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.

You need to watch BBC2's Marie Antionette. Courtiers are present when they are doing the deed! Round the bed and watching. And giving birth!

This is why meghans post baby news shot put paid to the nonsense about moonbumps. She had that puffy look I had because of all the fluid retention. Still looked nice (not me!) but clearly post partum.

Going back to your original question about the press and relations..................

At some point, when people pointed out the inappropriate thing about the steps in hospital. The press went on about it being 'Diana's thing', when she did not start the trend.

It was among the ongoing 'batty Diana' narratives to rehabilitate some rf members.

I always felt very sorry for Kate having to announce her pregnancies so early because of the hyperemesis

@notanotheroneagain oh the press blamed Diana? Of course they did. Yet they made a fuss when someone said no? I think the way the Queen apparently did it, to release photos at a later date, is the least intrusive and allows both baby and mother privacy.

@Roussette it's because they're so obsessed with legitimacy mainly so that younger siblings can't challenge their right to inherit lands and titles and things. In the old days aristo babies had to be "male of body, lawfully begotten" in order to inherit. Lords, Dukes and Princes were obsessed by the idea of cuckoos in the nest and younger brothers were always trying to prove their older brothers were "UNlawfully begotten"! Thankfully things have moved on somewhat. Nowadays having the doctor sign it off and have a photo taken basically does the same thing. Re the Lindo Wing photos... I... struggle with the idea that aristos having their picture taken to secure their children's (actual princes and princesses) future inheritance is somehow persecution lol

One of my opening questions, Can social media replace this? I’d like to expand on.

The royals have their own social media, where they can post and share their charity work and things they want to publicise. That’s the kind of ‘good publicity’ I suppose, that they have traditionally had to solely rely on the press for. Is their reach on social media enough, was I guess my wondering there. In terms of their projects and charity work, do they actually need traditional media to promote that still? I don’t use social media really so harder for me to know.

The press went on about it being 'Diana's thing', when she did not start the trend.

Did they? It would be nice to see some evidence of this, given the press would have known well that Princess Anne had posed for a photo with newborn Zara just the year before William was born, and that any royal family members had done likewise in the 1980s and 1990s (like even Lady Sarah Chatto, for example).

Lords, Dukes and Princes were obsessed by the idea of cuckoos in the nest and younger brothers were always trying to prove their older brothers were "Unlawfully begotten"!

The DNA testing they did to trace Richard III’s descendants was a fascinating example of this - they had an established male line-descent, on paper, but there was a break in the genetic sequence, so somewhere in it a child did not have the parentage that the family tree would lead you to expect. 😀 (They used matrilineal dna, ultimately)

@Serenster I find it so fascinating! Of course nobody at the time knew that one day DNA sequencing would be invented to expose their little fibs 😂

Well, in tha past, the Home Secretary was obliged to be in the next room, when the baby was born, and prior to that, it was 'witnessed', etc.
Not sure about timelines, etc, but we all know the story of James II second wife, Mary of Modena. When she was pregnant she refused to allow others to touch her bump, and insisted on only her own women at the birth. And then a warming pan was brought in....
It was subsequently insisted that the baby boy was not really hers, and he was disinherited from the throne, which after James II abdication, the crown went successively to his daughters, etc.
So, showing off the baby outside the hospital seems a lesser 'evil' than having it witnessed by all and sundry!!.

@Roussette I don’t follow developments closely enough, but wasn’t the media frenzy at the time largely due to the shocking confusion in comms? Someone in the royal PR massively fucked up that one and their principals suffered for it.

Had it been a straightforward birth announcement with a notice of a photocall two days later that would’ve been so much better. Bonus a surprise interview with Harry on the day looking ecstatic. Job done, everyone feeling nice and fuzzy. How whoever did their / the palace’s media at the time got that wrong is beyond me.

@IronCurtain I'm not sure of the timeline of it, but I think any new Mum and Dad should be able to show they have a new baby exactly how they want to without feeling obliged to face a wall of cameras hours after giving birth....

of course, I agree with that 100%. I was mainly wondering whether the negative coverage had indeed come from their (entirely normal!) refusal to do the hospital steps photocall or because their comms had been so patchy.

Anyway I tried to look things up now and apparently Harry said it wasn’t even their choice not to do the hospital photos, it’s because there wasn’t enough room or something. So I’m even more confused now.

and yes, it’s depressing that a new family needs to worry about comms when welcoming a new child. Whoever they may be.

I was mainly wondering whether the negative coverage had indeed come from their (entirely normal!) refusal to do the hospital steps photocall or because their comms had been so patchy.

Patchy comms is one way of describing it. First the Sussexes said that Archie’s birth was an entirely private matter and they would not be releasing any details about it. After this provoked some public criticism, they backed down and said they would make an announcement when the Duchess was in labour and then announce the birth.

In due course, the palace announced Meghan was in labour, and the media all started up their “royal baby watch” cycles. Only for the Sussexes to immediately announce Archie’s birth on their instagram feed. He had in fact been born several hours earlier and they were already back at home when they made the “in labour” announcement.

This came across as a big two fingers up at the press, and certainly didn’t help with the coverage of them. (Later it came out that this whole saga had been because they had negotiated an exclusive about the birth with Gayle King and the US network she worked for, so they were deliberately trying to keep the UK press out).

I think the 'comms confusion' was done deliberately. Archie was born when H&M were still under KP Comms with the likes of Jason Knauf/ Simon Case at the helm - we would later find out they were actively working against H&M. Making out all sorts of 'appearances' regarding the couple.

Ludicrous. Self evidently, the KP press team had no idea that the Sussexes were planning a US exclusive on the birth, which was the reason for them releasing nothing to the UK media.

I think that’s more to do with safety than access for photographers. If anything goes seriously medically wrong at The Portland, they get an ambulance to take the mum and/or baby to the nearest NHS hospital. Whereas The Lindo is a wing of St Mary’s Hospital so no ambulance is necessary.

@Whaeanui "In 1968, Murdoch entered the British newspaper market with his acquisition of the populist News of the World, followed in 1969 with the purchase of the struggling daily The Sun from IPC." (taken from Wiki)

So Murdoch has been active in the UK media market a long time.

His American media arm, sued by Dominion, has just settled for $A1.2 Billion. (Murdoch''s deposition over 2 days was revealing in regard to how the Murdoch media works.)

And as of a month ago New York courts gave the go ahead for Smartmatic to sue Murdoch for $A2.7 billion.

This came across as a big two fingers up at the press, and certainly didn’t help with the coverage of them. (Later it came out that this whole saga had been because they had negotiated an exclusive about the birth with Gayle King and the US network she worked for, so they were deliberately trying to keep the UK press out).

If that's true and they wanted to do a US exclusive and keep UK out of it, that does seem extremely petty ... given it is a UK Royal Baby. I can respect not wanting to get a picture straight after, fair enough. But if that was the reason, that just doesn't sit right.

Sorry what exclusive content did Gayle King and CBS get after Archies’s birth?

Thank you for asking, I was wondering that myself!

There was a US news special that the UK royal reporter Ingrid Seward contributed to, I suppose it's that. The US were agog with an American bi-racial woman having a baby with Harry, it was big news!

@Morestrangerthings oh that’s really interesting, thank you! I only briefly read about the American arm of his empire and the huge settlement. He must have a lot of money if he can just pay that out. I’m going to go see what I can find on his testimony. He’s obviously way too powerful.

i also have not heard of some Gayle king exclusive? Considering the grief she got in the press here while pregnant she can give an exclusive to who she wants 🤷🏽‍♀️ I’m all for any of the royals deciding who they want to speak to and who they want covering their events, like when kates Christmas Carol concert was given to ITV instead of BBC after the latter aired a documentary on the brothers and the press. Petty? Perhaps. But the press are owed nothing. That’s the point of the thread. How can they control their own lives and their relationship with the press.

Yes, Whaeanui, he and his Fox Corp shareholders (of which he's the major shareholder) will be feeling the pain. His power extends across three countries, I believe. The U.S., the U.K., and Australia. There's an interesting, and very readable, piece in Vanity Fair (May, the cover piece) about Rupert and Family, "Inside Rupert Murdoch's Succession Drama." I was able to access it and I don't pay for Vanity Fair so hopefully those interested can google and read. It was written just before they settled with Dominion.