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.

Yes I made that point too

It is well established that the 'royals' have their mouthpieces - tabloids oddly . Maybe not so oddly as the 'royals' will think that's what people read
They don't - esp not the young which goes some way to explain why the young see through the monarchy nonsense . No daily diet of propaganda

The 'royals' have no problem leaning on tabloids not to publish certain stories , esp sex scandals - citing 'national interest'.

They also throw stories out to feed the beast
Harry was right about that.

The guardian has been doing sterling work re 'royal' corruption ans links to suspect individuals proper journalism
Is it ever reported on the MSM ?

Why not ?

*The guardian has been doing sterling work re 'royal' corruption ans links to suspect individuals proper journalism
Is it ever reported on the MSM ?

Why not ?*

Hmmm good question! They base the articles claims on the royal archives so I’m not sure how there can be too much questioning of the facts. Nobody else has reported on the cost of the crown series have they? Maybe there’s a benefit to having the majority of the country’s press owned by just a couple of companies, easier to influence?

You'd think the BBC would cover it .
They do sometimes- very quickly

In the past without social media the press would have been easier to control. For example, with injunctions. Whereas now even if there is an injunction, it just gets leaked onto twitter and other social media.
And the Royal Family had more support.

What I particularly dislike- but I understand why they do it in a business clickbait sense - is the republishing of very very old stories as though they are new in the tabloids. The Express and the Mail are the worst offenders in this. But they all do it.

And as soon as it's published (again) it gets picked up by those really trashy pretending to be news websites like Hindustan Times, and all the trashy American ones like Yahoo, Daily Beast etc. So suddenly the story is repeated hundreds and thousands of times if you googled a particular royal name. It's also insane how often they repeat the same story and headline across years.

Here's an example:

In 2016 - an American writer called Christopher Andersen wrote a book called Game of Crowns: Elizabeth, Camilla, Kate, and the Throne - in which he makes the claim that Camilla was the one who broke Kate and William up the first time because she didn't think Kate was good enough. Anderson claims he was in London in 2007 when the breakup happened and 'sources' told him this.

The Express published an article in 2016 quoting Andersen as part of his book publicity. And of course, at that time the story was repeated by numerous other publications.

But what the Express does which is very sneaky, is every couple of years since 2016 they republish the same article by sticking a new updated graphic, picture or short sentence of copy which then gives it a new date stamp at the top and gets it sent back into the 'recommended' sections. It's 95% the same story including the headline that they printed 2 years before.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1687428/queen-consort-camilla-princess-kate-prince-william-split-spt

Wanting to get in on the clicks - it gets picked up by dozens of other publications EVERY time this happens so again looks like a new story or something suddenly of interest.

Here's the Daily Mail with the story in 2018 - claiming the story had 'resurfaced online' as their excuse to print it again.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-6155937/Royal-insiders-rubbish-claims-Camilla-schemed-split-William-Kate.html

2019 - The Sun - https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/7219341/kate-middleton-marry-prince-william-camilla-split-up-dim-pretty/

2020 - some random site called bestlifeonline https://bestlifeonline.com/camilla-kate-middleton/

2022 - Cosmopolitan - https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/a41799891/queen-camilla-kate-middleton-not-worthy-joining-royal-family/

That original Express article now has a date stamp of November 2022. Give it another couple of years and they will push it through again, and again a slew of other outlets will report it as though it's breaking news. All from one writer claiming he heard a rumour in 2007 from anonymous sources.

The Express in the original article and every single publication afterwards has done nothing to try to verify this claim in any way but they have published it over and over and over again - thousands of times by this point.

@wordler thank you!! That’s such a good example of how something becomes true right? If it’s repeated often enough. God they’re awful.

The problem is that it's part of the business model at this point - it's a really cheap and quick way to get eyeballs on the story many times over and get the advertising clicks all over again without having to do any new reporting.

It's also why they are still calling her Kate Middleton - it's a more often searched term than her titles.

They are not going to stop doing stuff like this that makes them money.

Oh gosh yes, these stories are repeated over the decades.

HMQE was linked to Lord Porchey. With some rather outrageous people saying Andrew is his due to the age difference between him and Anne. Ironically, HMQE is LP son's godmother ( a bit like Charles being Tom PB godfather as well as his other mistress, Kanga - who also died from a mysterious fall same year as Diana. Kanga's child was called Charles, and TBP's middle name is also Charles, go figure ).

If you are about conspiracies, guess you could link the full head of hair and looks to Andrew just by looking at his son Lord Carnarvon (Downton abbey owner) - all of which doesn't actually hold water as not only do they not particularly look alike, but Porchey was also bald, so his son got his lock from his mum side (though some argued that lock of hair could also come from HMQE, and looks mean different mothers). A lot to take in😅

PP himself has been linked to lots of affairs including some ballerina, Profumo etc.

All the while there was much concentration on Margaret affairs with younger men/ drinking / partying lifestyle etc.

Anyhoo. Unlike Charles, nothing to prove and say really.

I have to withdraw part of what I said about the mainstream media.

Channel 4 are airing a documentary about Andrew's Newsnight interview

It's called 'the problem Prince '

• produced by Emily Maitlis

They are doing a weekend of alternative programming

This on the con a nation weekend

I'm waiting for the film Scoop with Gillian Anderson playing Maitlis, Rufus Sewell playing Andrew, Keely Hawes, Billie Piper and others playing Beatrice and BBC execs.
That'll be something else!

Not till next year I believe.

Me too

Though - Rofus? Very flattering to Andrew unless he's in prosthetics

Great topic @Whaeanui thank you for starting it, and for tagging me.

Will be back more fully after Tuesday, and look forward to reading everyone's insights.

Are you aware that the 'royals ' are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act?
I'm afraid that shoots your 'they are just like every other organisation' out of the water

Yes. Many organisations are not subject to FOI. Including organisations that you might think would be subject to it. FOI is not particularly relevant to my point.

Every organisation I can think of tries to influence what [some] journalists write about it. Similarly, every journalist I can think of relies of getting information from [some] organisations to create news stories. That is what I mean by a symbiotic relationship. Both parties benefit from the existence of the other. This relationship is why a press office exists in most organisations whether they are charities, public sector, private companies or something in between.

The Royal Family is not an organisation like every other. But they do have a symbiotic relationship the press, and that is something they have in common with pretty much every other organisation.

Speaking of FOI, a NZ Herald journalist did one recently for all communications between Prince Harry & Duchess Meghan and Jacinda Ardern, who has now resigned of course and no longer there. She has accepted a job at earthshot working for W & K. She handed ones relevant over but they want her personal WhatsApp and all communications even private. Not interested in the ones between her and W & K who she is going to work for, just H & M. It’s not just British press that are creepy and obsessed.

Great thread OP, particularly the shocking comparison of treatment of women marrying into the royals compared to men (I might also extend that the misogyny of the press has somewhat extended to Beatrice and Eugenie at times with regard to their clothing and appearance)

There is always an undertone of “who does she think she is” whether that is having parents who sell party supplies or being American and writing on bananas. And like a drama triangle, the hero/villain of the hour is often shifting. Interesting how this does play in to the press rehabilitation of Camilla also.

I guess the royals have just accepted it and ignored it for so long, the fact that Harry wasn’t prepared to stand for it and the RF were naive enough not to understand that racism absolutely needed a firmer line than the whole never explain thing… the Sussexes leaving was probably inevitable.

i know discussion of the individuals involved is definitely something for another thread, but I do suspect this constant press scrutiny, leaks and hierarchy does make meaningful, loyal, family relationships really difficult to develop and consolidate… when ears are always listening, when communication goes through private secretaries, when it’s easy to make enemies who can always get a journalist on speed dial… People with the potential to be quite ordinary, are told they are special and put into this privileged Truman show. No wonder they struggle to get along. I think Meghan was right when she said the thing about thriving vs surviving in SA (I am not her biggest fan but I think she has been proven right about a lot of things).

Press officers are always trying to get on the good side of journalists - hoping for good publicity or mitigating bad publicity. Journalists are keen to establish good relations with press officers to try to get the inside scoop on stuff before anyone else.

Commercial companies often try to ease the way with gifts - I worked for a news organisation which forbid you taking gifts - but was offered all sorts - once a whole bootful of pizzas which they had loaded into my car while I was doing an interview with the head of the company about something, without my knowing. By the time I found out I was miles away so I took them to the nearest women's shelter.

It was a company which made frozen pizzas by the way - it wasn't just some random pizza bribe!

Press officers are always trying to get on the good side of journalists - hoping for good publicity or mitigating bad publicity

Yes, that’s true enough - hence all the sycophantic chat show appearances and magazine articles, I was deploring earlier.

A celeb wants some publicity for their latest thing, so offers up a few snippets which have been carefully curated by their PR in return for a no-challenge interview.

The objective view, and the nastiness, then comes from a rival publication or by public response.

@wordler Its clear this is how this nonsense william had an affair with rose started up and continues (see mumsnet thread). Someone who admitted it was a fake story put it up on SM, it got passed around, and now 50% of people seem to believe it.

I've never heard of half this shit because I don't read newspapers and question everything I do read.

@Toomanycaketins yes I totally agree with the horrible misogyny directed to Beatrice and Eugenie, while they’re growing up as young woman, must of been hard. I too think the whole situation makes it hard to have good family bonds depending on if you’re ever the one being thrown to the wolves.

@wordler thought it must of been a pizza company! But yes celebrities, politicians, companies, royals, all have to have PR teams and they do try and get chummy with the press which I somewhat understand. Clearly it goes too far sometimes and ends up being a case of we hear what the press has decided we should hear, rather than things we ought to know or need to know. Some things get buried, some unnecessary things get focused on.

The objective view, and the nastiness, then comes from a rival publication or by public response. Yes @HeddaGarbled i could handle the objective views, just not the nastiness that comes with it.

Exactly: there’s robust and healthy criticism, and then there’s the nasty stuff. Problem is, how to you stop the latter without censoring the former?