Cover preview: The meaning of the Sophie Grégoire Trudeau show

A sneak peek at of our latest cover: Anne Kingston on Sophie Grégoire Trudeau



As anyone who follows geopolitical developments is aware, Justin Trudeau celebrated his 11th wedding anniversary three days early last week, taking a day off in Japan from his first G7 summit. He was leading by example, he said: “This is the kind of work-life balance that I’ve often talked about as being essential in order to be able to be in service of the country.” Had the Prime Minister decided to take a day off that lacked romantic significance in the midst of the summit, the outcry would have been even louder than it was. But celebrating his marriage, a love story told in breathless detail on Liberal.ca, the Liberal party’s website, proved heart-warming for many. Of course, even those less charmed couldn’t avoid the inevitable result: footage of Trudeau and Sophie Grégoire Trudeau holding hands on an anniversary hike, trailed by RCMP, as she looked up at him, laughing, her hand (where else?) on her heart.

It wasn’t the world’s first glimpse of the Trudeaus’ talent for exhibitionist intimacy. That came last November when they were photographed in American Vogue, Justin Trudeau’s first sit-down media portrait after being sworn-in as Prime Minister. The resulting image—Trudeau gazing soulfully at his wife, his arms wrapped around her as she leaned into him—made waves internationally, which isn’t surprising. The pheromones practically leapt off the page.

Since then, she’s been embroiled in a polarizing incident in which she told Le Soleil that she needed “a team to help me serve the people.” But what has become clear is that Grégoire Trudeau is a vital, weight-bearing pillar in brand Trudeau, a linchpin of his identity as a sensitive, progressive PM and dad. The imagery surrounding the marriage reinforces Trudeau’s optimistic political agenda, says Alex Marland, an associate professor of political science at Memorial University: “By presenting himself as part of a team, he’s embodying gender equality.” It also inadvertently signals what Marland calls a “growing ‘presidentialization’ of the parliamentary system, and not only in Canada.” And beneath the progressive sheen of the Trudeau family brand may lurk something surprisingly more retrograde.

Read Anne Kingston’s full story on Sophie Gregoire Trudeau, and much more, in the latest issue of Maclean’s. The new issue will be available Wednesday night for tablet and mobile readers on our new Maclean’s app on Apple Newsstand and Google Play, on Texture by Next Issue, and on newsstands everywhere this week.


Cover preview: The meaning of the Sophie Grégoire Trudeau show

  1. Has she gotten her TaxPayers Money for her Team….Give till it Hurts..#Prayforsophie….

    • Most PMs wives have staffers. Stop with the silliness

  2. Can Macleans not find anything newsworthy to report on. Like maybe the other Justin.

    • When is Ben Harper going to run? Do you think he’ll have his Dad’s legendary charisma?

      • When is Ben going to join the Canadian Forces, and do his part?

        • You mean like Mr. Trudeau did during his “lost years”?

  3. Circulation must be down. You guys pull this kind of stunt everytime it is.

  4. Justin Trudeau celebrated his 11th wedding anniversary three days early last week……………………………….

    How petty have we become?????????????????

    • How is accuracy in reporting petty?

      The PM made it sound like taking the day off in the middle of the Japan trip was necessary in order to celebrate his anniversary and that it was a matter of work-life balance.

      What the PM apparently didn’t mention was the actual anniversary would fall later when a) he was back in Canada, and b) the LPC convention would be in full swing.

      So, basically the PM could well have celebrated his anniversary the actual day it fell, but since that would have apparently interfered with his attendance at the LPC convention, he instead chose to celebrate it when he was on the nation’s business in Japan. As well, he tried to frame it as some kind of work-life balance when it was nothing of the sort as, for one of a couple of reasons, the anniversary did not fall during the time frame of the Japan trip – i.e. Trudeau’s job of being the PM would not have interfered with his ability to celebrate his wedding anniversary on the day it fell.

  5. Well, Macleans long ago stopped focussing on substance,and instead started reporting fluff. this article pretty much sums up the canadian political landscape.

    No one cares about competency anymore, as long as whomever leads has a pretty wife, nice hair, and nice teeth. Oh..and a famous dad and his trust fund.

    If not for his father, Justin would just be another nobody.

    • And yet, here you are, snorting fluff like it was the latest designer drug for hipsters.

      So, what’s your heart’s desire for the PM – a wife with bad hair, rotten teeth, and the body odour of a dead moose, plus a deadbeat dad and debts up to his attractive eyeballs? How Canadian of you.

      lol ;)

  6. I’m impressed: it seems many Macleans readers want hard news not gossip. Is Macleans sliding towards being the paper version of TMZ?
    So what’s the problem with displays of affection real or imagined as captured by the paparazzi press – does Ms Kingston have some unresolved relationship issues or just a sad idea of what journalism is? When I get my next issue I’ll be sure to skip this trash: perhaps I should have subscribed to People magazine instead.

  7. Unbelievable. We’d be seeing the same story in reverse if she wasn’t front and centre. Ppl would be complaining that she’s just sitting around doing nothing. We have a PM’s wife that is finally taking an active role, and everyone is bitching. Get over yourselves.

  8. I just read the whole article in the magazine and was appalled by its’ tone, from the “over sharing” in the title straight through to the end. The fact that the article was written by a woman makes it all the more objectionable to me. I see a few small good points in here about how women in politics are not treated as fairly as men, but every one is undermined by the implied insinuation that only the writer’s idea of feminism along with proper behaviour etc. is correct. Who are you to dictate this, or what someone feels comfortable sharing with the public or how someone chooses to express themselves about non radical things? Perhaps some of this would be fair game if the topic of the conversation was a politician, but she is not and although this is framed in places as if you are discussing politics, you almost entirely are not. This to me is a thinly veiled attack on a woman by another woman.

Sign in to comment.