Media Sickness - morning, noon, afternoon, evening and night-time...

This morning, as I look at the news websites, I see that Colleen Rooney is 'showing off her baby bump' on a beach somewhere. Further down the page, there is a picture of a conventional-looking mum and a baby, under a headline asking 'Can you be a mum and have a career?'

I think the answer lies somewhere in the 'strap lines' further down the page of the BBC news website - where you might actually miss them (unless you have your eyes peeled for the words 'Kate', 'Catherine' or other quasi 'Royal/Celebrity' words).

If you did, this morning you would have spotted the line 'Kate photos to be published in Italy'. Click on that and you get an article from News UK 'revealing' that the Italian 'Chi' magazine is to publish pictures of Kate sporting a baby bump on a beach in Mustique (Oh, and by the way, she is holding hands with William. I think that came somewhere in the report at least).

From the time Kate appeared in a student fashion show wearing that now famous 'Prince-bagging' dress which looked like a black net curtain creation over a  bikini, the media have been in a frenzy over the girl's over-exposed body. We had the same thing with Princess Diana's 'see through' dress when she was pictured outside the nursery school where she worked.

What is interesting about the Mustique photos is that they were (allegedly) taken on a public beach so, like the fashion show pictures, are (kind of) 'fair game'. (Although if you read my last post, you will gather that I am not entirely convinced that the 'balcony' pictures can really be blamed on others). The media rumpus is all part of the marketing of the Modern Monarchy. They like us to believe that they don't want pictures of bare-chested (or breasted) royals pasted over the newspapers and magazines. In reality, though, they know that those pictures are the USP (Unique Selling Proposition) of their business; and that, in 'trying' to 'sell' them to their 'market' i.e. you and me, exclusivity is king. No longer can the royals pretend that they are the victims of the media. They are as complicit with it as the most publicity-concious celebrity.

Talking of which, I noticed  yesterday a strap line, declaring that Madonna had joined some social media website and that the first thing she did was to post a picture of a cleavage to it.  (I'm not an expert so I couldn't tell if it was hers; but she knows a thing or two about marketing if anyone does). There was a headshot of a smug-looking Madge to go with the line.

So it seems, in our celebrity culture, that you CAN be a mum and have a career, if you are a) A WAG of a famous sportsman or other kind of celebrity or b) Married to a royal - preferably the heir to the throne or b) Are Madonna - either the mother of Jesus or the one we adore in contemporary society.

Thankfully, '100 Most Powerful Women'  rankings recently listed some other kinds of career women mothers performing other kinds of roles. I hadn't heard of most of them - naturally - but coming in at number 26 is Her Majesty The Queen. 

I don't recall every seeing a picture of Her Majesty in so much as a swimsuit. That's probably because she would only go about in a swimsuit on a beach which she owned (or her sister owned). Isn't that what proper royals do?