Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t one of the main reasons for Harry and Meghan’s dramatic flight to freedom that they – and their children – would finally be able to lead a life away from a ‘toxic media environment’, one that was adversely affecting their mental health?
So why now do they seem to be exposing their children to precisely the same sort of pressures and scrutiny that they themselves found so oppressive? Barely a day goes by without some coy video or picture of Archie (six) and Lilibet (four) on the Duchess of Sussex’s Instagram page.
To be fair, I always had a grain of sympathy for their situation. Not so much in the case of the Duchess, who it seems to me has always vigorously courted fame, but for Harry.
After all, it was never his choice to grow up in the glare of the media spotlight. He was put there by accident of birth, by the actions of his parents and the drama of their tempestuous marriage, and by the tragic death of his mother.
And while as a young boy he was somewhat shielded from scrutiny, inevitably as he grew older the eyes of the world followed him everywhere.
That can’t have been easy, which is why I am genuinely baffled as to why he appears to be doing nothing to prevent a similar fate happening to his own two. Indeed, he is frequently absent in these charming tableaux of Montecito life. One wonders sometimes if he’s even aware of them at all.
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t one of the main reasons for Harry and Meghan’s dramatic flight to freedom that they – and their children – would finally be able to lead a life away from a ‘toxic media environment’?
What is the purpose of this increasing exposure? While the Wales’s children regularly participate in official royal appearances, the Sussex babies have no such duty to fulfil. And yet their mother seems intent on turning them into public figures. Why?
The answer is obvious: they are part of her brand. When you look at the children of celebrities, this is something you see a lot.
Take someone like Blue Ivy, for example, daughter of Beyonce, or North, daughter of Kim Kardashian. They are similar ages (14 and 12 respectively) and they both regularly appear with their mothers, Blue Ivy as a singer on stage, North in various ‘influencer’ guises.
Were either given a choice? I doubt it. Are they happy with it? Probably, for now at any rate. After all, they are too young to know any better.
And yet, as we know from what Brooklyn Beckham has said, forcing your child into the spotlight, however well-intentioned, does not always play out well.
Indeed, in his case, it lies at the root of his feelings of animosity towards his family.
Brooklyn has spoken about his parents having ‘controlled his narrative’ throughout his life and described family events as ‘performative’ and ‘inauthentic’. And as much as one might think him a tad ungrateful (after all, his parents have afforded him a life most can only dream of), he has a point. As parents, we don’t own our children. They are not ours to monetise, or to live vicariously through. We have a duty, of course, to guide and educate them, and inevitably they will be shaped by who we are. But ultimately what they do in life should be up to them – with a few exceptions.
When I read that Elizabeth I was to be portrayed as a trans woman, I assumed it must be some April 1 hangover. But no, apparently it’s true. Seems that if a woman is successful, it must be because she is actually a man.
In the case of royal children, they are constrained by duty or tradition. Their options are limited, and that is both a burden and an advantage.
On the one hand, they will never have to worry about getting a job or a mortgage. On the other, their choices in life are limited. It’s a gilded cage.
If, however, like Harry, you choose to reject all that then why, pray tell, would you build a similar prison for your own children? Archie and Lilibet are both royals and the children of celebrities, which means that they are even more vulnerable to the pressures of fame.
And yet, as we see day after day, week after week, the Duchess teases their existence like a trailer for a reality TV show: skiing, crashing a photoshoot, hunting for Easter eggs... all framed as adorable family moments, which I’m sure they are; but that’s not all.
Especially when you remember that the Duke and Duchess purchased several domain names, including one called lilibetdiana.com. It does make you wonder what the ultimate purpose of all this is.
Prince Harry knows the pain of not being able to control his destiny, his narrative. He has burnt many bridges and broken many hearts in his quest to be free.
And yet, I fear, he is in danger of allowing history to repeat itself.
HBO’s Euphoria – think Mean Girls on steroids (well, meth, actually) – has made huge stars of its young actors – Hunter Schafer, Sydney Sweeney (left), Jacob Elordi and, of course, Zendaya, who is married to teeny-tiny Tom Holland. But the premiere of the much anticipated third series was not a happy one: Sweeney appeared ostracised by many cast members – and especially Zendaya, who ignored her. Rumour has it that Sweeney had been flirting with Holland – but the truth is none of them can stand her because, unlike most actors, she votes Republican. They’ve even christened her ‘Maga Barbie’. Isn’t socialism lovely?
It was announced last week that Patum Peperium, also known as ‘Gentleman’s Relish’, a club room staple for almost 200 years, has ceased production. This has caused outrage in certain quarters – including with my ex-husband Michael Gove (who is practically made of the stuff, having adopted it as a food staple during his recent bachelor revival). He’s now leading a campaign to save the anchovy paste (best enjoyed wafer-thin on hot toast) along with Henry Dimbleby, co-founder of Leon. In the meantime, if you want to get your hands on a pot, be quick: remaining stocks are already changing hands for hundreds of pounds. Although I suspect that’s because Michael may have stockpiled them all.
Does Sadiq Khan really think that spending millions setting up youth clubs will make a difference to the kind of violence that cost the life of 21-year-old Finbar Sullivan, who was stabbed to death on a sunny evening in Primrose Hill recently?
There is a whole culture, fuelled by music and drugs, that drives this kind of violence. The gangs are not going to just give up and play tiddlywinks instead. The bald truth is that thugs with knives act with impunity knowing the police can’t challenge them, and woke politicians like Khan will always find some kind of bleeding-heart excuse. They need boundaries, not babying.
Bring back stop and search. So what if some people get offended? Better that than dead.
I always longed for another series of the brilliant W1A, written and directed by John Morton and starring Hugh Bonneville as the BBC’s beleaguered Head of Values. Well, I’m happy to say that my prayers have (almost) been answered: Bonneville returns as Ian Fletcher, now Director of Integrity for the team heading preparations for this year’s World Cup, alongside the legendary dimwit Will (Hugh Skinner). Pure, unalloyed silliness, of the sort that the BBC does best.
It really does beggar belief that the UN has voted to include the Islamic Republic of Iran (you know, the one that rapes, tortures and executes girls and women on a daily basis and funds terrorism across the Middle East) on the Committee For Programme And Coordination – which shapes policy on (wait for it…) women’s rights, human rights and terrorism. Even worse, Britain was one of the nations that approved this madness. Another shameful day for our country.
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。