A British official rants against Prince George. Was that appropriate?

William and Kate's son has just celebrated his third birthday, but photos of the young prince have become the subject of internet debate – a reality that may be par for the course for a royal in the digital age.

|
Matt Porteous/Handout/AP
Prince George with the family dog Lupo, at the family's home in Sandringham in Norfolk, England. The photo was released by the royal family as part of the celebration of Prince George's third birthday on July 22, 2016.

The appetite in the British media for photographs of young Prince George, British royals William and Kate’s firstborn son, was satiated last week when Prince William’s office released four photographs of the child, in honor of his third birthday.

The photos caused a mini publicity storm last week when British animal welfare group, Royal Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals, reacted to one of the photos showing George feeding Lupo, the family dog, ice cream and released a statement against feeding dairy products to pets.

But media chit-chat surrounding photos of the young prince was not to remain so, well, vanilla. On Monday, British paper, The Sun, exposed Facebook comments written by Angela Gibbins, head of global estates for the British Council, where she accuses the boy of embodying “white privilege.”

Commenting on an earlier photo of George, Ms. Gibbins says his “cheeky grin” reveals his “innate knowledge that he’s Royal, rich, advantaged and will never know *any* difficulties or hardships in life.” She calls on viewers to compare him to 3-year-old Syrian refugee children, according to The Sun.

While the comments were made on Gibbins’s private account, the British Council released a statement the following day saying that it has started disciplinary procedures against Gibbins, whom they do not name. The statement says that the council “expects the highest standards of our staff and in accordance with our code of conduct” and that her comments have “absolutely no connection to the British Council.”

The British Council is a cultural organization that promotes British culture and English language throughout the world; it is partially funded by tax-payer dollars, The Telegraph reports. Formed by a royal charter, its patrons are Queen Elizabeth II and Charles, Prince of Wales, who incidentally are Prince George’s great-grandmother and grandfather.

It is unclear if Gibbins will lose her job or issue an apology over the incident, which has gained much attention, but online responses from the public challenged her stance, and appeared to be particularly riled by the fact that the comments were about a child, the Sun reports.

In an online defense of her comments, apparently made before the exchange was made public, Gibbins said that she stands behind her social opinions, explaining that her anger is not against the child, but a “system that creates privilege.”

“I don’t believe the royal family have any place in a modern democracy, least of all when they live on public money,” she wrote, according to The Daily Beast.

The conversation about the place for the royal family in the modern world has been ongoing, but tradition – and public adoration both in Britain and around the world – have maintained the institution.

"The royal family is still relevant because it provides a point of unity," Erik Goldstein, a professor of international relations and history at Boston University, told The Christian Science Monitor this spring. "They would have to do something deeply unpopular to risk their position because nobody has proposed a viable alternative for the country."

But the level between staying in the public eye and maintaining privacy has long been a challenge for royals, sometimes with dark consequences. Paparazzi was unofficially implicated in the crash that led to the death of William's mother, the former Princess Diana, and Kate has weathered her share of photographic scandal when topless beach photos appeared in a French publication.

The commentary around photos of Prince George is all the more poignant given the level of privacy that William and Kate have maintained around their young family, even threatening to take action against a photographer who crossed lines when George was a toddler. According to the Associated Press, the British media has an agreement not to target photo coverage on royal children, in exchange for scheduled photoshoots with the royal family. 

William and Kate have not commented on the recent incident involving the British Council employee. 

But in the age of social media the way that photos are both viewed and commented on continues to evolve, as George may learn from an early age.

Material from the Associated Press and Reuters was used in this report.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to A British official rants against Prince George. Was that appropriate?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2016/0727/A-British-official-rants-against-Prince-George.-Was-that-appropriate
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe