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.

The comments section is one of the really big changes in the last 15 years. Both on the online paper itself and then on the paper's social media profiles.

For financial reasons, the tabloids are not going to do the ethical thing which is fully moderate the comments on all their platforms, on all stories.

Partly they couldn't really afford to staff it, but also they love that the outrage generates more clicks.

If I ever do read the tabloid stories online I've just stopped completely going anywhere near the comments.

Yes this is so much about public behaviour too. Sure the press sets a tone but people took the chance as soon as it came via social media to do the same, worse, online. I don’t have accounts anywhere but here because I think it’s a little contagious and even nice people can get sucked into thinking the person they target deserves it somehow.

This is so true, the DM is eye-wateringly vile. Even the bbc news pages can be pretty bad… I reported a post on there once (not royal related, it was a homophobic post) they emailed back to say guidelines hadn’t been broken.

This could actually make sense about the Fab Four being pitted against each other due to someone else's (whoever that may be) jealousy.
And if it were to be true it's absolutely disgusting.

I honestly think the only agenda here is from those needing to sell
Papers / books

Meghan has taken herself out of the game, leaving a shortfall in tbe Royal gossip vats.

there have been loads of books on various members of the RF lately, including Spare. So the best anecdotes have been used already

hence the current crop of shite

@notanotheroneagain You are on a thread about the horrors of tabloid/media/SM bullshit and lies and the first lines of your post, regurgitate a lot of sensationalist and defamatory bullshit. Just a fraction of the truth is enough to sensationalise and bloat a news item? Not making excuses for andrew but he wasn't tried and found guilty, so that accusation is libellousm in the eyes of the law. Affairs? is this the imaginary K&W one, or the one charles and camilla had? ...A huge section of the population have unhappy marriages and affairs (as did diana). Its nothing in the grand scheme of things. Even the racism was retracted and denied by harry, (in his own words) as he grew up in that family and said they aren't racist.

Just carry on a spreading a few more tabloid style, screaming headlines, its a quiet news day. You don't like it when people comment on harry and meghan but you spread just as much bile as you complain about.

Great post, thank you.

It's all so dysfunctional.

I honestly think the only agenda here is from those needing to sell

100% It’s all about making money and in this case they have commodified a family.

People with the potential to be quite ordinary, are told they are special and put into this privileged Truman show.

Thats what my DH says! It’s true though.

I agree with both your posts, Whaeanui.

Yes there are people who need to sell. Courtiers for example. It is their job to promote and preserve the monarchy, divert unpleasant issues, give their royal bosses strong advice backed up by other eminent opinion, befriend one of them, vilify another and liaise with the media.

As for them being ordinary people who have been told they are 'special', that is true; the best royals are ones who are aware of this fact so generally behave humbly and as fairly as possible. However there are plenty who just buy into the firm to the point of refusing to communicate and publicly behaving as though there is no issue.

I have no personal dislike of any of them but I find them interesting and there are royals whom I do like. For example I like The Prince of Wales, The Duke of Sussex and their wives (& their little ones), but recently I have seen the Prince and Princess of Wales, always gracious and well turned out, in a different light; as having completely bought into the 'firm' and in danger of becoming stuffed shirts. I would be more than happy to be proved wrong.

I do not think you can stop the media, by which I mean the TV media, printed media and of course social media from commenting on the RF.
The problem is that a lot of it is comments, or opinion, and ALL people in the public eye are subject to this.
This is why the late Queen decided to never explain / complain, etc, because if you deny ONE of the many stories out there, then that implies all the others must be TRUE.
There are many many social media channels such as Youtube which frankly FEED off the RF.

It is also important to the RF that foreign trips have a media presence to promote publicise their activities.

This looks like a safe haven to discuss the press sand its excesses.

To delight and edify you, I am attaching Marina Hyde's latest.

I love her, she is both insightful and funny.

In the meantime you have to ask: how confidence-inspiring, really, is any event that has thus far been defined by about 4,000 articles (and counting) about the attendance or non-attendance of a couple of guests? Nothing says “we’re bigger than that and have moved on” like obsessing over the social plans of two California residents. This event is so inspiring and generational and monumental that the sole thing people can get truly worked up about is how their worst person in the world isn’t coming to it.

It feels somehow apt that the official dish selected by King Charles is a quiche, given quiches are often wet and almost always disappointing. Like some of Charles’s recent walkabouts, the dish has been regarded as a good use of leftover eggs.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/18/britain-coronation-sussexes-mugs-quiche-articles-california

😂😂 @MrsMaxDeWinter that is hilarious! Thank you for sharing

Interesting to read on Sky that Party Pieces, the Middleton family business is heading for insolvency and looking for a buyer. Very little press on that.

"Sky News has reported that a dowry deal is one of the options being considered by Party Pieces, as it seeks new owners. In such instance, a six-figure sum would be given to a buyer as part of efforts to offload the business"

I wonder if Ma and Pa Middleton are just trying to retire? I would've thought the coronation would bring in a lot of sales

@Roussette oh that’s weird that’s not bigger news, haven’t heard anything myself.

The business has been running at a loss for years according to companies house, how odd people and media are looking for things to be wrong with a not for profit H & M run and yet the fact this business is not even profitable for years doesn’t make the tabloids? The parents of the future Queen?

Great idea!
Who do you think would run???

Interesting poll in the Daily Mail.

It seems to be a poll of DM readers, for their new Royal website, but they are presenting it as a national poll. It is not indicated how many people were polled, nor is it broken down by age, as is usual, but it is striking that only 14% think Camilla should be called "Queen Camilla". Of course, that's not the bit they trumpet.

I have noticed almost all polls don't really focus on how unpopular Camilla remains.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11989941/KING-CHARLES-VERDICT-Monarch-defies-critics-strong-public-backing.html?ico=topics_pagination_desktop

Bliey @MrsMaxDeWinter that doesn't look very encouraging for DM readers. Sorry can't bear to click on the link but did look at the pretty picture and figures

Bigger picture of Meghan and Harry than all the others!

DM must have been disappointed with the answer about the kids' titles, 44 per cent said yes to titles, and 39 no.

I did read the article and the question was not about whether the children should have had titles, but whether or not Charles should have allowed them to have them.

@orangedalmatian as you know I don’t engage with you and you’ve repeatedly asked I don’t engage with you also, so please stop coming to my thread. Thank you.

@orangedalmatian

Why are you stalking two people you have said you want nothing to do with? This is the second time this week that you have come to threads started by two people you have specifically said you do not want to engage with.

Assuming the Monarchy continues, then the RF actually need the press to highlight some of the work they do, or charities they support, etc.
I think the Royal Rota as such has been misunderstood. I always thought it was that for example, first day at new school, just ONE photographer, filmcrew were there (instead of Hoards of cameras), being a max total of 2 or 3 people, and these pics/film were then shared amongst the other mainstream outlets, and the rota was that each took turns (The Times this time, The Guardian next time, etc). Maybe I have misunderstood!
However, this bit is the news. (if you can call it news).
Then there are the comment articles, and the fashion pages, etc
The problem is the RF do NOT control the foreign media, or social media.
There are loads of youtube accounts in which various commentators discuss the RF, and the same with Twitter, etc

I quite like the fashion comments, but this is where the 'media' set up one against the other.
For example, just as in the Oscars, for example, I like to see what the stars are wearing, and the newspapers will comment on which looks they liked or didn't like, so they do with any RF outing, and would compare Catherine with Meghan, etc.
There is a shortage of women of that age, so the comparison means there is less of a compariosn between Catherine and Camilla, for the simple reason that Camilla is much older and her style will reflect that.

I think it useful to point out that there is some regulation of the mainstream pedia (TV and Print, in the UK), but this does not apply to social media at all.
ie; there is a sort of unwritten rule, the press take pics on the first day of school, but then they leave the children alone. Except for those occassions when they accompany the RF to church, etc, or when pics are released by the RF.