Pt 2. Ultimately he thinks this branding approach destroys monarchy. And that is Diana’s real legacy. Whether she want5ed it or not. Her appeal was to those who held a grievance especially women. Not because she was some great humanitarian. So Markle in order to achieve her Diana status must appeal to that same sense of grievance – she was done wrong by the BRF. And that is what the BRF must not let happen. Hence the mil wardrobe and all these gestures of acceptance.
This is very insightful too. It explains the constant “protocol breaches” articles and all the other pieces we are seeing right now (loves garlic but can’t eat it, etc…). I thought the change of title of that NYPost article was interesting. It went from “fashion disaster” to “royal life destroyed her style” and then started getting copied.
I think there is a real thirst out there for the “royal victim” narrative right now. I think the sugars think it’s because of racism and many of my anons think it’s Meghan manipulating the coverage, but I think your “grievance attraction” theory should get a hearing. There seems to be a thirst out there for that particular story. No matter how much money they spend on this woman or how many “bffs with HM” pics they put out there, it simply will not go away.
Hitchens has a ton of observations which are relevant to the Markle Debacle. But his notion that Monarchy survives because of successful pr branding rather than an actual understanding of what makes Monarchy positive for Britain is very astute IMHO. HM is now through “branding” the Nation’s Grandmother, Harry and Will are credible because they are Diana’s sons. Hence necessitating the constant playing of the Diana card. Pt. 1
Published
House of Brat 