Lights, camera, celebs.. hypocrisy!

The film festival that wants to save the planet

I feel more 'aware' even as I write...

There were moments where I felt that maybe a little introspection was having a salutary effect, but my irony alert meter eventually did break its needle.

But for poetry in prose, this cannot be equalled...

Here we are, 150 film-makers and journalists from all over the world, congregated in a luxurious hotel, fed succulent fruits with impossibly beautiful names – the cupuacu, caju, abacaxi, the pupunha and the jambo – and connected to intravenous drips of caipirinha, looking across the inky-black waters of the aptly named Rio Negro, the river that will take us into the Amazon. Here we are, ostensibly, to discuss the end of the world.

Of course, to some '"The best way to convince people today is through film, through the image".

To others, perhaps, a better way is by example.

Nice motors, shame aboutthe colour

Leonardo DiCaprio, the star who helped turn Hollywood green

'As well as his Toyota Prius, his latest car is equally in tune with the times - a BMW H7, which runs on hydrogen.'

Must be tricky driving both at once.

'may look like a fuel-hungry executive saloon - but it burns hydrogen, not petrol'

And just because the fuel is not petrol that makes it less hungry... how? And what is the enviROI of hydrogen at the moment?

Getting Fry'd

A Google ad link popped up on site (hence, I guess, paid for):

Stephen Fry on Climate Change

I know he's just another celeb. But he's bright lad and I rate his intellect. His piece is too short and very simplistic, but the main plea he makes resonates well, if not addressing how one deals with some of the other consequences of such advocacy (which sort of proves the problem, and his point, by providing an angle for those who would do nothing to highlight. Hence I think one has to at least tip to the 'Economics vs. Environment' balances). Sadly these are the down sides of what some say must be done (or not), and are in the hands of our hapless pols.

Interesting comments in reply, pro and con, though following my recent thoughts on where moderation becomes censorship, and the need for some rules, I do note the system on Friction.tv does seem to allow some comments to stay up that I would not.

The % agree/neutral/disagree bar is a surprise. Without letting my own bias intrude, I would have thought it would reflect more sympathy to this view, and makes one wonder about the value of such things (if used to explain or justify anything, but certainly 'CO' vs. 'CP' views, as all too often can happen in news hungry 24/7 media environments) as valid, viable information tools. One is, after all, talking a base of... 31 (at time of writing). As one thread contributor posed, in light of his popularity, and as this has been up 4 months, it is surprising how few have engaged, especially in support. I had heard of Friction tv, and am signed up I think, but it has not passed my radar for a long while.

Beautiful Creatures

I tend to steer clear of overt ecological stuff as it really doesn't fall under the Junkk.com remit, but here's a link from a film director chum of mine's promo of a feature with a famous Chinese actress.

Zhang Ziyi 'A Conservation Story'

He assures me that this lady is very sincere in her advocacy (and not likely to be off by Lear next week to a fur Expo), so the key is how this is impacting on local audience... not usually noted for being too worried about nature when 'to be rich is glorious' kinda comes first.

I guess celeb endorsement can be a good thing, but needs managing very carefully.

I promised I'd pop it up.. and so here you are!

You're 'aving a larf'

My view on this From Emo to Ego from Grist about another celeb awareness... er.. effort

'What will be the fallout?', they ask.

Let's see...

'...the band will board a private jet...' as the first line in the PR seems to set it up.

Kinda compounded, if explained by '...MTV News will be with the band every step of the way..'

But it's OK, because 'This certainly outdoes last February's FOB stunt, Infinity Flight 206...'

Boggling the mind, mind, is that this is billed as '..teaming up with Greenpeace for the concert, in the hopes of raising awareness about global warming.'

Know what? I think folk may be pretty 'aware' about Probably Man Worsened Climate Change (Global warming is, so like, last year... if not plain inaccurate) by now, but celebs and eco-elites and rating-priority media swanning about in jets to do it all may well be the bigger message that gets sent around the world, and hence again give cause to ponder the value of many self-appointed messengers. And those who give them page space. Like us. Funny old word, eh?

What next? Hey, I have an idea! Leonardo, Tamsin, Madge et Al can hook up with Top Gear and fly (commecial of course) their Priuses to the Antarctic for a Celebrity Destruction Derby!

This is getting so bizarre I figure there is method to this madness, but it's so subtle I am missing it.

Meanwhile, much more importantly...

There's a little slot at the end of the BBC morning news.

It's reserved for Yummy Mummies (and, it seems, dozy, slobby, homeworking Dads) having a wee moment having kicked the kids off to school, the spouse to real work and just finshed sorting the debris all this has left.

It's usually celeb-lite time.

But, in keeping with Auntie's new civic awareness, the PR's pushing their clients forward usually need a bit more to sweetn the deal than they act in some soap. And a cause is always a good one. I just wish all concerned were not so naked in what the real reasons for appearing are, and scoot so superficially over the theoretical actual reason for them being on.

So today we had one Tamsin Outhwaite on matters 'green'. I seem to recall her being on in this regard before*, so she has a bit of form. But for a moment it looked promising. Something about green heroes and awards, and a woman in Wandsworth who has created a site called Nappy Valley to help with reuse (Good luck. I rather think that, as with JunkkYard, FreeCycle has kind of been there and done it).

But before I could jot anything down it was on to her new TV series, a gritty drama based....

Which is, I'm betting, what the site will be on about (actually, it's on ITV, so maybe not), rather than sharing her insights on not leaving the TV on standby, not having a bath, etc.

*Addendum - found it. To be fair, the same cause. Different, though brand new, career event though.

Green Pop

Just saw the Andrew Marr show, which featured singer/songwriter KT Tunstall.

A great talent, and a clearly passionate environmentalist, I however could not but feel that rich pops stars, whose job does require certain sacrifices, talking to comfy BBC interviewers, may not be the best way to 'sell' green to the masses, or even get across the most enviROi+ way of setting about things. I am afraid I felt moved to write, a tad tongue in cheek, to question a few points she made that cranked my eyebrow:

I am immediately going to set about ripping out all in my home to replace with all the insulations and gizmos she has done. And if there is any money left over I will certainly no longer buy the kids £5 jeans when it’s clear they need to cost £30 or more. I wish I was a pop star and could share such great green examples with everyone.

Or afford to.

Two for the price of one.

Or... here's somebodies we flew in earlier: Bono and Gore have an answer, not a solution

Eco(nomic) development vs. Eco(logical) preservation.

Hmmn. Tricky.

Sadly I have to agree that with a growing global population with some major concentrations about to make the leap from 3rd to 1st world (is there a second? I never seem to hear of that stage) status (with all the aspirations and consequences that will bring) I can't see the result being that great for the latter.

So, like many, I have a lot of questions, a load of answers... and precious few solutions (well, a couple that do try to involve motivating and doing, rather than depressing and berating) that at least that have a political ice cube's chance in the sheer hell of a Bali post-conference poolside cocktail. Or a refugee overnighting in a Davos storm drain.

Thing is, I rather suspect there are quite a lot of others in the same boa... er... cattle class... er... business... er... first... er... private plane seat, all with same lack of tangibles to provide. It does now provide a nice little earner for an ever-growing cabal.

But having too long been fed a domestic diet of 'not acceptable', 'needs looking at' and 'won't be easy' by those addicted to gobbling down and squandering funds into holes of various hues (most lately green ones on endless quango comms budgets to tell us to do stuff as consumers - or else - which the systems have not yet been prepared to accommodate to a decent enviROI+), I'm a tad tired with yet more pointless wittering from those totally isolated from any consequences of anything. And those camp followers chasing them about the globe with a vested interest in not rocking the gravy train, comortably along for the ride in the observation carriages

So I have to agree with such as Post 8, Mr. McGilloway, that whatever messages do get spouted, we need a new breed of messenger PDQ. Because if they have lost me, then what effect their 'situations' and how they get portrayed by the inevitable cynical mechanisms that exist (so you now need to work with this fact, which is why you don't hire Pete and Kate to front a health lifestyle campaign) in this modern age has on much lite-er greens can only be imagined.

One has to presume their sincerity and applaud their commitment (nice not to have to worry too much about paying the rent, mind, but hey), but it does seem that there are mental blocks in place in pondering if they are really getting things across to the masses in the best ways possible, and not just pandering incestuously more to their mates behind the VIP Green Room velvet ropes? Warm and fuzzy, to be sure, but not making my kids' futures look any rosier, I'm afraid.

So yes, these two talking about, much less commenting upon cutting back on lifestyle excesses does indeed seem a stretch to empathise, and engage with if you are more Fiesta Family than 'One of my other car's is a Prius' Person.

And they are more than pandered to by an equally illogical, nannying media, who seem to be operating on set agenda and box-ticking mode in trotting out anything 'green' without thought, and yet to see no irony in flying en masse to the snowy wastes to see if they can find a melting glacier, or Tuvalu to dip a toe in the azure rising waters and solemnly intone to camera...' and it's you lot flying EasyJet who are to blame.'

Acts. Together. Get.

Houses. In. Order. First.

And if not 'practical' as in Tony 'Well, y'know, it's not really practical for the likes of me not to... as I have a stonking mortgage to feed [like the rest of us don't]' Blair, then step out of the frame and leave it to leaders who can lead by examples worth following.

Until then, I reckon this lot are just knocking back even further the chances of any coherent, rational, public changes in opinion and/or consequent behaviour.

This addiction to 'awareness' without also thoroughly assessing overall consequences is looking increasingly more short-sighted and self-serving the more we get fed it.

ADDENDUM - I don't know if it is a Mac thing (it's better but not 100% on a PC), but the BBC site is woeful in getting replies through these days. Either an error message or rejection. And then, just for good measure, it either has missed or hasn't so you end up duplicating!

I'm a celebrity, get me a Green gig!

Rik Mayall stars in green TV campaign for Devon council You know I love choosing the best messenger for the message.

Presumably the perils (to nature) of little 4WD off-roaders didn't feature.

Money=?

Google Founders' Ultimate Perk: A NASA Runway

I think I'm boring most when I point out that it's hard to have a ton of cash and not spend it on stuff like toys and going places (or how all media, no matter how eco-sensitive, can resist reporting such excess in the awed terms accorded celeb lifestyles). I guess they just managed a neat combo.

Here's hoping we don't end up being lectured on going green from this quarter too overtly.

But I'm sure they offset like billy-o.

Guardian - Is black the new green? - Gotta love 'em though. Nice reply. IT feedback also noted.

Celeb pity

I thought this - Celebrity Eco-Hypocritique - was going to be another media industry sulk about how their green parties are being spoiled by grumpy old commoners not being supportive enough of whatever jolly they deem we need.

But it is actually more thoughtful than that.

And, as always, some good comments pro and con to follow.

For some reason, I was moved to pitch in:

An interesting analysis, with equally interesting posts in response.

There is a slight sense of 'damned if you do; damned if you don't..' that makes it hard not to sympathise with the motives and probable frustrations of a passionate, committed 'activist' celeb.

I really felt sorry that someone such as Bono was copping so much flak because of who he was and what he earned, whilst being a man with a view almost being required to shut up and sing.

But then ego comes into play. What if by what they are doing they are not serving the greater enviROI or indeed the most effective message? They may well be genuine and have opinions and want to speak out or even do, but there are, sorry guys, bigger factors than what they want, and especially if that somehow needs to translate into column inches or airtime.

Sadly the good of intention will get tarred by the less so, especially when the PR machine/media support systems see opportunity. I have lost count of the number of slots where some blonde or buff gets wheeled on to give us 10 seconds of cause before we move on to 'so how's the new movie?'.

We are in an era when the messenger is more important than the message, so that messenger has to be pretty squeaky clean and on message. As pointed out, with the best will in the world that's hard to do when you are making squillions and few outlets exist to spent it on are that environmentally sound. Again the 'machine' has demands. Walking to the shops, buying domestic and holidaying in the back yard are hardly the stuff of glamour magazine front pages. There's the dilemma. If that's the job, then fine, but don't ask those who not enjoying such a lifestyle not to note that and only empathise with selected aspects of what is being shared by way of example.

Bob Geldof had a rather colourful view on how much more 'awareness of the problem' that we all needed when Live Earth was in the news. I would value an objective analysis of how it did indeed serve the actual aims. Were the collective greenhouse emissions of all involved (protagonists and audience) reduced as a consequence? Was the awareness raised (of?) positively and, more importantly, call to actions embraced?

Don't know about anywhere else, but here in the UK it was not the greatest example of motivation and publicity that one could have hoped for. Especially for any plugging the causes of green.

Hence the next effort in this mould, Planet Relief, as mooted by the BBC, didn't get off the ground, to the surprise of many in the media world just waiting for all the opportunities they would have had to feed off it. And some, with spectacular sour grapes, took to blaming all but their own inability to read the public mood for its downfall.

There was even an attempt to portray this as a victory for politically-motivated, climate denier-funded campaigning. Not so. But there were many from very committed environmental standpoints who simply didn't feel that such things were very effective, and may even set the cause back. Frankly the most damage I see to the whole cause of promoting a 'greener' lifestyle are those unelected, self-appointed spokespersons who for too long have enjoyed an un-earned position to tell 'us' what's good for us and, worse, brook no critique whatsoever. These days any doubts on the efficacy of some green scheme that may not be all it is claimed, especially when vindicated, are usually met with accusations in the same way the cry of '-ist' was thrown around in earlier times.

Interestingly, the BBC has cited the main reason for pulling Planet Relief was fact that their audience - the nation's Joe & Jill Average - had fed back that rather than another green elite party they'd really prefer balanced information on what's going on, and ways to cope within already pressurised calls on time and budget.

Why does a celeb NEED a private jet? They are cash rich and time poor. But if that's necessary to manage the demands of their chosen lifestyle, when it comes to how that example plays out then maybe they need to reassess, with their managers, their personal values of what is 'enough'. Make a few less movies, go on fewer tours... and don't earn as many millions as last year. Stay at home more. Travel slower. Buy better stuff and not only the latest and glitziest just because you can.

You'll set a better example and maybe even enjoy life more. And rather than issuing press release about it via your people, let it be simply found out about and appreciated by getting 'out there' organically rather than stuffing it down other folk's throats as part of a rounded CV.

Living a more eco lifestyle is, for now, a mostly more expensive choice and/or in complement a less income-acquisitive one. Many don't have the luxury of limitless funds to match up to what some can afford to do with chump change. Do it, fine. Let it be shared, well, ok. Preach from a shaky pedestal... fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

A guy took exception, and unfortunately in a rather selective manner that also embraced the 'brook no criticism' stance that I find very tiresome. I had to reply:

Who is tearing who down? This seems a rather grotesque - and all too common - knee-jerk dismissal to the notion of simply asking any questions on the efficacy of certain aspects of promoting environmental good practice. Plus having an opinion.

As it happens, I think that Leo seems to be one of the more substantial 'celebrities' trying to make their mark under the difficult, but realistic spotlight that has been acknowledged.

Then again, to those who don't fly so much, and usually if we do once a year in cattle class, taking 'A' trip to Europe by commercial air came across as a tad... unfortunate as a comeback. Though the question, in the spirit of things at the time, was not very nice. But that... is the reality of the system. So understand it to play it to best advantage.

I guess I am keen on making a change, but I do wonder who else with green intentions is simultaneously trying to 'destroy' whose.... own leaders? I think I missed that election.

As to real points, I did sit in a [demographically sensitive location definition deleted] with 20 of my [demographically sensitive group definition deleted] chums who tolerate what I bang on about all the time. The result was that the concert set back my efforts. They didn't buy it and thought the way it was set up was silly. It seemed to give 'em a good excuse to revert to more profligate ways as 'those that are telling [them] how to behave' seemed to be doing so from a 'not us, of course, that wouldn't be practical to do our jobs' camp'. Some business persons not in the ents/media world do need to travel to stay employed, too. So who is left? It's a tough sell to some poor family looking at a guilt-tripped (there's an idea for a travel agent) 2 weeks a year in the sun to be fed 'Here's XX in her designer T an entourage at such and such a camp in 'Exotic place 101', especially when combo'd with their latest kid-buying sleepover in a 5* resort a world away down the road.

You may have a different experience. That was mine and it influenced my view on this as a mechanism of change.

As to only supporting uncritically those who do pollute and depend on us to use them to do so, I'm afraid I will need to remain in favour of phased reduction.

I can recommend Leo Hickman's book, Final Call, which does a good job of looking at the issues surrounding 'our' need and/or desire to travel, but also as quickly as possible. More efficient engines are indeed a worthy instrument of mitigation and delay, and I am sure will allow more of a movement to commercial craft that can offer the necessary facilities to lure some from 'going private'.

Dilemma, etc

It has been a short while, so it's nice to see another celebrity has been wheeled out to help us with our climate unawareness.

And to do so by travelling the world to visit lots of poor, but film-worthy places.

So this time I was treated to a very agitated Sienna Miller on BBC News 24 saying 'bring it on' to all those the blonde and the bouffant indicated my be being a bit cynical.

Thing is, I was pretty much on board until we we treated to how she offsets all her flights as 'it really wouldn't be practical, etc, etc... for her not to' . A bit of a mea culpa in this regard will be following at some juncture soon.

But what really cranked the eyebrow was how she has teamed up with Vodafone... yes, that's acres of free public broadcast PR for Vodafone... on a scheme to recycle your old mobiles. And what's really great is that the poor folk get some pounds too! I don't know, but popping 10% of value to charity on such a vast contributor to carbon as a 2"x5" mobly hardly seems top of the enviROI list to me, but hey-ho.

And now, having got that out of the way, her new film, which she's shooting next week, is...

It's a dilemma. Sure something needs to be done. But I remain unsure that these are the best people to do it. The media plays along because they get ratings from sticking a blonde celeb on screen, and can also gush a bit about global warming but also stir it up by asking here if she has a 4x4 or drinks Evian. I for one just find it a real trivial distraction.

And speaking of dilemmas, check out the picture above from today's Guardian. They will help us with ours!

Thing is, the only reason I saw that ad is because I clicked on a piece advertising an exclusive interview with conductor Claudio Abbado... (cue awestruck 'Oooooo') '..on a private jet'. I guess this was relevant because they were at least Lear-sharing.

Personally, I don't think celebrity and eco-cred mixes. So I really wish the media wouldn't do it.

I wonder if they'll fly into collect the award?

Thanks to my latest issue of recycle now's newsletter (snappily entitled RCN Newsletter, showing they really know who to avoid the spam filter and delete key), I now know who are the country's green, er, 'heroes':

Revealed: the nation’s green heroes

A new survey for Recycle Now has revealed the nation’s favourite environmental heroes. We asked over 1400 UK adults which celebrities they felt were the greenest.

Here are the results:

1. Prince Charles
2. Bob Geldof
3. Sting
4. Chris Martin
5. David Cameron
6. Bono
7. Richard Branson
8. Madonna
9. Cameron Diaz
10. George Clooney

Who would you have picked?

I was sooo tempted to reply. But, like this fine example of journalism, will remain mute. Speechless even.

Being a Goddess is not easy

I just have to share this from the person the Indy has hired, one presumes at great expense, to discover, share and inspire with us all the travails of going green:

The Green Goddess

Who cannot but empathise with the dilemma being faced, with a free week looming, such that one could not face using it to fly somewhere.

But at least we can all fall back on a Health Spa in deepest Surrey, where the sun shines all week and there is a great new outdoor pool. I'm sure it's not heated, so imagine the further pain being suffered.

I, for one, cannot wait to learn what else she has to share.

You scratch my back?

A curiously uneditorialised press release being reprinted here, all the more odd as it is from a rival paper group:

Murdoch: I'm proud to be green

Just one quick question; one of many this piece raised in my mind. As they obviously exist, but given that my 1/2sqm solar suitcase promises 13W on a good day, how exactly do these work?: '...practical measures include solar-powered golf carts to carry people round..'

I can't stand....

Well, Monday's are taken as read, but as I am currently doing well skipping being pinned to an actual opinion by simply attributing to others, here is one from St. Bob that I 'noted' in light of some views I have held on this issue already: Live Earth? It's a waste of time, Geldof tells Gore

"To make us aware of the greenhouse effect? Everybody's known about that problem for years. We are all fucking conscious of global warming."

Couldn't have gosh-darn well said it better myself! As he points out, the organisers of Live Earth had no specific target... "So it's just an enormous pop concert or the umpteenth time that, say, Madonna or Coldplay get up on stage."

I am prepared to bet, however, that Indy journos will be gushing to get to the VIP Green rooms when it all hits town. Can't get enough awareness. Doing... well...

As a packager asked me yesterday at the show: 'Why is that they have this big campaign about packaging, yet I have never heard you guys mentioned as you are trying to mitigate its effects?" Quite.

Also cures baldness, the ague, ill humours...

Global Cool is hot on carbon emissions

I just hope that you are right in the hope expressed in your second para.

Just reading the rest of the piece it struck me just how many of the
green elite 'ambassadors' already on board seemed to think nothing
of flying hither and thither in the name of saving the planet...
with it all being hunky-dory so long, one presumes, as it is 'offset'.

As someone who only cares about genuine efforts to reduce the
wasteful and/or not necessarily necessary consequences of
expanding, more affluent populations in a consumer driven global
economy, I remain to be convinced how genuine and/or effective
these efforts really are.

Especially when there's big money to be made dealing in green
as opposed to simply living it.

Good question. But is it the most important?

Is Arnie really green?

To the one you pose, personally my answer would have to be 'no', not 'really'. But matters of green are pretty broad in scope, and can seldom be viewed in just black and white.

As you point out, at least he is doing something, which in comparison to others is a heck of a lot better than nothing. Or is it?

Because we have the message, and then we have the messenger. As Janet Street Porter pointed out a few days ago, few can be unaware of global warming by now, so do we really need more awareness from celebrity politicians, green-tinged celebrities and the remoras of the media that follow, share and bask in their gre-e-lite (pronounced 'leet) movements and issue forth their pronouncements of what should be done, if not by them, as such? Maybe a bit more back-room deal-making with the power-brokers would help a tad more?

There is also the small matter of gesture politics not actually serving the one thing that matters, which is enviroROI - simply, will what gets done save more carbon emissions than they cause? Financial ROI is another consideration of course, and one for those rich enough to indulge in if they can and wish to. Frankly if you can afford to go green and it does good, then I say go for it.

However, lobbing up to 'sell' such an effort in a hydrogen powered Humvee (or aspiring to a similarly-configured BMW as is apparently the case with Stuart Rose of M&S) to me helps not one jot. For a start, much as I appreciate the potential of hydrogen, its production and distribution currently means that such a vehicle may make the owner look green, but certainly is not helping Mother Earth. And... a Humvee? Why not just get Chris Eubank on the horn and convert his truck? The first message we get is that it is better (only better, mind, as creation and use does still extract an e-cost) than fossil fuels, hence we must therefore use the biggest, most fuel-inefficient-for-purpose lump of tin to consume it?

I agree with him on one point. Making things about guilt, fine or fear have not, and will not work. We need incentive-based initiatives with which the consumer will willingly engage through a perception (hopefully genuinely delivered) of end-benefit an/or reward. And a little bit of leadership by example wouldn't go amiss to get that across.

Sadly, by talking down to us from a Green Tower (I'm still trying to rationalise "[not] powering my private airplanes (plural!),” with “It's too bad for us that we can't live the lives of Buddhist monks (I guess they just go skiing on RyanAir)") I fear such as Arnie et Al (make sure y'all come to see me and my best bud Madge at Live Earth!) may not be the ideal choices to motivate the masses.

Governator aims to make green issues 'sexy'

Yes, he is 'on the cover of Newsweek as one of the big environmentalists'. Maybe that is more for that publication, and other media who publish eco-hype without thinking, to answer. And not only in America.

Er... what she said

Janet Street-Porter: A song by Madonna won't save the world

I am guessing Ms. Street-Porter is not gunning for a VIP slot in the Green Room with the rest of the self-appointed Green 'E(for eco)-lite' (pronounced 'leet').

Took guts. Don't envy her chances with the canapes at the next London luvvie-fest she lobs up to, mind. When I first heard of this e-vent I felt like the potted plant in Hitchhikers Guide.

There are a few too many 'celebs' and media remoras with a vested interest in making this seem a lot more than what it is, and hence I have to question how it will serve to benefit my kids' future enviROI (stuff that gets actually DONE that lowers carbon emissions).

I even have to wonder whether the awareness aspect will actually outweigh the potential negatives that are already, and with some reason, being brought to bear. Here's hoping the protagonists have done their sums, hired the right guys who can be on message... and stay there. Remember, a planet is for life, and not just for a quick temporary ratings boost.

And so, I join her (if slightly lower and behind) on the parapet.

Letters - Nothing so far, but a great letter by a guy on the topic of dumping gulit on the kids to sort this mess out

Letters - Looks like they didn't like mine. Surprise

One flew into one's cuckoo nest

Charles does a lot of good. Until he opens his mouth

Sadly we are in a culture (sic) where everything is pretty much decided by what is popular, embodied by the celeb du jour: pumped up, allowed to float and then shot down by the media, who get what they need on the way up, along (which is usually boring and hence doesn't get permitted to last very long) and down.

In entertainment the process is measured in months. Pols can get away with a few years, especially if they persist in staying in office though that darn democratic vote thing.

Royals are different to one and one. They are locked in for the long haul, by an odd combo of historical precedent, loadsamunny, oodles of space to hide away in... and a a slight problem of what else can be done with them.

Over the centuries a rough plan has evolved and become established, and 'don't ask, don't tell' has served well, even outside these shores. Simply for being, they can lob up, open a napalm factory in Saudi and the whole world press goes 'Wooooo'.

The problems kick in when they start wanting to start behaving and actually do behave and get caught out like normal folk... only without the grubby down sides.

Of late there have been quite a few deeds that have done awfully well to give the royal poppemoffsti enough ammo and opportunity to bag a fair brace.

But the newest and greatest Royal flaw to this arrangement working as intended has been to want to mouth 'orf. And do it in public via the gutter press (ie: all of them - sorry, but you know it's true:).

Often this can and has been used by those who know people who know people to swing a a good cause higher up the ratings list, and thus the earning league. Even the odd slow moving, rich consumer goods range.

But the trouble with created idols, especially high profile regal ones, is that when they are proven only human, the lustre is all the more damaging for being seen as flawed as normal folk. And when those some would place above us on a pedestal with no real substance come crashing down, they can end up doing a lot more damage than any good achieved whilst floating around 'up there'. Being rich may be aspirational, but it's not exactly a worthwhile job description to be taken seriously by those who really know how and can do.

It's a bit like the Red Arrows. Awesome as you crane your neck to catch a glimpse. A rush of national pride as they do their thing. Probably well worth the investment in terms of national ROI.

But if they come too close to the ground and, heaven forfend, fail to stay a touch above it, it can prove... less than optimal.