feel emotionally married, but you are in fact just not.

[EmCatlyn]

43 minutes ago, just_ordinary said:

I agree with everything but this- Wiliam was 17/18. That‘s not what we call a young teenager in Europe anymore. I think in the US it’s more based in the decade you are in, while we heavily look at the status of someone regarding the law and society. So to me he was a (young) adult. Young in brackets because we use that term loosely from 15/16 to 23. But in general teen describes the phase were you are no child anymore but not a legal adult yet und that’s roughly going together with puberty. A young teenager is more a 10/11 or even 12/13/14 to 17 year old. A young adult loosely creeps into adulthood but we are legal adults in the full sense of everything with 18, so there is this split between young adults that are at the end of puberty and are often in many ways treated with more adult standards (being more self sufficient, starting driving, going out late, being without much parental interference regarding romantic relationships, doctors confidentiality starts even earlier but by now you mostly definitely go to appointments alone if you are not very ill (gyn check up, contraceptives, normal check ups), having a job and pay for your own extra things, choosing a vocation or tertiary education….). After 18 it describes just that you are a new adult. The line is fluent but when you step over it, there are definitely some added expectations in terms of self sufficiency/independence and duties. And that’s not touched by the fact that of course you don’t magically know how to figure out insurances and are able to pay for your own life when you turn 18. I personally loved the phase. Tons of adult freedom (and some duties), being treated as an adult at home but also still “in training” so not expected to have it all figured out and able to rely on parental advice and help if I asked.

I am a bit younger than him, but in my experience, when Kosovo happened (can’t remember that the Croatian Crisis made it that big in the news or our lives, I definitely had to google) it was a big deal- especially because my country debated for the longest time in very heated discussions if they would send any military help (not because it wasn’t seen as needed but for the fact that we hadn’t put our military onto foreign soil and for historical reasons there was a massive aversion to it). The crisis itself was horrific too but it never threatened our own safety or purse. No one ever feared retaliation if they got involved. That’s a big difference and that’s why most have, not exactly, forgotten about it, but would definitely say we haven’t seen full on war in Europe since WWII.

So the comment was clumsy and he needs to get better at that (as I said, that’s not his first comment that went in the wrong direction. The COVID joke in Ireland and his finger pointing at the African population grow rates were exactly not his best moments ever.). What annoys me though is people running around re-defining words (in best Fundie tradition) like alien or war to fit their own personal feelings. War and civil war is not the same. Alien and never is not the same. And while the definition says nothing about the horror people have or will experience, those definitions happen after standards. That’s like saying you are married without going through the required steps to reach married status. You might feel emotionally married, but you are in fact just not.

I didn’t remember how old William was.  You are right, seventeen/eighteen is not a “young teenager.”  (I think I was thinking of my own children, who were “young teenagers” at the time, but he’s a few years older.)  

As for the rest, I am confused about “Alien and never is not the same.”  Where does the “never” come from?

It is not a “re-definition” of words to say that the word “alien” is often used as a synonym for “unfamiliar.”  (Examples: “Buying instead of renting a home was an alien concept for many New Yorkers in the 1930s.”  OR “Wearing a mask when going outside was a totally alien experience for most Americans two years ago.”) 

A “civil war” and a “war” may differ only in who is describing the conflict.  The American Civil War was so named by the winning Union side (the North).  The Confederacy (the South) called it “The War between the States” (when not calling it, “The War of Northern Aggression” 😉).  The North felt that states couldn’t leave the Union, so they saw the war as internal.  The South felt that the Union existed only by the consent of the states and therefore the states could leave and form a new country — so they saw the war as being between states, rather than an internal “civil” war.  This is only an example (and I oversimplified the North and South positions for brevity).

In any case, we seem to be discussing two different issues with Prince William’s statement.  One was his use of “alien,” which I would argue was correct, but misunderstood.  The other was his claim that war in Europe was unfamiliar to his generation.  I think he was thinking of a war of invasion by a manor power and his context may have been that the invasion of Ukraine has echoes of WWII rather than more recent conflicts.  That is only my “reading” of it.  He may have had something else in mind.

I don’t “watch” William much, so I don’t keep track of his gaffes. You are right that as future King of England he needs to very careful.

[just_ordinary]

@EmCatlyn as I said I think we both agree pretty much on all accounts. The “never” comes up whenever people start immediately rattling down all the conflicts Europe has seen, and I was merely pointing out that most are not officially called a war, and even if there were 1 -3 wars in over 75 years, that doesn’t mean that “alien” was technically the wrong word. Depends on how many you think it needs to make something a familiar occurrence. 

[EmCatlyn]

6 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

@EmCatlyn as I said I think we both agree pretty much on all accounts. The “never” comes up whenever people start immediately rattling down all the conflicts Europe has seen, and I was merely pointing out that most are not officially called a war, and even if there were 1 -3 wars in over 75 years, that doesn’t mean that “alien” was technically the wrong word. Depends on how many you think it needs to make something a familiar occurrence. 

Ah.  I haven’t seen anyone claim that there has “never” been a war like this. What the news I see says mostly is that it is the biggest invasion of one country by another since WWII.  “Alien” may have been the wrong word since it has been misconstrued to show that Prince William is either a racist or inexperienced or both.  🤷‍♀️  That is, the word is correct but the audience was stupid. 😉

In any case, we are agreed that, among other things, words have multiple meanings and that different interpretations are possible.  

[Topaz]

I’m British and the same age as William and I totally understand what he was saying. I’d use strange rather than alien to describe how I feel about it but I didn’t go to Eton and St Andrew’s. Using the word alien in this context is not unexpected from him. Most people I know would understand what he meant but would only use the word alien when talking about little green men. Definitely not to describe humans though. 
 

To me the war in the former Yugoslavia felt quite different to this, much further away and more localised. Partly due to the lack of social media but also none of the countries involved felt like a threat outside of the region. This feels more like 1938 than the 1990s.

My memories of the Yugoslav wars centre on the earlier conflicts when I was a young teen (as was William). The later Kosovo part when I was 17/18 doesn’t register so much for me. I think of Sarajevo as the epicentre and the images that come to mind are of the genocide. Mass graves and concentration camps.* But while it was a war and it was in Europe it didn’t feel like a European war like this could potentially be. 
 

William has said the wrong thing at times but this doesn’t feel like one of them. I don’t think it’s realistic for him to weigh up the global uses of every word he says in a conversation. 
 

*Disclaimer: It’s just the war I associate with concentration camps, not myself. I have never been a concentration camp guard, nor played one on the internet.

[FluffySnowball]

The tweets (that I screenshoted from Instagram) are spot on IMO. They refer to the upcoming Jubilee tour William and Kate will go on on behalf of the queen. I’m sure there’ll be nice photos of them on lovely beaches, with politicians, children, and jewelry. One can get sucked into thinking how good and nice they are easily. But this doesn’t change the nature of the institution they represent and the history of oppression it entails. 

 

Yes, I do get the appeal of pretty castles and gorgeous dresses, I just dislike the system. 

[anjulibai]

Yeah, they are not getting a very good reception on this tour. And from the pictures I've seen of them, they both look uncomfortable a lot of the time. They don't have the charisma or interest to appeal to these parts of the commonwealth. 

[viii]

Prince “very much not a racist” William was probably not the right person to send. I feel like we are going to see some commonwealth upheaval once the queen dies. 

[anjulibai]

Oh yeah, Jamaica is already gearing up to leave. They might start the process within the next few weeks. 

I'm sure more countries will follow. 

[rosamundi]

11 hours ago, viii said:

I feel like we are going to see some commonwealth upheaval once the queen dies. 

I think a number of the Commonwealth Realms have said that they will hold a referendum or take whatever other actions their constitutions require regarding removing the British Monarch as Head of State once the Queen dies. I think Jamaica is starting the process as soon as the Cambridges leave.

[Melbelle]

While Jamaica and other countries are beginning the processes to remove the Monarch as their head of state, they are not leaving the Commonwealth.  The Monarch is basically a ceremonial head of state in countries like Jamaica and these countries have been self-governed for many years.  Like Canada, technically the Queen is their head of state, but we all know Justin Trudeau and their Parliament are actually the government.  The Commonwealth is really the future of the Monarchy.  The Queen is currently the head of the Commonwealth and Prince Charles will be her successor and then likely Prince William and so on, although the position is not hereditary.  Currently, the Queen is the head of state for only 15 of the 54 nations in the Commonwealth. 

I think going forward, outside of the UK, the Commonwealth will be what the Royals continue to focus on.  Even after Jamaica removes the Queen as head of state, the Royals will continue to visit and be associated with the country because of the Commonwealth connection.  People love the Queen, but most people do not even like Prince Charles.  I think the years after the Queen's death are the riskiest for the royals because if the Commonwealth moves away from the British Royals as their figurehead, the Family is in trouble, but if they wait it out for Prince William or they put him into the position while his father is King, the Family will fine.  They'll move their "royalness" from the figurehead monarch head of state roles in a few places, to the overall "royalness" of the figurehead of the Commonwealth.  Honestly, it reads as an upgrade to me in many ways.  

Random extra thought...many people believe(d) Harry and Meghan wanted to focus on the Commonwealth and set up a "rival court" by positioning themselves as eventually in line to take on the head of the Commonwealth role.  Since the role isn't hereditary either of them could hold the position.  But I think the direct in line individuals, Prince Charles/William/George do not want to let that happen because that's where the power and prestige is actually moving for them.  

[rosamundi]

3 hours ago, anjulibai said:

Oh yeah, Jamaica is already gearing up to leave.

Not leave the Commonwealth, but remove the Queen as head of State and switch to a republic.

2 hours ago, Melbelle said:

Random extra thought...many people believe(d) Harry and Meghan wanted to focus on the Commonwealth and set up a "rival court" by positioning themselves as eventually in line to take on the head of the Commonwealth role. 

I think the original plan was that H&M would have a Commonwealth-focused role after their wedding, but that role would be within the existing structure of the Royal Family. It was why her wedding veil had flowers from all the Commonwealth countries in it. I don't think they were originally going to set up any sort of "rival court", the role was suggested by the Palace, but then when they started talking about leaving and looking at Canada as a potential place to live, this became a concern.

[FluffySnowball]

1 hour ago, rosamundi said:

Not leave the Commonwealth, but remove the Queen as head of State and switch to a republic.

That sounds great 💪🏿

Still, I’m kinda drooling over Kate’s style right now, with so many new photos of her on tour coming out every day. Almost sad I can’t be a monarchist 😂 

Edited March 23, 2022 by FluffySnowball

[just_ordinary]

On 3/22/2022 at 10:00 PM, FluffySnowball said:

The tweets (that I screenshoted from Instagram) are spot on IMO. They refer to the upcoming Jubilee tour William and Kate will go on on behalf of the queen. I’m sure there’ll be nice photos of them on lovely beaches, with politicians, children, and jewelry. One can get sucked into thinking how good and nice they are easily. But this doesn’t change the nature of the institution they represent and the history of oppression it entails. 

 

Yes, I do get the appeal of pretty castles and gorgeous dresses, I just dislike the system. 

I mean, haven’t we all though? The “subjects” are not clueless. Or at least they could easily know that lots of Western privileges are build on colonialism, racism imperialism. Similar structures work till today. And we all are personally profiting right this second. For generations. W&K/TRF haven’t profited more than many other rich families. But of course they represent the UK as a whole and therefore it’s past. It’s systemic and not personal.
I am all for Jamaica, after many decades of being self governed, finally deciding on its own if they want to keep the monarch as HoS or not. Nothing the RF can or will do about it. I am actually a bit annoyed by all the fuss. Just get on with it. It’s not as if it’s a personal thing, because if that’s the case it’s a bit amateurish. Why are they still talking about it? Just get the process started. It could have very well been a farewell tour with W&K being the first to congratulate Jamaica to their decision.

12 hours ago, Melbelle said:

While Jamaica and other countries are beginning the processes to remove the Monarch as their head of state, they are not leaving the Commonwealth.  The Monarch is basically a ceremonial head of state in countries like Jamaica and these countries have been self-governed for many years.  Like Canada, technically the Queen is their head of state, but we all know Justin Trudeau and their Parliament are actually the government.  The Commonwealth is really the future of the Monarchy.  The Queen is currently the head of the Commonwealth and Prince Charles will be her successor and then likely Prince William and so on, although the position is not hereditary.  Currently, the Queen is the head of state for only 15 of the 54 nations in the Commonwealth. 

I think going forward, outside of the UK, the Commonwealth will be what the Royals continue to focus on.  Even after Jamaica removes the Queen as head of state, the Royals will continue to visit and be associated with the country because of the Commonwealth connection.  People love the Queen, but most people do not even like Prince Charles.  I think the years after the Queen's death are the riskiest for the royals because if the Commonwealth moves away from the British Royals as their figurehead, the Family is in trouble, but if they wait it out for Prince William or they put him into the position while his father is King, the Family will fine.  They'll move their "royalness" from the figurehead monarch head of state roles in a few places, to the overall "royalness" of the figurehead of the Commonwealth.  Honestly, it reads as an upgrade to me in many ways.  

Random extra thought...many people believe(d) Harry and Meghan wanted to focus on the Commonwealth and set up a "rival court" by positioning themselves as eventually in line to take on the head of the Commonwealth role.  Since the role isn't hereditary either of them could hold the position.  But I think the direct in line individuals, Prince Charles/William/George do not want to let that happen because that's where the power and prestige is actually moving for them.  

I have a very different opinion. I doubt Wiliam will be the Head of the Commonwealth. And I actually doubt he wants it. The future of the monarchy is the UK. The figure head monarch is the only way they will be kept on the public purse that actually provides for them. I don’t think they would like to swap that for a non-paid function they get nothing but flack for because of the past.
My prediction is that after Charles, the RF will just leave the Commonwealth to its own. And honestly, that will be a blessing. It will massively cut down on tons of negative PR and the Commonwealth can stand the test if time without still being represented by the past.

The RF should concentrate their efforts on Britain and be more involved in their own nation. That’s who they actually represent.
They don’t have any real personal ties to those other countries. So why hold onto them? I can imagine the holiday aspect of those countries is wonderful but they can easily have a secret holiday there without having to undertake engagements at all (Jordan anyone). Apart from that, W&K never look completely comfortable because the expectations are just so against their nature. W&K are not the dancing, hugging, bathing in a crowd people (and it feels kind of racist/full of prejudice that of course that’s the expectation when they visit “exotic” places. As if that’s the sole nature of the Caribbean). And that’s fine. I think they will be relieved when the last ones have left. If I were Wiliam I would have smiled and said- great idea just get on with it already, will you? Why haven’t you started yet? Let me give you a pen.“

Can the monarch himself give it up? Because that would be my advise. Just step back and be done with it. Go diving there privately if that’s what you prefer. I don’t think all the bad PR is worth it. Especially because lots of things get completely blown out of proportion or twisted (the politician ignoring Kate, when they were all smiles and talking seconds before and after, the fenced in crowd, when it was just the normal fence around the football pitch…). If that was me, I would say, „thank you very much, I will just visit the official political engagements from here on. Please cut the monarchy and leave me out of your matters.“

Edited March 24, 2022 by just_ordinary

[prayawaythefundie]

I feel like some press coverage of the tour is quite imbalanced (only showing the one side of the football field with the fence but not the ones of W&K being in the middle of a crowd for example) but what irritates me as well are the many very uninformed social media posts: 

The royal family does not need to „free“ Jamaica or let them have independence because they haven been independent for 60 years! Both the membership in the commonwealth and having the queen as head of state is voluntary. The Jamaican people can make their government change both (though they are seperate steps) if they wish to. As of now the queen IS their head of state though. Should they have skipped Jamaica on their tour? Wouldn‘t that have been considered disrespectful?

Edited March 25, 2022 by prayawaythefundie

[just_ordinary]

3 hours ago, prayawaythefundie said:

I feel like some press coverage of the tour is quite imbalanced (only showing the one side of the football field with the fence but not the ones of W&K being in the middle of a crowd for example) but what irritates me as well are the many very uninformed social media posts: 

The royal family does not need to „free“ Jamaica or let them have independence because they haven been independent for 60 years! Both the membership in the commonwealth and having the queen as head of state is voluntary. The Jamaican people can make their government change both (though they are seperate steps) if they wish to. As of now the queen IS their head of state though. Should they have skipped Jamaica on their tour? Wouldn‘t that have been considered disrespectful?

If they had skipped it, we would have gotten articles about how the RF doesn’t want to face criticism.

I think they missed the chance to emphasise how much Jamaica and its relationship to the UK and it’s HoS has changed in the 70 years of QEII reign. How Jamaica has developed into its current state. With a firm outlook on the new relationship to be build after they removed the monarch as HoS. How excited they are for them and to witness this. If they had gone into it with this right from the start, they would have shut down lots of comments. 
 

The very one sided commentary, with consciously misleading presentation is very normal for tabloids and Social Media. But you would think that more serious and sensitive  topics would be handled with more care. Especially by both, the camp that wants point out the ongoing problems and the camp that would love to ignore them. So, both sides look hysterical and that’s not helping either direction.

[prayawaythefundie]

1 hour ago, just_ordinary said:

I think they missed the chance to emphasise how much Jamaica and its relationship to the UK and it’s HoS has changed in the 70 years of QEII reign. How Jamaica has developed into its current state. With a firm outlook on the new relationship to be build after they removed the monarch as HoS. How excited they are for them and to witness this. If they had gone into it with this right from the start, they would have shut down lots of comments. 

While I think W&K were given a difficult task here and didn‘t handle it all that badly, I really like your suggestion. That would have been the best way to go into it / respond. In German it would be called „der Königsweg“ which literally translates to „the king‘s way“. 😊

[viii]

This tour is a mess. All I see is the BRF celebrating their colonization past. 

[MamaJunebug]

The ladies’ formalwear has been pretty, though. 

[viii]

The clothes have been predictable. Kate can be relied on wearing three things - McQueen, Jenny Packham, and if all else fails - clothing in the color of the flag of whatever country she's visiting. Sure, lovely outfits but still predictable. She didn't highlight any Belize designs, nor Bahamas so far. She wore two bracelets from a Jamaica company and I believe that's it. 

Riveting. 

[louisa05]

Or it could be that cutting edge fashion is not on her job description  and riveting you with her clothes is not the purpose of a royal tour  

She wore jewelry by a Bahamian designer today. And a dress by Self Portrait. She wore Roksanda and a vintage dress in Jamaica. And they’re currently dressed down for a sailing event.  
 

If you search Google images of “queen in…” fill in any Commonwealth country, you will find her in National colors. It’s a long-standing tradition in the BRF. 

[anjulibai]

Fashion is definitely part of the job, and I do think it would behoove Kate to wear designers of the countries she's visiting (and not just jewelry pieces that aren't easy to see in photos). Kate has done it some in the past, but she could do more, and she should have done more on this trip. It would go a long way in public relations, especially since what she wears often gets bought out after she first appears in public in the pieces. 

They need to work on how they are coming across, and fashion is an important aspect of that. Hell, fashion and politics have long gone hand in hand. 

[prayawaythefundie]

In the eyes of some they can‘t win, can they?

If they go to commonwealth realms, they are celebrating colonization. But if they hadn‘t gone, they would have neglected the people / didn‘t care enough. 
 

If they meet people who happen to be standing behind a fence, they should consider the images but if they hadn‘t walked over, it would have been a snub. 
 

If they hadn‘t danced in Belize they would have been boring and stiff royals but because they did, they must be trying to be someone they‘re not (Harry & Meghan, I have actually read that!)

Is she wears new / surprising clothes, she‘s nothing but a fashion doll or tries to outshine others but if she doesn‘t, she looks boring. 
 

If she wears expensive jewelry, she is wasteful but if she wears affordable pieces, she makes the event look unimportant.

Why doesn‘t she wear a tradional brand from one of the host countries? Maybe Because someone would scream cultural appropriation?

If he gives a speech he should remain completely neutral on politics but then he fails to address important issues. 

I could go on and it’s not just on royal tours but at home in the UK as well. It‘s ridiculous…