The Press & The Royals: a discussion

[Whaeanui]

As we were just having a great discussion on this topic I’m going to try again to continue it on a thread of its own. A previous thread highlighted two particularly prolific ‘royal reporters’, but the same is true for all. They often manufacture stories to create divisions between the women in the family, more often than the men. The public seem to feed off this and none of the family get treated very well except the monarch. So do we think it is possible for the royal family to stay relevant and in the publics mind without their unhealthy relationship with the media? Can social media replace this? What do you think they can do to make positive changes that would reflect an understanding of the mental health challenges the media intrusion results in? Also their role in charities that deal with mental health and misogyny, mistreatment of women etc could be impacted by this too. Thoughts?
Please do not derail this thread by discussing your personal dislike of particular members or if they deserve it. I would like a discussion on how the royal family could change the relationship with the press.

Did the Queen present her babies hours after delivery in a similar way?

I also like a lot of this thread and hope the balanced discussion can continue without veering too much into the partisan nonsense this board can be famous for.

Having said that I can also see there are a few posters who are maybe more anti-monarchy than others who are very keen to speculate that what’s happening now in the press is some sort of palace-orchestrated comms campaign gone wrong. Any PR specialist who put together a plan like this would not have survived 5 seconds in the industry. It seems to me that far from some sort of ‘Camilla rehabilitation’ master plan, this is more about the press fanning the flames of a deeply controversial topic and each camp will take what’s written as evidence supporting their position. Again, it’s all for clicks, not personal PR by one family member or the other (and I include the Sussexes team in this). I’d be willing to bet Camilla would like nothing more than to have fewer, not more, headlines published about her.

The one strand of this thread I’ve found difficult to stomach has been the criticism of William’s statement about Diana. For posters to imply he has ‘sold out’ his mother and is rewriting history, I don’t know how some feel entitled to say things like this. Fine to have a discussion about the use of sexist tropes about women in the media (such as paranoid) but to suggest William is on purpose trying to damage his mother’s reputation is a step too far. I wish I had seen more empathy for him, because it’s empathy that will ultimately help us have balanced, nuanced discussions. Unless you truly believe William is a psychopath, how can you argue he’s gone out to deliberately harm his late mother?

Maybe I need to go back to my lurking spot, I'm not sure I’m made for these threads.

The last time I looked in the dictionary "paranoia" was described as an unjustified distrust of something.

And yet, that Guardian article states that;

"The Squidgygate tape, a recording of a 20-minute conversation between the princess, calling on a landline from Sandringham, and Gilbey, answering on his mobile on New Year's Eve in 1989, are now believed to have been recorded by GCHQ and passed to amateur radio hams."

Given that incident and others, I think it was very sensible of Diana to exercise caution about exactly who she could trust.

A reason why I object to the use of that word.

I agree with your post. I think she was justified.

Agreed although I would also oppose the idea of the press as a great evil persecuting the poor royals. The RF are all public figures to greater or lesser extent. In the case of the titled members, they also have a public responsibility. The press can be dogged in trying to get to the story, but that's their job. To hold the rich and wealthy accountable. Sometimes they overstep the line but I sometimes find some members of the royal family (especially M&H)'s characterisation of them as pretty Trumpish. They think everything that isn't flattery crosses the line.

@IronCurtain (not you I mean, just that some of the discussion in this thread takes for granted that everything the press does is in bad faith)

I too think Diana’s concerns for her safety and privacy were justified and the media narrative started early about her ‘paranoia’ so I think it’s a word that shouldn’t be used in this kind of context. Very early there were awful media reports about her ‘mental instability’ so anything feeding into that is just wrong for me.

I think people assume The Telegraph wouldn’t just make up or I guess exaggerate a story like this, but I don’t hold them in high esteem so I think it’s entirely possible. Also possible a friend that knew directly told someone they shouldn’t have at the time and they’ve decided to take it to the press. But honestly, I’m a little bored with the non-story and would very much like to continue the general discussion we were having.

Do hang around IronCurtain, I like your post.

As far as William, I just think, put simply, he was toeing the Company line somewhat. By concentrating on the means to which Diana agreed to the interview, as opposed to the content of the interview, would obviously be more advantageous to C&C. I just felt Harry spoke more from the heart, that's all. But he isn't a direct heir, so he could.

Morning! I totally understand what you're saying IronCurtain, I was thinking about that this morning too. I personally was projecting my thoughts and feelings onto William. In that within my family using words that had been used to denigrate a family member would be seen as a betrayal, it would never happen.

Williams feelings, thoughts and experiences are of course valid and I respect them.

As for the Sussex Statement, chef's kiss aka I got of that merry-go-round 3 years ago, y'all are clowns. I protecting my peace.

I can agree to that @Whaeanui . It’s the difference between saying ‘I wish William
hadn’t used that word, even if he felt it true, due to the media portrayal of his mother in the past’ and ‘he’s gaslighting his mother and we lost him to the institution’. I’m paraphrasing but hopefully you know what I mean.

Anyone know the answer to my earlier question, re The Queen presenting her babies to the media?

The Times shows itself unprofessional day by day, Since this reporter started with the clout chasing and being greedy. Hence I never read his book.

I also don't know what logic is that H&M would leak this story now, when they were called liars and 'recollections my vary' back 2yrs ago. Surely for them the best timing would have been to leak the letter as soon as Charles responded. Infact H even stayed away from the subject matter in Spare. They said it, they were not believed and left it at that, till asked later. Tried to deescalate the situation by using milder language, but did not go into details of who did actually say it.

@IronCurtain yes I do 😊

@notanotheroneagain oh I hate The Times. I tried to use their complaints process about a racist story a sports writer had written about the pacific islands ( and rugby ) but they lost the complaint, despite my having a number for it, so I gave up. They’re awful.

Disagree, Diana was bulimic and suicidal (which she later revealed herself) so the early reported concerns about her MH were true. She was also extremely paranoid that e.g. that MI5 were following her, it's the vulnerability that Bashir exploited to manipulate her into doing the interview. Her declining MH is what makes what Bashir did to her all the more cruel. It wasn't just some vague, proportionate "some people are being cruel to me, my ex-husband is being cruel to me" - she died genuinely believing that she couldn't trust anybody, that everybody including her own staff were spying on her, that her phone calls were all being listened to, and the security services were planning to kill her.

That is the best statement ever!

It's all about the money now.
Culture wars sell. At the beginning they used to stay away from idle gossip/royal stories/anti migrants etc. At the least, they used to at least have both sides of the story.
But I guess the profits were just too tempting.

Isn't it just 😂😂😂

@Roussette

As far as William, I just think, put simply, he was toeing the Company line somewhat. By concentrating on the means to which Diana agreed to the interview, as opposed to the content of the interview, would obviously be more advantageous to C&C. I just felt Harry spoke more from the heart, that's all. But he isn't a direct heir, so he could.

💯

@notanotheroneagain yes sadly culture wars do sell and that’s I guess on the public for indulging it.

I’m trying to see if I can find how the Queens children’s births were reported at the time… or when the whole spectacle of presenting outside the hospital started, with her grandchildren’s births possibly.

I've got a feeling I read somewhere @Whaeanui that it started with Princess Anne.

Not definitely sure, but I think so

Can't remember the details off the top of my mind.

But the queen first sent a pic out of Charles a month after his birth. And that was not a photo scrum. It was privately taken for his christening I think.

She had home births, so there was no immediate on the hospital steps thing.

Princess Anne was the first

Ahhh thanks, I had it right.

The trouble is, you do it once, and the media then demands it from then on

I’m then so the Queen herself didn’t go through that, it’s something perhaps that changed over time? I know the British press were savage in the 80’s so did the type of media we have changed then, and why? I don’t know the history of some of these orgs and when they started. When did Rupert Murdoch starts his here?