Royal Review: The Royal We by Heather Cocks & Jessica Morgan

The Royal We by Heather Cocks & Jessica Morgan
Published 2015
454 Pages

Based on the premise of The Royal We, one could be forgiven for presuming it is a fictional retelling of William and Kate's relationship. It definitely meets the criteria:

 A Prince (Nick) meets an American commoner (Rebecca Porter/Bex) at university/predictably breakup/make each other jealous while apart/inevitably get back together

 Prince Nick has a younger, sexy brother (Prince Freddie) with ginger hair who likes to party

 Bex has a sister (Lacey) who basks in her sister's limelight

 Bex comes from a self-made family which includes an ambitious mother

 Prince Nick has commitment issues due to what happened to his mother at the hands of the royal family and the press

 Prince Nick gives Bex a royal heirloom engagement ring last worn by his tragic mother

 Bex has numerous fashion blogs devoted to her appearance

 Most predicable of all, because every single fictional royal novel includes emotionally distant royals who disapprove of situations beyond their control. Despite changing the names of the main characters and creating a different royal house, the dynamic is still there.

The beginning of The Royal We finds the bride-to-be, Bex, at The Goring Hotel the night before the royal wedding. Given all of the similarities, it would be obvious to assume that there will be a happily ever after, right? Not necessarily.

Before we can get to Westminster Abbey, we need to get the similarities out of the way. This takes longer than expected as first we need to cover the predicable courtship and breakup, which lasts far longer than William and Kate's. Once they predictably break up, readers are led on a journey which include Bex partying and flirting with guys who could jeopardize her future. After Nick proposes, he ships off to sea, leaving Bex to fend for herself in regal  'shark infested waters.' Predictably, the pressure gets to her and she starts to feel sorry for herself after reading nasty stories on a website called The Royal Flush.  Although unrelenting at times, the pithy remarks from loyal friends provide welcome comic relief along the way.

It is only towards the end of the book - Part Five - where the story deviates from the predictability and becomes a page turner. I literally could not put it down. I think that the suspense of the twist could have been alluded to earlier and drawn out more. As it stands, the twist feels as though it has been dumped in the readers lap without preliminary. The Royal We ends just as the resulting conflict was starting to get unpredictably interesting.

If you have followed William and Kate's relationship from the beginning you will feel as though you have already read the majority of this book. Although fun and light, it is only when The Royal We finally deviates from the similarities and predictability that it becomes a compelling read.

© Marilyn Braun 2015

Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.

Dear William and Kate, choose a decade and stick with it

via British Monarchy Flickr

Whenever we discuss the future of the monarchy, we are often reminded that William and Kate are doing things their own way. Yes, they want to be like normal married couple, deferring royal responsibilities to raise their young children away from the spotlight. To give them, what generations of royal biographies have opined, "as normal a childhood as possible."

William clearly does not want to repeat previous mistakes. Not after what happened to his beloved mother. But the future seems to hold no appeal for the Cambridges either. Once Prince Charles becomes King, William and Kate face a future filled with ribbon cutting, shaking hands, standing on ceremony and accepting obeisance from people who don't know better. What is a reluctant future king and queen taking flak for their current choices to do?

PR Minions: What about harking back to the past?

Same PR Minions: Good idea!

How about halcyon days before the internet, selfies and social media? An era both classic and comfortable fashion wise for Kate, George and Charlotte. I envision William and Kate dusting off royal photo albums for inspiration.

1980s: At Trooping the Color, Prince George wore the exact same outfit Prince William wore for his first balcony appearance in 1984 so this decade is taken care of.

1990s, unfortunate both in fashion and musically. Not to mention 'annus horribilis,' the implosion of various royal marriages and his mother's tragic death.


No, let's go further back...


Victorian era? What do you mean I can't sunbathe topless and have to wear a corset?


OK, too far back. Hmmmm...


1920s? Even Kate can't bring back the flapper look.


1930s? Who wants to be reminded of the Abdication crisis? Yay! Good times...


1940s? Wait, how many clothing coupons do I need for that Alexander McQueen dress?


1960s? Free love and people were starting to question everything.


1970s? Equally unflattering to photogenic and non-photogenic royals.


No. How about a more deferential time? Say the 1950s era royals, where being young and glamorous was enough to earn patriotic doffed caps, the public were subjects, long absences were seen as acceptable and the media never crossed lines. A time period where nannies wore uniforms and royal children behaved perfectly in photographs.


From Prince George's outfit, the nanny's uniform and the vintage pram, William and Kate had the 1950s down pat on Princess Charlotte's christening day. Even the Queen must have experienced déjà vu. Turn the footage black and white, add a respectful British Pathé narrator and the charade is complete. But temporary.


Tradition is the royal family's raison d'être. The royal collection has an entire arsenal for the purpose. It is all well and good to play dress up with the past and pretend normalcy but even the 89-year old Queen faces the future and reality. William and Kate would be wise to follow suit. The past should be used for fond reminisces, not for hiding behind.


© Marilyn Braun 2015


Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.

Royal Focus: Royal Godparents

When Princess Charlotte is christened on Sunday July 5th, she will traditionally be given five or six godparents/sponsors. Prince William has paid tribute to his mother in his daughter's name, the church where his own mother was baptized and chosen Mario Testino, Diana's favorite photographer, to take the official photographs. Because William is choosing to underline the Diana connection so heavily, I think it is likely that he will also choose someone from the Spencer side of his family as one of Charlotte's godparents,  potentially one of Diana's sisters, Lady Sarah McCorquodale or Lady Jane Fellowes. This would be a unique choice as neither William, Harry or Prince George have a Spencer family member included amongst their godparents. From the Spencer side, it is interesting to note that each of Diana's siblings have a royal godparent - except for her!


At one point godparents were drawn heavily from members of the immediate and extended royal family. Over time the emphasis has shifted to godparents with loyal connections rather than royal family ties. For instance, unlike his grandfather Prince Charles, who had five royal godparents,  Prince George only has one with a royal connection, Zara Phillips.


The Queen and Princess Margaret


The Queen's godparents were comprised entirely of family members and included her paternal grandparents King George V and Queen Mary, her maternal grandfather, the Earl of Strathmore, her aunts Princess Mary (later Princess Royal), Lady Elphinstone and her great-great uncle Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught.

Princess Elizabeth christening photograph
Royal Collection website

Princess Margaret's godparents were her uncle, Edward, Prince of Wales, Princess Ingrid of Sweden (later Queen of Denmark) and Princess Victoria, favorite sister of King George V. The maternal side of her family was represented by her mother's siblings, Lady Rose Levenson-Gower and the Honorable David Bowes-Lyon.


The Queen's children

Prince Charles' godparents were his grandfather, King George VI, his maternal great-grandmother, Queen Mary, his paternal great-grandmother, Victoria, Marchioness of Milford Haven, David Bowes-Lyon, Lady Brabourne, King Haakon of Norway and Prince George of Greece.

Prince Charles christening photograph
Royal Collection website

Princess Anne's godparents were, from the maternal side: her grandmother, Queen Elizabeth, and The Rev and Hon. Andrew Elphinstone (son of Lady Elphinstone, godmother of the Queen). Her paternal godparents were her grandmother, Princess Andrew of Greece, aunt Princess Margarita and great-uncle Earl Mountbatten of Burma.

Princess Anne christening photograph
Royal Collection website

Prince Andrew's godparents were his great-uncle Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, Princess Alexandra, Lord Elphinstone, the Earl of Euston and Mr. Harold Phillips.


Prince Edward's godparents were Prince Richard of Gloucester, the Duchess of Kent, his uncle by marriage, the Earl of Snowdon, Princess George of Hanover and Prince Louis of Hesse.


The Queen's grandchildren


Interesting to note that, unlike previous generations of royal children, none of her grandchildren or great-grandchildren have the Queen or Prince Philip as a godparent. Previous monarchs, Queen Victoria, King Edward VII, Queen Alexandra, King George V, Queen Mary, King George VI and Queen Elizabeth all served as godparents to various grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

Peter Phillips godparents were his uncle, the Prince of Wales, the Rt. Rev Geoffrey Tiarks, Captain Hamish Lochare, Lady Cecil Cameron of Lochiel and Mrs. Timothy Holderness-Roddam.


Zara Phillips's godparents were her uncle the Duke of York, the Countess of Litchfield, Mrs. Jackie Steward, Colonel Andrew Parker-Bowles (first husband of Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall), and Mr. Hugh Thomas.


Prince William's godparents were ex-King Constantine of Greece, Lord Romsey, Sir Laurens van der Post, Princess Alexandra, the Duchess of Westminster and Lady Susan Hussey.

Prince William christening photograph
Royal Collection website

Prince Harry's godparents were his uncle, the Duke of York, Lady Sarah Armstrong-Jones, Lady Vestey, Mrs. William Bartholomew, Mr. Bryan Organ and Mr. Gerald Ward.


Princess Beatrice's godparents were Viscount Linley, Peter Palumbo, the Duchess of Roxburghe, Mrs. Harry Cotterell and Mrs John Greenall.


Princess Eugenie's godparents were James Ogilvy, Captain Alistair Ross, Mrs Ronald Ferguson, Mrs Patrick Dodd-Noble and Miss Louise Blacker.


Lady Louise Windsor's godparents include: Lady Sarah Chatto (nee Armstrong Jones), Lord Ivar Mountbatten, Lady Alexandra Etherington, Mrs Francesca Schwarzenbach and Mr Rupert Elliott.

James, Viscount Severn's godparents were Denise Poulton, Jeanye Irwin, Alastair Bruce, 5th Baron Aberdare, Duncan Bullivant, and Tom Hill.


The Queen's great-grandchildren



Despite their royal connections, the parents of Savannah and Isla Phillips and Mia Tindall have not announced the godparents for their own children.


However, we do know the ones for Prince George: Oliver Baker, Emilia Jardine-Paterson, Earl Grosvenor, Jamie Lowther-Pinkerton, Julia Samuel, William van Cutsem and Zara Tindall.

Prince George on his christening day with his parents and great-grandmother
British Monarchy Flickr

It will be interesting to see who William and Catherine choose to be godparents for Princess Charlotte. Will her parents honor a Spencer family member? We shall find out soon enough!

UPDATE: Princess Charlotte has five godparents (two fewer than George). They are: Miss Sophie Carter, Mr. James Meade, Mr. Alan Middleton, Mr. Thomas van Straubenzee, and from the Spencer side, The Hon. Laura Fellowes. I guessed Lady Jane but William and Kate chose her daughter instead!


© Marilyn Braun 2015

Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.


Sources


The Royal Encyclopedia by Ronald Alllison and Sarah Riddell
Princess Margaret by Theo Aronson
Official site for the British Monarchy
British Monarchy Flickr
The Royal Collection website
Wikipedia

Royal Review: Very British Baby Knits by Susan Campbell

Like her mother, Princess Charlotte recently caused a stir with one of her outfits. When Princess Charlotte left hospital, she was wearing a handmade knitted bonnet by Irulea and her official photographs released later in the month featured the matching outfit by the same designer. While these items are lovely, the $260 price tag for the complete outfit might be a deterrent for even the most devoted royal baby watcher. Fortunately, there are some wonderfully royal themed alternatives.

Very British Baby Knits 30 Designs fit for a royal baby features five collections designed by Susan Campbell, a 'veteran in the design of baby clothes' . The 30 designs are comprised of familiar items such as hats, booties, cardigans and the like to keep your own baby snug and warm. The author has charmingly included a pattern to make your own knitted bunny with tiny matching outfits from each collection to go with them.

Each of the five collections is inspired by a royal residence and thoughtful consideration has gone into each set.


Anmer Hall mimics the Duchess of Cambridge's style, ''not fussy' and easy to wear but, at the same time modern and trendy.'


The Balmoral collection for baby girls is more romantic with 'tiny flowers and colors that blend in with the prolific Scottish heathers' on the estate.


The pure new wool Highgrove collection in cream and grey, 'remind us of natural, undyed fleece and the use of garter stich evokes thoughtful country textures.'


Sandringham collection features 'stripes that mimic the ploughed fields of Norfolk' and a 'splash of  gold to celebrate the yearly appearance of the wild golden asphodel which grows on the estate.'


Windsor was inspired by the castle and the  Order of the Garter: 'the twisted cable on the sweater symbolizes eternal chivalry and the smart royal blue cardigan speaks of sobriety and honor.'


Anmer Hall and Windsor patterns recommend using blue colors, while the pretty pink Balmoral set would be adorable on a baby girl. However, if the parents-to-be do not announce their baby's gender in advance, you cannot go wrong with the Highgrove and Sandringham collections featuring the more unisex colors of cream, beige, white and gold.


The book is very well organized, beautifully photographed and the patterns are easy to follow. A highly recommended addition to any devoted knitters pattern collection.


Click on the following link to purchase Very British Baby Knits: 30 Stylish Designs Fit for a Royal Baby.


© Marilyn Braun 2015


Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.

We are off to Buckingham Palace! Finally!

In July we will be heading to London. My husband and I have been there twice but this will be a first time for our children. While we are there we will see Westminster Abbey and plan to go to the Tower of London, Harrods, Hamleys Toy store and Hatchards, a very old bookstore in Piccadilly which is supposed to have a royal biographies section that is second to none. We might also check out the Harry Potter studios and have afternoon tea somewhere child friendly. I would love to go to Clarence House but I doubt we will have time.

One part of the trip that I am looking forward to is finally going to see Buckingham Palace. As I mentioned, I have been to London twice and both times I missed out on it. The first time was in August 2003 when my boyfriend (now husband) surprised me with a trip to London and Paris to propose to me. We had three days and chose to make the pilgrimage to Althorp to see the Diana exhibit instead. I'm happy we went because it was beautifully done and I wouldn't have wanted to miss out on it.

The second time was for William and Kate's wedding in April 2011. Yes, I went to London just for the royal wedding! Did not get to see the royal couple or Buckingham Palace as both were previously occupied at the time. I went to Windsor Castle instead and enjoyed it immensely.

This time round I was just going to sign up for the State Rooms but instead decided to make a 'Royal Day' of it and do the Queen's Gallery and Royal Mews too. I've read that Buckingham Palace is in need of repairs and the Queen might need to relocate. Let's hope this happens after our visit. Don't want to miss out on Buckingham Palace again!

© Marilyn Braun 2015


Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.

Swedish Royal Wedding: Princess Sofia and the magical royal wedding ring

When Prince Carl Philip of Sweden marries Sofia Hellqvist tomorrow, you will see a transformation worthy of a direct to DVD movie.


His bride-to-be, Sofia Hellqvist has taken a lot of flack for her background. I won't go into it, but suffice to say bikinis and strategically placed boa constrictors are not the stuff of fairy tales. No, fairy tales involve perfection, of someone toiling away until a prince/princess raises them from an obscurity we need to approve of. If we don't approve of it, well then it is open season until the royal wedding ring goes on the finger.


Royal wedding rings have magical properties. They can turn a partying single mother into the Crown Princess of Norway, make people forget the Queen of Spain was previously married or that Prince Daniel of Sweden was once a *gasp* personal trainer! These rings can even turn Camilla Parker Bowles into a respectable member of the royal family. That's how powerful they are!


Poof!


And just like magic, Sofia Hellqvist's ring will make her Princess Sofia of Sweden. We will ooohhh and awww over the wedding dress, how beautiful and regal she looks. How romantic everything is. We may even blog about the wonderful royal wedding when only days before we were sniping about her unsuitable background. Eventually, as all new princesses do, she will become a style icon and make it to Vanity Fair's International Best dressed list. In time, if given the chance, instead of diminishing the monarchy, she may even become a credit to it.


Pay attention when the ring goes on Sofia's finger. You won't believe your eyes!


© Marilyn Braun 2015


Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.

St. Mary Magdalene, Sandringham - A few quick royal facts

It was announced today that Princess Charlotte of Cambridge, the newborn daughter of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge would be christened at St. Mary Magdalene, the parish church on the Sandringham estate. The present church has a history dating back to the sixteenth century and over the years it has been rebuilt and restored. It has been the scene of various royal events since the estate was purchased in 1862 for the then Albert Edward, Prince of Wales (future King Edward VII) and his bride, Princess Alexandra of Denmark.


Although most articles focus on the christening of Princess Eugenie of York in 1990, many royal events have taken place on this site and it is regularly used by the royal family for worship when they are in residence at Sandringham.


Baptisms


Prince Albert Frederick Arthur George (future King George VI) on February 17, 1896

Princess Victoria Alexandra Alice Mary (Princess Mary) Princess Royal and Countess of Harewood on June 7, 1897

Prince Alexander Edward Christian Frederick, later King Olav of Norway on August 11, 1903

Her Princess Mary's youngest brother, Prince John Charles Francis on August 3, 1905

Diana Francis, Princess of Wales on August 30, 1961

Princess Eugenie Victoria Helena of York on December 23, 1990. She is the first royal baby to have a public christening.


Funerals and interments


Prince Alexander John of Wales, youngest son of the future King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra, died within hours of his birth in 1871 and is buried in the grounds of the church.


King George VI died in the familiar surroundings of Sandringham and his coffin lay for two days in the church before his funeral at St. George's Chapel, Windsor.


King George VI's brother, Prince John's funeral took place on January 21, 1919. He is buried in the grounds of the church.


Several members of Diana, Princess of Wales' family are buried in the grounds of the church. These include her maternal grandfather, grandmother and older brother, John, who died within hours of his birth in January 1960.


© Marilyn Braun 2015


Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.

Calling all royal bloggers - The Royal Blog Comment Chain 2015

Do you have a royal blog? Would you like to discover other cool blogs and have some fun interacting with other royal bloggers in the process? Besides, who doesn't like comments?

Well then let me introduce the royal blog comment chain!

How does it work?

In a nut-shell, 10 royal blogs, 7 days to comment on each of them.

At the end of the 7 days (or earlier) you reply to me on twitter @marilynsrylblog or return to this post and make a comment letting everyone know that you have finished making comments on each blog.

You can comment on any post in a blogger's archive but you have to make a comment on each of the blogs within the 7 day period.

The participating blogs:

1) Marilyn's Royal Blog (You're Here!)
2) Royal Musings
3) Palace Princess
4) Royal Historian
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)

Rules

• To sign up please list your blog name and url in a reply to this post, or tweet me @marilynsrylblog. I will list the participating royal blogs in the order they arrive. The final particpant list will be posted on Tuesday June 2nd
• Comment chain begins on Wednesday June 3rd, 2015
• Please complete all your comments by Wednesday June 10th, 2015
• Comments such as 'Great post' don't count.  ;) 
• Comments on THIS post don't count.  ;P
• You can comment on any post in the royal bloggers archive - it doesn't have to be a recent/current post
• If the mood strikes you can comment as many times as you like
• Try to make it as easy as possible for people to comment  (Read: don't make anyone jump through hoops in order to do so)
• When you have completed comments on all the blogs in the list please return to advise us that you have finished
• Please do not spam
• Have fun and discover other cool royal blogs!

Feel free to retweet this to anyone you think might be interested.


© Marilyn Braun 2015


Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.

My Royal Baby Interview on The Daily Share!

On Friday, the day before Princess Charlotte was born, I appeared on The Daily Share, part of CNN's Headline News Network.

© Marilyn Braun 2015 Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.

Perfect name for a Princess: Princess Charlotte Elizabeth Diana of Cambridge

Huzzah, William and Kate have finally named their newborn daughter! Introducing Her Royal Highness Princess Charlotte Elizabeth Diana of Cambridge. Charlotte and Elizabeth seemed to be obvious choices, but the addition of Diana was a hot topic of debate on Twitter. Each name has a royal and personal connection for the couple.

Princess Charlotte of Wales via Wikipedia

 

Charlotte means petite and feminine. Other notable Charlotte's include Charlotte Bronte and Charlotte Church. On a more personal level, Charlotte is the middle name of Kate's sister, Pippa Middleton. Within the royal family, the name has not been used as a first name in a long time. It has a rather tragic history. The last princess to bear the name, Princess Charlotte of Wales, granddaughter of King George III and her namesake, Queen Charlotte. Princess Charlotte died in childbirth in 1817. Although the King had fifteen children, she was the only legitimate grandchild and thus heiress presumptive to the throne. Her unexpected death set in motion a royal baby race that eventually resulted in the birth of Queen Victoria. Some have also pointed out that Charlotte is the feminine version of Charles and therefore a tribute to him. Personally I think this is a bit of a reach.

Joel Rouse/Min of Def/Wikipedia

Elizabeth has Hebrew origins. In the New Testament, Elizabeth is the mother of John the Baptist. It is the name of numerous Saints, and means 'Consecrated to God'. Elizabeth also happens to be the middle name of Kate herself and of her mother, Carole Middleton. Aside from Victoria, the name Elizabeth is Royal with a capital R. Although it has a long history within the royal family, Elizabeth is currently synonymous with Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother as well as the present Queen Elizabeth II. A nice regal tribute to her great-grandmother in the year she surpasses Queen Victoria as the longest reigning monarch in British history in September.

Wikipedia/Public Domain By Nick Parfjonov

Diana means 'heavenly or divine'. It has mythological origins as the Goddess of the Hunt, Moon and Childbirth. As mentioned previously, Diana was a hot point of contention on Twitter. Would William and Kate burden their daughter with the name of a iconic grandmother she will never be able to live up to? My view is, choosing the name Diana was always up to William and Kate, regardless of pro/con public opinion. A beautiful name and a beautiful tribute to a mother gone but not forgotten.


 Welcome Princess Charlotte Elizabeth Diana of Cambridge!


© Marilyn Braun 2015


Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.

How long will it take for the Princess of Cambridge's names to be announced?

Now that she has finally arrived, the question on many a royal watchers mind is what will William and Kate name their newborn daughter. People, especially those with money waged on the name, are impatient to know. How long will it take for the royal baby's name to be announced? The waits for royal names have varied.


Prince George's names were announced two days after he was born


Prince William's names announced one week after his birth


Prince Harry's names were announced 19 hours after his birth


Princess Beatrice's name was announced  two weeks later


Princess Eugenie's name was announced one week later


Possibly due to her premature arrival, Lady Louise Windsor's name was announced 19 days after her birth

Whereas her brother, James, Viscount Severn's name took four days.

Princess Anne's name was announced two weeks after her birth

Prince Charles' name was announced on December 14, 1948. Exactly one month after he was born.

Prince Andrew and Prince Edward's names were announced within a month of their births.

So Princess Cambridge's names could be released anywhere from tomorrow to a month! On the bright side, we can take heart in the fact that, unlike the Danish royal family, the British royals do not wait until the christening to provide the public with this information.


UPDATE: The baby has a name! Princess Charlotte Elizabeth Diana. Like her brother it took two days for her name to be announced.

© Marilyn Braun 2015


Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.

The Princess of Cambridge has arrived!

View image | gettyimages.com

What a day! Like many royal watchers, I woke up to the news this morning that the Duchess of Cambridge had given birth to a healthy baby girl. Although all babies are special, this newest member of the family has some points that set her apart.

• She is the first princess to be born since Princess Eugenie in 1990. Although Lady Louise Windsor (born 2003), is also a male line grandchild of the Queen, she does not bear the title and style of a royal princess.  
• She is the first princess of Cambridge to be born in 182 years. The last one was Princess Mary Adelaide. She was the mother of Queen Mary, consort to King George V.
• She is now the highest ranking royal to benefit by the succession changes made prior to her brother's birth. Should she have a younger brother, she will remain fourth in line.
• Her birth displaced Princess Beatrice as the highest female in the line of succession. 
• She is the first great-granddaughter of a sovereign born in the direct line since Princess Mary, Countess of Harewood in 1897.
• She is the highest ranking royal princess born to an heir to the throne since Princess Anne in 1950
• She is the Queen's fifth great-grandchild, joining her brother, Prince George, Mia Tindall, Savannah Phillips and Isla Phillips. Prince George is officially outnumbered! 
• She made her first public appearance the day of her birth. Possibly the fastest royal newborn appearance in recent history. 

Congratulations to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on the birth of their daughter!

© Marilyn Braun 2015


Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
z

Royal Baby Watch: It's a SIGN...Literally!

Many people are making predictions about when the royal baby will arrive. Some base their predictions on gut feelings, their own schedules and even significant events. Surely the royal baby will arrive then, won't it? It must arrive by then. We've been waiting so...so...so...long for this baby, it's as if it has a bearing on our own lives.

To pass the time, some are resorting to begging online, some are jumping on the bandwagon to sell their wares. Some are even posting photos of delicious royal baby themed baked goods without sharing with anyone else.

We live in desperate times, my friends.

But today. Today is the dawn of a new day and I have seen the future. It is bright and yellow. A beacon of hope in times of uncertainty.  Some see a piece of paper, I see it as a sign.

LITERALLY.

Behold!

Image courtesy of @queenvicmirror

If I were to guess, I would say it is 18 x 12, possibly plastic. The paper, 11 x 14. But I could be wrong. Anyways. It is now here. Guiding us on a new date range for the royal baby's arrival and serving as a warning about parking.

Apparently the sign was always there. I just was not taking it seriously. Until Now.

In the absence of any other real news, I will no longer ignore it. Nor should you.

© Marilyn Braun 2015

Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.

LIVE Tweeting the Royal Birth

© Marilyn Braun 2015

Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.

Contain your excitement, the Royal Baby is coming!

A royal baby is coming. And no one. I mean NO ONE. Is more excited than I am!


It is the middle of April and it could happen 'any day now.' In anticipation I am limbering up my hands and fingers in preparation for endlessly refreshing my Twitter feed for news that the new royal baby has finally arrived. My devices are fully charged. I have the latest Twitter updates. I am pumped and ready to go!


Oh yeah, royal baby. BRING IT!


'Meh, it's just the spare, right?'


Just the spare? JUST the spare? Are you kidding me?


Granted, this royal baby is not nearly as important as Prince George is supposed to be. It will not have the unearned privilege of sitting on whatever remains of the British throne. But STILL! It's a royal baby!

This time round it has become fashionable to downplay our interest. As if to avoid disappointment, we are supposed to act as though we are completely above this and show restraint. No pre-birth editions of major publications devoted to this baby's arrival. This time round the media is not allowed to camp outside of the Lindo wing until Kate is safely in the hospital. Even the Republican movement cannot move themselves to update their #bornequal hashtag for this occasion.

What is the world coming to?

(Cue violins)

Sometimes it gets lonely being the only one interested. Thank goodness for People magazine and Hello! providing me with a feast of rehashed details: Kate's birth plan. Names. Godparents. What the chosen one might wear while walking on water. All lovingly generalized by people with no insider knowledge whatsoever. Sometimes I wonder if they make things up.


Nah!


Oh well! When the time comes, I will be right there. Refreshing my twitter feed and making note of all of the excitement people predicted would never happen.


Maybe I'm not alone after all.


© Marilyn Braun 2015


Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.

What will Baby Girl Cambridge be called?

I have already written a blog post about what Baby Boy Cambridge will be called, . Apparently William and Kate did not read it, choosing a name I disliked! George! Let's hope, if it is another boy they choose something less old fashioned and heavy sounding.


This time round many are expecting William and Kate to have a girl and there are many bets on what name they will choose. Currently some of the top contenders include: Elizabeth, Victoria and Mary. One site listed Khaleesi as an option, though neither of them strike me as Game of Thrones fans. Here is my list for names and why they may or may not be chosen.


Elizabeth

The name of the present Queen and the late Queen Mother. Elizabeth is also a popular middle name. Some royal ladies who have the name include: Princess Anne, Princess Beatrice, Lady Louise Windsor, Zara Tindall, great-granddaughter Isla Phillips, Margarita Armstrong-Jones, Lady Sarah Chatto, Lady Davina Lewis and Princess Alexandra to name a few (Phew!). Other than the present Queen, it is not used as a first name by anyone in the immediate line of succession to the throne, which means it is unlikely that there would be a 'muddle over two Elizabeth's in the family', as was the concern in 1926 when the present Queen was given her mother's name.


Alexandra

Princess Alexandra, Lady Ogilvy, is the only current member of the royal family to use it as a first name, though there are several family members who have it as one of their given names, including the present Queen. It was also the name of the consort of King Edward VII, the beautiful Queen Alexandra. It would be a wonderful way to pay tribute to Princess Alexandra, who also happens to be Prince William's godmother.


Mary

At present no member of the royal family uses Mary as a first name. Like Elizabeth and Alexandra, there are members of the family who have it amongst their given names, thus making it a refreshing change. It is also the name of the venerable Queen Mary, consort of King George V.


Victoria
Sixteen of Queen Victoria's granddaughters had Victoria amongst their given names but only five used it. Victoria continued to be included until the present Queen was born. It still appears as a middle name but no one currently bears Victoria as a first name so like Mary, it would be a refreshing change.

Diana

Some are betting on Diana being included but I highly doubt it. While it would be a nice tribute it would be a lot for a little girl to live up to.


Alice
The name of Prince Philip's mother and a middle name for Princess Anne, no one in the immediate family uses it as a first name. Thus making it ripe for a revival!

Charlotte

The name Charlotte has a tragic royal history after King George III's only legitimate grandchild, Princess Charlotte of Wales, died in childbirth. Her death started a race to produce an heir amongst the elderly king's middle aged sons. This race resulted in the birth of Queen Victoria.  It is also Pippa Middleton's middle name.


Although I would love to see another Princess Elizabeth in the family, I lean towards William and Kate choosing Victoria or Charlotte. As this second child is unlikely to succeed the throne, William and Kate have more freedom to choose a name. Rumor has it they are Downton Abbey fans. Could there be a Princess Marigold of Cambridge in the future? We will find out in April!


© Marilyn Braun 2015

Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.

Review: Reinventing The Royals - Part 1 - Crisis

A few months prior to its release, it was reported that  Buckingham Palace had attempted to prevent the broadcast of Reinventing the Royals, a two part series presented by Stephen Hewlett, about the relationship between the media and the monarchy. As in many cases with 'controversial' books or television specials, the controversy has turned out to be much ado about nothing. (You can watch the first episode at the bottom of this post).


Part One, titled Crisis, begins with the excessive coverage of Diana, Princess of Wales in the early 1990s and how her death resulted in changes to the way the media covers members of the royal family, specifically Prince William and Prince Harry. Several royal correspondents and editors offer their insights, including Penny Junor, Jennie Bond, Robert Jobson, Richard Kay, Arthur Edwards and Sandy Henney (Former press secretary to the Prince of Wales) to name a few. However, in the process of offering only one side, it effectively paints the media during this period at the mercy of Prince Charles and his spin doctors. To quote Richard Kay, "we know we are being used. We are always being used."


In the wake of Diana's death, Prince Charles reputation was at its lowest point and in 1996 he hired a spin doctor, Mark Bolland, then Director of the Press Complaints Commission. Effective in his outcomes but ruthless in his practices, Bolland promoted and revitalized Prince Charles's image at the expense of other members of the royal family and William and Harry's privacy. In a controversial campaign referred to as 'Operation Mrs. PB,' Charles relationship with Camilla Parker Bowles gained gradual acceptance via a series of strategically reported meetings and highly choreographed public appearances.


As Charles and Camilla's relationship gained legitimacy, interest in William and Harry intensified but they were protected by the 'Pressure Cooker Agreement,' negotiated in 1995 at the time William began his education at Eton.  This agreement protected the Princes privacy during their education, placing a ban on media stories about them. In exchange for their cooperation, the press would be granted occasional official access. However, the agreement threatened to deteriorate when the press received stories and photographs they could not use.


In order to satiate the press, Sandy Henney arranged for a photographer and cameraman to have access to Prince William to shoot images and footage for his 18th birthday. These images were meant to be shared with other media outlets, but the photographer involved in the photos, on contract to the Daily Telegraph, ended up giving that newspaper a competitive advantage. Rival newspapers accused Prince Charles' office of favoritism and Sandy Henney lost her job as a result of this arrangement.


Mark Bolland admitted to distorting events surrounding Prince Harry's drug use and later resigned from the Prince of Wales's office. As Bolland's efforts denigrated other members of the royal family, the Queen appointed Sir Michael Peat as the Prince of Wales' new private secretary, creating a new focus for his press office that put the media's relationship with them on more traditional ground.


Predictably, this was not likely to last. Part Two will air on February 26th.





© Marilyn Braun 2015


Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.

Here's what I did while Catherine Cambridge was away..

Huzzah, Catherine Cambridge has returned to royal duties! Well at least for today. This appearance was eagerly anticipated by royal correspondents, photographers, fashion bloggers and others concerned for the welfare of someone they will never meet.

 

Instead of fretting about her absence, I put this time to constructive use:

• I lost 35.5 pounds
• I circumnavigated the globe twice. 
• I didn't read War and Peace.
• I learnt how to play the didgeridoo (it was on my bucket list).
• I crocheted blankets, infant hats and booties for all babies in third world countries.
• I reviewed approximately ONE book (see valid excuses above).
• I complained via Twitter about other royal books I have no intention of reading.
• I googled hyperemesis gravidarum so I could cut and paste it into this article.

I regret this period of personal renewal coming to an end. From now until April my twitter feed will be filled with baby bumps, fashions, inappropriate pregnancy speculation, royal baby names, the biography of her gynecologist and therapists weighing in on the 'spare's' future psychological issues. People despairing at intrusive coverage then inadvertently contributing to it. In my case I will despair about this then (between didgeridoo performances and making nutritious lunches for my children), I will write scintillating commentary attempting to put it all into perspective.

Unfortunately there will be no escape form this coverage. Especially once April arrives and people attempt to beat the record for amount of times #royalbaby can be used on Twitter before it brings down the internet.

April can't come soon enough!

 

© Marilyn Braun 2014






Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.

Royal Review: On Duty With The Queen by Dickie Arbiter

'Explosive!'
'Betrayal!'
'Shocking!'
'Disloyal!'

Those are some of the descriptive words used by media outlets and royal correspondent colleagues to describe On Duty with the Queen prior to its release. Having just finished reading it, I can tell you that none of those words apply.

When books written by royal insiders come out, we tend to expect shocking revelations and salacious details. On Duty with the Queen is not that type of book. Dickie's memoir recounts his life before, during and after becoming a royal press secretary. We learn that he is a man of many talents: ice-skater, actor, art historian in training, journalist and broadcaster. Although I found his royal career interesting, I would have preferred to read more about his background. In particular, more about his mother who sounds like she is quite the character!

During his 12 year career as press secretary, Dickie had a front row seat as 'annus horribilis' unfolded, yet he diplomatically steers clear of speculation and passing judgment. Instead he focuses on business, clearing up misconceptions about royal protocol and providing a fascinating behind the scenes look into the press offices, royal tour planning, as well as the role he played in organizing Diana's funeral.

The few royal anecdotes he does provide only allow us a respectful glimpse. He does have his criticisms about members of the royal family, particularly in the aftermath of Diana's death. But he doesn't come across as an apologist for either side, as books by royal insiders tend to do. One of the most moving moments is when he recounts visiting Diana's casket in the Chapel Royal. Relations between Diana and the royal family were not nearly as black and white as the media would have us believe.

If you're looking for a book that includes intrusive details from former courtiers, there are more controversial books to choose from. Instead On Duty With The Queen provides an enjoyable insight into his life and role as a press secretary for the royal family.

© Marilyn Braun 2014

Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.

Move over Prince George, there's a new royal savior in town!

Dear Prince George,


Congratulations on your new brother or sister! (or both, depending on what tabloids you might be reading).


You may not be aware of it yet but big changes are coming. One day you will look back on these halcyon days when you were the royal baby. The mythical royal baby with pleasing features in a £55 Les Petites Abeilles romper suit, slaying republicans by doing nothing more than...nothing. You had the royal shtick down pat.


Now there's a new royal savior coming into town. Unfortunately this arrival means you will have to take a back seat on the world's stage for a while. Before  you throw a regal tantrum, remember that you will one day have all of the unearned glory that comes with being who you are. You will also have whatever is left of the kingdom if this new baby does not save it for you.


If the baby does save the union, he or she will have inestimable bragging rights to hold over you for the rest of your lives. If not, you can beat them up later. Either way, this could also lead to some uncomfortable thoughts. You may wonder...


Why didn't they recruit ME to save the kingdom? I was here ALL along?


I slayed republicans, I can handle Scotland too!


I already knew how to say NO!


Screw 'normal childhood', why didn't you politicize me more?


And once your parents get back from vacation they will have some explaining to do. They may tell you:


'you were napping,'
'the nanny didn't want to disturb you,'
'you looked so tired after slaying all of those big, bad republicans, we thought it best...'


Or they may try to blame YOU: 'we were ready to leave the house but you threw a tantrum...'


While there may be an element of truth to those answers, the simple one is this. Since time-immemorial people love babies. Their helplessness, disproportionate head to body ratio, large eyes...they are blank slates which you can project anything on to. By the time the new baby arrived, you were already your own distinct little person and therefore, less malleable and cooperative. Ultimately, nothing competes with a new baby. In other words, them's the breaks, kiddo!


So for now, enjoy being the royal baby. When your sibling arrives, they will get all of the attention, but you can take comfort in knowing you can always beat them up and pull rank when the time comes.


© Marilyn Braun 2014




Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.

Prince George is not the savior of the monarchy, he's just a baby

Happy Birthday Prince George!

Now that you have turned a year old, it is time for you to hit more milestones if you haven't done so already. First words, self-feeding, moving to big boy bed and pants, not to mention learning  how to live up to the world's expectations for you.

Oh, your parent's didn't tell you about that?

Yes, it seems that people consider you to be the savior of the monarchy. Google it and you will find various articles to that effect. The one who has raised the monarchy up from the past, dusted it off and made everyone look shiny and good. Those in close proximity to you - people who have worked dutifully for the monarchy and are relatively well respected for that work - can't help but benefit from the effect of your arrival. Yes, you have cleaned everyone up, made them lemon scented and fresh again. And all you had to do was be born.

Thank God! What would the monarchy have done without you?

But here's the thing. And this is something that people tend to forget in all of the fawning articles proclaiming you as a future king. You are a child. A child in a remarkable position to be sure. But still a child. For all of the news reports that  your parents want you to have a 'normal childhood' (whatever that means in royal terms) you won't. Not when our collective expectations are already on your wobbly shoulders. It wouldn't surprise me if you grew up hating the media and decided those expectations are too heavy and chose your personal happiness over duty instead. Insatiable interest tends to have that effect. There's even a precedent. Google it.

So while you are surrounded by adults at your whatever themed birthday party, looking befuddled at all of the fuss, insatiable interest waits outside your front door. Following you to the park, or to school, where you will just be trying to be a kid.

Ignore us while we make you more than that.

© Marilyn Braun 2014

Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.

Nothing like a good old royal twitter debate

I admit it.

There’s nothing I enjoy more than to get into a meaty discussion about royalty. Following twitter arguments where republicans go toe to toe with monarchists, journalists stirring the pot by bringing up divisive issues about royal privacy and whether Catherine Cambridge could should be doing more and then innocently denying the spoon in their hand.

Bring out the popcorn, I LOVE it.

Sometimes I wade into those arguments, which continue throughout the day until some exhausted person tweets ‘let’s agree to disagree’ and we all go back to our respective lives until the next divisive topic comes along. Because it is always fun to argue about something where our opinions have no effect whatsoever on the outcome!

In several cases I usually finding myself in the minority when expressing my viewpoints. Such was the case a few weeks back when Prince Carl Philip of Sweden became engaged to Sofia Hellqvist, who has a rather ‘colorful’ past. People argued how royal standards had lowered to the point where anyone could marry into the royal family regardless of how unsuitable we regarded them to be. How this type of stuff would harm the monarchy down the road. But some monarchies are fairly resilient. for instance, how many times have people claimed things would bring down the British monarchy, and yet they're still here?

Yes, I’m usually outnumbered. But dammit! Someone has to offer a counterpoint! I won’t discuss my views about William and Kate here because I’ve done that so many times in blog posts that I have nothing new to add. Twitter is a different story.

Back to Sofia Hellqvist and Prince Carl Philip. Yes she has a colorful past – posing nude as a teenager, amongst other damning things people do in their past and can do nothing to change now. But, to me, if the King and Queen are happy with Carl Philip’s choice then that’s what counts. Or at least it should. Look at Camilla and Charles. Disapproval galore but their PR campaign wore us down and 9 years later we can congratulate ourselves for forgetting everything that made her unsuitable to us in the first place.

The days when royalty was supposed to marry for only duty instead of happiness are fading. Many now marry for love. Sometimes successfully, sometimes not. But royalty is not supposed to be a life sentence of misery because no one approves of your choices. Plenty of people thought Kate Middleton was an inappropriate choice for Prince William because she is *gasp* (clutches pearls) a commoner! Some people still think she is an inappropriate choice. Should William have taken a poll about his choice of bride? Depends on who you ask.

People have very short memories. Forget the double standard about blood royal males misbehaving badly by having affairs. That’s OK. When it’s a woman, suddenly the future of the monarchy is in doubt. Why is that?

Discuss amongst yourselves on twitter, I’ll swing by later to join you.

Here’s my prediction, once Sofia Hellqvist appears in her elegant wedding dress donning a historic tiara and paying tribute to some obscure royal bride, people will forget. Suddenly she will magically transform into princess material and everything that made people question her suitability will be swept under a carpet - just like it was with Camilla.

Then we will have to find something new to argue debate about!

© Marilyn Braun 2014


 Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.

Royal Review: Royal Books for Children

To coincide with the arrival of Prince George, three clever and delightful children's books have been published. Appealing to young and old alike, my children enjoyed all of them.

Bubblegum Princess by Julie Gribble

Unlike the other books in this post Bubblegum Princess has nothing to do with the arrival of the royal baby. Instead the heroine of this book, Katy, spreads joy throughout the kingdom by blowing bubbles. Colorfully illustrated, it is a nice tale about being true to yourself and finding bubble-blowing kindred spirits in unlikely places. Don't be surprised if your son or daughter asks for bubblegum afterwards.

A Royal Fairytale by Adam Larkum

If you're looking for a children's book that condenses William and Kate's relationship into the traditional 'and they lived happily ever after' format then A Royal Fairytale is for you. Bypassing eight years of drama, and ignoring the infamous breakup altogether, this version has William and Kate meeting, falling in love, getting married and travelling the world. The only thing to make their happiness complete? Spoiler alert! They have a royal baby!

Shhh! Don't Wake the Royal Baby! by Martha Mumford

Out of the three books, I enjoyed this one the most. I read it as an e-book but I plan to get a hardcopy. Shhh! Don't Wake the Royal Baby is entertaining and keeps the reader guessing as William, Kate and the rest of the royal family find inventive ways to put the royal baby to sleep despite noisy corgis, changing of the guard, and Harry and Pippa's lavish party planning. After watching the Queen jump out of a helicopter at the Olympics, doing the same for her new great-grandson, doesn't seem so far fetched after all.


In honor of Prince George's upcoming first birthday, the author has written another book to mark the occasion: Happy Birthday, Royal Baby!
© Marilyn Braun 2014


Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.

Can Abdication be a good thing?

Today I woke up to the news that King Juan Carlos of Spain has decided to abdicate his throne. By doing so he joins the company of other recent former monarchs, including King Albert of Belgium and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands.


Like King Albert II's of Belgium, King Juan Carlos' reign has been mired by scandal and he is ill. Juan Carlos is also not popular amongst his subjects. In his place comes a younger, fresher and more glamorous royal family. Crown Prince Felipe and his wife Letizia. Their daughter Infanta Leonor becomes, for now, the youngest heir to a European throne. Belgium and the Netherlands have experienced similar changes, with vibrant and glamorous royal couples and their photogenic children in effect, breathing new life into their monarchies.


There are some that look upon abdication as a sign of weakness, of quitting and in comparison to Queen Elizabeth II, not having the same level of dedication to their roles. I disagree. I would wager a guess that they are more dedicated because they put aside hanging on to power in favor of the future. Reading the abdication speeches of these monarchs a common thread amongst them is handing over the reigns because it is in the best interests of their monarchies to do so. I also think there is an acknowledgement of reality in these decisions. Kings and Queens are mortal and they are also not martyrs.


Something that seems to be forgotten in this issue is that the Queen herself owes her current position to the abdication of her uncle King Edward VIII in 1936.  While it was a crisis at the time, it was also seen as a relief. Someone who many considered to be ill suited to the role had vacated the position. If the new King and Queen were not seen as nearly as glamorous, they radiated stability and dedication and with young Princess Elizabeth, a renewed sense of optimism in the future of the monarchy. It may have been a crisis, but no one could argue that good didn't come out of it.


Whenever a monarch abdicates it inevitably raises the question, will Queen Elizabeth II follow suit? For most people the response is a resounding NO. Articles supporting this viewpoint including quotes from her 21st birthday speech where she made her solemn declaration, dedicating herself to her subjects. We are also reminded of her sacred anointment at her Coronation and the oath she took. As if this is supposed to be the end of the discussion. However quoting a speech from 67 years ago ignores the ever present reality that the Queen is 88 and proving mortal by the minute.  She has more than lived up to expectations.


Maybe now is the time to adjust ours.


© Marilyn Braun 2014


Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.

Who is to blame for Kate's new bum rap?

Egads! Revealing photographs of Kate have been published - yet again!


In this case the photographs are from her recent tour of New Zealand/Australia showing her dress blown up by the wind showing her bottom in all its glory. This is not the first time her skirt has blown up revealing more than we needed to see, and I'm waging a guess that it won't be the last.


Now on to the crucial part: Who is to blame for all of this?


The royal watching twitterverse fired up with various explanations, scenarios, excuses, good reasons, bad reasons. The whole gamut of reactions covered. Bad article title puns (ahem), feminist rallying cries, heated exchanges and people unfollowed forever for expressing differing opinions! Stop the insanity! For the love of God it's a butt. WE ALL HAVE ONE!

So who gets the blame? Some blame the photographer - she shouldn't have taken such a prurient picture and then *gasp* sold it. Some blame the media, in this case, foreign publications which dared to publish those photos.

And most divisive of the arguments, some blamed Kate herself. As we have seen her skirt blow up before, the twitterverse offered commonsense tips for future reference: Kate should choose a different dress, put weights in the hems, wear longer skirts or trousers around helicopters.

However there was another side to those tweets blaming Kate. Some defended her, portraying her as the victim whose privacy had been invaded.  Other tweets had a disturbing 'she was asking for it,' tone. I don't think she is a victim but I don't think she helps herself in these situations either, especially when it has happened more than once. Regardless of what Kate was wearing, did those photos need to be taken? Did they need to be published? No. Is it a surprise that they were taken and published? Given the usual media coverage of Kate, no not really.

What is curious about this incident is people crying invasion of Kate's privacy. Not necessarily because of where she was, in a public place, performing royal duties. No, it was because we saw something we shouldn't have seen (If only we had looked away!)We all have a bottom but for some reason, Kate's is special and now in the public domain when it shouldn't be.

One party that seemed to be forgotten in the blame game. Us. Given how minutely her appearance is dissected, it is only natural that every aspect of her appearance would be seen as fair game. People who complain now that she is being objectified because of this appearance will be the same ones who objectify her over the color of her toe nails or a run in her pantyhose. Doing so feeds the interest and creates the demand for more. Even if it crosses a line we deem unacceptable.

I know where I place the blame for all of this. Do you?


© Marilyn Braun 2014
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.

Catherine Cambridge: Saving the monarchy one pretty dress at a time

During previous royal tours I've tried to be more active when it comes to blogging. With William and Catherine's New Zealand and Australian tour, I'm having a hard time rousing myself to write anything about it. What is there really to say other than to write about Catherine's wardrobe and Prince George's cuteness? To be quite honest, it's boring.


Not to say that I haven't been paying attention. Like anyone else, I'm curious about Prince George, how big he has grown. My initial interest in royalty started with the birth of his father, Prince William, so I would be rather remiss to ignore George now, wouldn't I?


So, why am I writing about this tour now?


Media coverage of the royal tour has bordered on the ridiculous. Royal Commentators falling all over themselves to make it sound like William, Catherine and George walk on water. Claims by smug monarchists about how they have reduced the Republican movement to ashes by their very presence. To be quite honest it makes me angry.


A lot of the success of the tour has been attributed to Catherine, how she has charmed people and what she wears. There is no denying that Catherine has done a great job. William, normalcy craving royal is comfortable in his supporting role. Then there's George. Adorable? Yes and you would have to have ice-water in your veins to criticize him. To see the family actually at work is wonderful and long overdue. Judging by how much they enjoyed their speedboat races, wine tasting and trips to the zoo, they seem to be enjoying this grueling tour immensely. So many great photo-opportunities, it's enough to blind anyone on the fence.


Having said all of that, I'm tired of reading the cavity inducing coverage. Watching how the media can bend over backwards to make the most mundane moments sound remarkable. I'm tired of reading about how much Catherine and George's clothes cost and how fast they sell out.  Crowd turnout is obviously great but how many crowd members are ardent monarchists or are just showing up out of curiosity to get selfies? Clothes selling out and crowd size seems to be rather flimsy evidence that the republican movement has been set back. If anything it I see it as evidence of how weak the pro-monarchy arguments are when it is so dependent on Catherine's clothes and how cute George is at the moment.


The real argument about the future of the monarchy can be found in what happens when the family returns to the UK. Will they maintain the momentum and dive into supporting the monarchy? Or will they disappear on their third vacation of the year, wearing a new dress at the occasional engagement to muffle the noise of the critics?


Old habits die hard and that doesn't bode well for the future of the monarchy.


© Marilyn Braun 2014


Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.