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.

@IronCurtain Good post. I agree William didn't sell out his mother, but accepted she had (justified) paranoia and found the constant press intrusion unbalancing.

William and Harry both agreed never to allow the bashir interview, that did so much damage all round, to appear again, but Harry broke this promise by allowing it into the Netflix soap opera. The aim being purely to bolster his 'truth' of victimhood for his wife. Just shameful.

The British press are just horrendous in their coverage of the royal family. Fuelling endless spin-offs with their speculation. The spin offs invariably become more and more vicious and bizarre.

It’s not just a British Royal Family thing - all the European royal families do it. Stephanie and Guillaume of Luxembourg were seen with the staff who delivered their second son outside the hospital just last month.

@Roussette it's funny that it's now seen as a really ancient, backwards tradition because at the time it was so modern. Same with taking young kids on tour - it's not actually that old of a tradition, Charles & Diana pioneered it and were seen as really modern, in touch parents for taking William to Australia with them (before that, when Charles and Anne were little they would be left with nannies for months while Q & DoE were on tour, and the Queen was only taken by her father when she was much older). Now it's seen as cruelty to expect royal couples to cart babies around Australia and Africa. I suppose all traditions start as newfangled ideas.

@Roussette Then report me!

Yes, how times have changed! I can't imagine K&W leaving their children for 3 months to go off on a tour as Queen and PP did! (It was of its time so not a criticism as such... we just cannot imagine it can we...)

The only reason Dalmation felt they had to change their name was due to unpleasant accusatory comments by anti monarchy posters on other threads. Dalmation is recognisable, so I'm not sure what your issue is.

@Coxspurplepippin Exactly that, although I was also accused of being Rygo, so 4 in all. MNHQ have been briefed in long and boring detail! 😂😂😂

I’m reposting my last comment to get this back on track, please ignore derailments so we can continue this discussion with those interested in it:

*Ok 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?

The posters with purple in their names were accused of being some kind of royal cabal over from Reddit. We were actually asked for explanations of why we were using our particular names. Dalmation very politely did so, even posting a picture of the phone case behind their name. I also provided an explanation of my name - I actually wish now I hadn't bothered and told the poster concerned to sod off, but hey ho, a little politeness costs nowt.

I just think, at times, the RF need a boost. Maybe when Anne came out on the steps with baby Peter, it seemed like a good idea at the time. Then it becomes a demand from the media.

It's like the RF documentary in 1969 that many warned against. It showed the RF having breakfast, barbecuing, fooling around etc. I think it is now not available anywhere because the power of the Palace...

I also think of K&W's schmaltzy Youtube video in Norfolk, rolling around in the sand dunes etc. It was beautifully done, I will say, but it did look a bit like an advert for Boden. It hasn't been repeated

'I also think of K&W's schmaltzy Youtube video in Norfolk, rolling around in the sand dunes etc. It was beautifully done, I will say, but it did look a bit like an advert for Boden. It hasn't been repeated'

Just watched the video - didn't see any rolling around in sand dunes......or was that just poetic licence?
.

@Roussette that seems a plausible explanation, that it seemed like a good idea then but as a result of that it’s now demanded and it’s turned into a whole ‘thing’. What would be the repercussions of saying no more?

As I only commented on a relevant post, I was not derailing anything. As I said the press in this country are the issue, not the RF and not H&M while they were working royals.

It's toxic, as is SM. It's a culture within the UK for some reason. Geography, being such a small country? A culture of interfering in people's lives?

However you have to find a balance between the press freedom to report serious and relevant issues, and not attempt to gag press freedom. Putin's Russia here we come.

Harry is in trouble in America for saying their first amendment is bonkers, when it's about free speech.

@Coxspurplepippin Yes, I wish now I'd given the finger to the accusations, but people like us like to remain fair and balanced and not be seen as royalist, racist, misogynist and any other 'ist' you find out there. 😂😳

Therein lies the rub!

H&M said 'no' to the baby on the steps within hours of birth, and they got a lot of flak for that.

But how do you know William and Kate didn't want to and don't mind? I don't think I'd mind if it were me, if anything I would find it quite sweet that the whole country was excited and couldn't wait to see my baby.

@Roussette I don't think it's that sinister, it was just a new way to connect with the public and also to "establish" the new member of the family so that people feel a connection to them. Especially with William & George. I don't think the rest of the family think on the same terms as M&H do, where everything is a power struggle that you either win or lose. Actually in the old-old days royal spouses would have to give birth in front of a whole audience!

I definitely wouldn't have wanted to be seen after my first baby. I had petechial haemorrhages all over my cheeks and my eyes were bloodshot from eclampsia!

Kate and Diana looked a lot more human.

I'm nearly 6 months pp and still not posing for photos! But I think the royal ladies are a bit more robust than me 😂

Gosh you're so right! A picture on the hospital steps is nothing, at least they don't film the birth!

Actually I've changed my mind. Thinking about it, <24h after the birth is the perfect time to do it. Because your body has just done this incredible thing so you're at your least self-conscious. The baby is knackered and won't be crying or vomiting and probably not pooing. And having your photo taken with the newborn in front of the world's media outside the Lindo Wing saves you from having to text everyone!

😂. So true! I looked like Dracula's bride though, so it's a no from me!