One’s face is on coins and stamps; the other, television screens and trashy magazines. The former’s notoriety comes from presiding over a Commonwealth, the latter’s celebrity was spurred by her being drenched in urine in a “leaked” sex tape. While the dichotomy of both women is plainly apparent, both have visited Australia in the past fortnight, yet one captured more media attention than the other. Sadly, it wasn’t the head of state, Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, it was in fact she who won’t be named for fear of adding more crumpled NW and Who magazines to the perpetual publicity inferno. So how does a promotional visit to hawk a line of handbags in a department store eclipse a state visit?
They refer to themselves as a ‘klan’; not just a family, but now a commercial entity pimped out by the matriarch of the aspirational succession-named kin who all but own the letter ‘K’. They’ve dubbed their clothing line a ‘kollection’, they’ve signed their names to everything from credit cards emblazoned with the trio of sisters’ highly Photoshopped images to incontinence pads, yet one unintentional-yet-material endorsement they’ve made follows their moniker: they define the word ‘kommon’.
Both the Queen’s and the Queen of Publicity’s celebrity are undisputedly unattainable. Both have been born into a life of privilege—one through a centuries-old bloodline, the other from one’s family’s profile and bank account-building litigation involving bloodshed. Both aren’t free of their controversy, scandal and persistent public questioning of their relevance, yet only one of these women can call themselves a lady.
The young woman in question and her attention-seeking family aren’t entirely to blame. She represents a league of Parisses, Taras and Lindsays who have defined a societal obsession with celebrity, no matter their irrelevance in the functioning of the planet. Unfortunately, the mere debate of her pertinence renders her an irrefutable remark on contemporary society and popular culture. A minor transgression captured using modern-day media has turned a fifteen minutes of infamy into a career of sorts and she’s not solely responsible.
There are those who have bolstered this so-called vocation, providing the financial backing and means of distribution for she and her comrades to enter the public consciousness. She represents not only the multimillion dollar industry comprised of talent (in its most generous translation) and appearance fees, licensing deals and other flotsam; but other peripheral investment, including the paparazzi flocking to her to document and profit from her every move.
As such, this was the case with her whirlwind visit to Australia to promote her aforementioned kollection. Striding through a wake of media headlines concerning her sudden filing for divorce after a truncated and—in some some circles—sham wedding that aspired to replicate another recent nuptial ceremony of royal proportions, hordes of international media flocked to Sydney while she marched by in staged sullenness, sunglasses attached to her face. It brought traffic to a standstill, a privilege afforded to the visiting dignitary only a week before—and why? Presumably the world’s alacrity to venerate her invented “reality”.
Is she worthy of such intent scrutiny? No. Has she capitalised on an embarrassing situation and made more than a few dollars out of it? Most certainly. There’s being intelligent and there’s being shrewd. There’s being business savvy and there’s being a sell-out. With fame and attention, whether earned or undeserved, comes responsibility; and neither should be doled out indiscriminately. The same could be said for the Queen. However, one should remember that whatever one’s view on the monarchy, one should never confuse mediocrity with meritocracy.
The message here is that an example has been set for those who are too young to make informed moral and social decisions. Young girls might aspire to be princesses, albeit futilely, however, they should also dream of becoming career women, deriving success from intelligence and poise, and not just possessing virtues of present-day attractiveness. It’s an incredibly discomforting indictment on society when reality television personalities can reduce children to tears out of sheer fanaticism, whilst the Queen can only hope to elicit an elated smile and a bunch of flowers.
Known for salacity as much as her brilliant career, Coco Chanel once said, “Well-behaved women rarely made history,” however, a vast distinction exists between towing the line of social nicety and behaving like an animal.
Phaz
6 months ago
I agree with pretty much everything you said. Though it is worth noting that, while the queen does not reduce teenagers to tears, Prince William and Prince Harry most certainly have that effect upon legions.