The highest-rated comment is:
I know I'm alone in my thinking but having a "brand" and putting your entire life on Instagram (owned by Facebook) strikes me as quite tawdry, especially when you exploit your children in the process. Whether a Royal or a Hollywood star, the shamelessness, the egomaniacal way famous people present themselves in order to self promote and make money is sickening. Whatever happened to mystery, decorum, privacy, and discretion? I do not go on Instagram and never will. It also seems so hypocritical that Meghan left England because she did not want to be the focus of the British press but she is doing all she can to become as famous as possible. You can't seek fame and then complain about the scrutiny you might receive.
Posts
36 comments:
My son-in-law, who is a sculptor, has 43,000 followers on Instagram and it selling his sculptures as fast as he can make them. My wife showed him an ad for similar items in Architectural Digest and he raised his prices. Learning economics and the role of supply and demand.
Never underestimate the ability of a celebrity to exhibit single wide trailer park behavior
Markle is absolute. But sometimes, trash gets lucky. Look at Britney Spears.
My Instagram account is mostly pictures of my kids, pets, or weather.
I follow a couple of bakeries who really post too many pictures of laminated dough.
These charlatans are moving to Canada and Canada is paying millions of dollars to provide them security. What have we done to deserve this? Fricking abdicate and go away. I hear Idaho is nice.
They need to make Kate the new Queen and disappear the rest of them.
They should call it Instagasm because it only takes 15 seconds before you want to fall asleep.
From the Telegraph:
"Scotland Yard officers could be forced to live in Canada for months at a time, it has emerged, amid a row over whether the Duke and Duchess of Sussex should contribute towards an estimated £10 million annual security bill.
The couple’s unprecedented protection arrangements will create a huge strain on police resources now that Canada has confirmed it will stop guarding them when they step down as working royals."
Oh, how we yearn for the days when celebrity insta-gram was a coke dealer.
Tcrosse
Merci. Lord be praised our prime minstrel finally did something right.
But, Idaho is still nice.
Am not on Instagram but I began skimming that article-- beyond the puzzle and doubts about the Senate confirming what's his name as DNI, what was of immediate interest at the Times this morning?-- and it kept going and going, but alas I must confess that I kept skimming to the end. The attempt to convert it into a spoof of a Shakespearean tragedy was clever but confined to the section titles & in any event not clever enough to make me actually read the piece.
"The attempt to convert it into a spoof of a Shakespearean tragedy was clever..."
I found it really annoying. The story was so elongated and there wasn't anything humorous enough in the trope. Just random peppering with old-time crap like "To wit..."
"The attempt to convert it into a spoof of a Shakespearean tragedy was clever..."
I found that really annoying. The story was so elongated and there wasn't anything humorous enough in the trope. Just random peppering with old-time crap like "To wit..."
"Romeo and Juliet" is about hot and unfortunate true love. The 2 royal couples in question are old and seem all about advancing their worldly power. Romeo and Juliet just wanted to love each other. Imagine if they wanted to use social media to make us feel their relationship. The whole point of them was that they were entirely wrapped up in each other.
"What have we done to deserve this?"
Sometimes the passive part of passive-aggressive comes back to bite you in the ass.
Hmmm. Make money? Pay taxes? Support my Social Security? Pray continue.
"You can't seek fame and then complain about the scrutiny you might receive."
When you're a Woman of Colour, you can do any fucking thing you want.
"You can't seek fame and then complain about the scrutiny you might receive."
Of course you can. The modern examples are myriad.
I hear Idaho is nice.
France, Italy, Spain and Austria are nicer. Europe needs to keep it's Eurotrash in Europe.
That security funding angle makes this fun to watch, for me, at least.
Here’s a much cleverer Shakespeare/social media mashup.
Hamlet Facebook Newsfeed Edition
Apologies if I’ve posted this twice. Blogger troubles.
The highest-rated comment is:
The better second-ranked comment is something along the lines of "yawn" or "meh."
The best and highest ranked comment on this matter is the one that is not made. The one that rightly ignores this waste of time and doesn't bother to say anything. (If only we had more of that here.)
So basically, William,Kate, Harry and Meghan were all one Instagram account. Harry and Meghan started their own account. Eventually their account reached an audience similar to, but slightly smaller than William and Kate’s. And it has stayed that way. Isn’t that what one would expect? People who like to follow the Royals would follow both, but there is probably a subset of those who prefer to follow only the heir. And there are probably a subset that don’t want to follow ex-royals.
There seem to be two constants in this equation:
1. At least Meghan, and possibly Harry too, want to retain the royal prerogatives without the royal obligations.
2. Meghan is a complete piece of work.
Meghan's PR firm has probably created fake followers in order to pass the Cambridge's total.
If they hadn't been so impetuous, R & J would have started bumping off other family members when she became preggers.
Bill ROT
All places outside Canada are nice. They might consider St Helena.
She's American. Neither of them are Canadian.
So, what is the mystery?
They're only famous if people click on them. Says more about the people clicking than superfluous superstars.
Hmmmm. Does he have the legal right to live in Canada because he's Royal? Does she have the equivalent of a Canadian green card? Interesting-- not just anyone can live anywhere they want.
I receive an email newsletter I signed up for a while ago and am too lazy to unsubscribe. It's all marketing, and it seems to use the Royal "news" to sell beauty and fashion products. They presented the latest as Meghan *offering to continue to represent the queen, but without taking public money*. Which is quite the spin. Harry and Meghan offered to keep using the Royal title without taking on any responsibilities or, for that matter, being royal.
It would be interesting to know which group is more decrepit, Times readers or Althouse readers.
Imagine if they wanted to use social media to make us feel their relationship. The whole point of them was that they were entirely wrapped up in each other.
Sure. I mean, I see and agree with your point as it touches the private Romeo and Juliet. On the other hand, the tragedy itself derives from the conflict between their religious and social obligations and their private desire for each other (and these-- religion/society/role of individual etc-- were in upheaval in Shakespeare's lifetime). I see some of that in the play between the Cambridges and the Sussexes, not that Caity Weaver is much concerned with it. I don't doubt that the Capulet and Montague lords would have used social media to their advantage were it available; as you suggest, Juliet and Romeo themselves wouldn't have done.
As it happens, Handel's Agrippina is being sung now at the Met. The drama there is made for social media chaos, it seems to me: the principals are all of them aspirants to power, whatever currents of 'true love' they indulge in.
The article doesn’t show 2 houses at war with each other and one couple in love, one from each house.
It shows 2 couples all from the same house and the couples are competing with each other to win favor from the general populace.
Even if you posit Cambridge and Sussex as two houses, you don’t have a couple with one from each house, drawing the two houses together to the dismay of everyone else in the houses.
There isn’t even anyone else in those houses. Those houses were invented for the purpose of giving that couple a name.
"You can't seek fame and then complain about the scrutiny you might receive."
Megan's just not into the "oblige" part of "noblesse oblige."
Meanwhile the two Princesses in the House of York are trying to find their place in the scheme of things in light of their Dad's disgrace.
Oh, indeed; you are requiring much more coherence etc in your critique than I need for the indulgence of my idle speculations. Obviously there is no Juliet and no Romeo in the Weaver nonsense; such interest as there is in the melodrama of the Cambridges and the Sussexes so far as I'm concerned lies in the conflict between duty/family and betrayal of duty/romantic fulfillment: I ought to have just written that, I guess, at 2:22.
Those houses were invented for the purpose of giving that couple a name.
I believe they were given dukedoms so the wives could be officially something besides HRH the Princess William and HRH the Princess Henry.
Yes, Idaho is still nice--in part, because H. and M. are nowhere to be found.
Post a Comment