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.

Why do you think it's criticism? Why not just the words of a son despairing at how his mother was affected by the press?

And there have been posts across many threads mentioning William's statement, not just this one.

A lot of the media are leading their consumers by the nose. I think social media is actually worse and probably what has encouraged more main stream media to use 'clickbait' headlines, dubious 'sources' (probably 99% made up by journalists and editors not wanting to lose their jobs).

I think both 'sides' take as gospel those reports which paint their darlings in a good light and disparage the other side, no matter where those reports come from.

I don't think 'the palace' regularly brief anything - why would they do something that denigrates the monarchy or members of the RF who uphold that monarchy? Makes no sense. Camilla has been 'the most hated woman in Britain' for decades - why would her briefing about other members of the RF make her appear any better? I think she knows that so just keeps on keeping on.

If there are palace staffers leaking stuff without approval, there needs to be an internal investigation and sackings.

Never complain, never explain is absolutely the way to deal with all of the bollocks - I'm sure most of the clickbaity headlines are just the media trying to provoke a response from the RF. And I think Meghan has realised a bit too late this is the best way of dealing with the deluge of ordure.

Critical thinking should be top of the agenda on the school curriculum.

I don't think 'the palace' regularly brief anything - why would they do something that denigrates the monarchy or members of the RF who uphold that monarchy?

They do if it denigrates INDIVIDUAL members of the family. Because sadly, being a "royal " is viewed by some as a popularity context.

Journalists have said on the record that they receive briefings so its a bit odd for you to deny it .Even the vile Dan Wootton confirmed that the briefing against Meghan was coming from Kensington Palace.

If they wanted to uphold the monarchy as a whole, they would have transparent comms like a normal organisation.

The rot started with the briefings against Diana.

Charles and Camilla are to blame for a lot of this mess.

Kate has definitely been briefed against. And it will get worse as Camilla is not at all popular. And will never be.

'Journalists have said on the record that they receive briefings so its a bit odd for you to deny it'

Where did I do that?

Never complain, never explain is absolutely the way to deal with all of the bollocks

But they don't hold to that, really do they?

Why was Camilla's son, and her "close friend" talking about how hurt she is in the last week? Why was Jeremy Clarkson unleashed on Meghan -- in at least two articles, including the most recent, he used a family nickname for Harry, Harold, that was unknown outside the family until SPARE came out?

Why did Piers Morgan state, in public, that members of the Royal family have reached out to thank him for his attacks on Meghan. Why do all the "friends of William" talk about how he was "incandescent with rage"? Why the endless "olive branches" that have been offered, according to friends and sources of Charles? And the endless stories about how members of the family intend to "ice out" Meghan of she comes?

They do complain. And they do explain. All the flipping time.

They just don't do it transparently. It's why it's such news when it happens, openly, on the record, Charles's book Diana's book, Harry's book and interviews.

They prefer to operate in the shadows.

And it is that lack of transparency that is the problem because it creates no accountability.

Harry, whatever you think of him, and Meghan, however much you dislike her, are prepared to take the flak for their words.

The others just hide behind others.

I have just quoted what you said.

I don't think 'the palace' regularly brief anything - why would they do something that denigrates the monarchy or members of the RF who uphold that monarchy?

I think both 'sides' take as gospel those reports which paint their darlings in a good light and disparage the other side, no matter where those reports come from.

I don’t know if you’re including me in that but I don’t see anyone as my ‘darlings’ nor do I disparage ‘the other side’. I’m against monarchy as an institution and say all the time I feel sorry for all of them born into or marrying into this extreme version of the Truman show.

'I have just quoted what you said.'

????????

MrsMaxDeWinter -
'Why did Piers Morgan state, in public, that members of the Royal family have reached out to thank him for his attacks on Meghan'

So now Piers Morgan is renowned for his truthful, upstanding comments? That's new. So if he says something horrible about Meghan he's lying, but everything he says about the RF is true?

'Why do all the "friends of William" talk about how he was "incandescent with rage"?'
Well, William's 'friends' don't seem to be doing him much of a service with such comments, do they?

You don't think Harry and Meghan have ever briefed via a 3rd party?

Camilla is not at all popular. And will never be

Yes I think that's the truth. People tolerate her and accept her as Charle's partner. Annointed Queen of Great Britain - no.

I have the feeling Diana probably did her fair share of manipulation, including of her eldest son

Wow Coxspurplepippin that's a pretty grim thing to say about a late mother's relationship with her son, while simultaneously criticising sm for exacerbating click bait stories!

And you are being very naive if you truly believe that the palace are not regularly briefing stories to favoured journalists and broadcasters left, right and centre. Of course they do it, except in the case of the establishment it's not called "manipulation" it's known as "communication management".

The entire project to rehabilitate Camilla's image as set out below was one such PR exercise. Many of the professionals involved in it have confirmed this was the case and declared it "a triumph".

The entire shebang surrounding the institution of the monarchy is managed to the nth degree. Overtly and sometimes less overtly. Sometimes well and sometimes less well.

An example of overt "manipulation" is when the late Queen Elizabeth endorsed Camilla as Queen Consort on the eve of her diamond jubilee. This was designed to pre-empted any negative debate or discussions about the issue and contradicted a previous announcement made by the royal household in 2005 that said the duchess's title would change to "princess consort" when Charles becomes king.

Prior to the late Queen's endorsement, a You Gov poll taken in November 2021, showed that only 15% of the British public thought that Camilla should become queen and 40% said she should become princess consort. Whereas afterwards, in February 2022, 41% of people said she should become queen, with 10% saying she should be princess consort. So the PR strategy was clearly to cut off any debate before it had begun. I wonder if this will backfire when Camilla is anointed with holy oils on May 6th?

And we have all recently become much more aware of less overt briefing methods thanks in part to Harry flagging them up, and thanks to press abroad who are not required to comply with certain injunctions and restrictions in place in the UK. Once you see it, you can't not see it frankly. Surely critical thinking is all about looking beyond the headlines and seeing who is sending what message about whom, and then asking why?

If the papers were to systematically denigrate and smear every member of the royal family (bar Camilla) for ever more it will never work. Because it's wrong. The general public are not fools.

Are you confused? I quoted a statement you made, which I have now repeated twice, saying the Palace does not brief. And I responded to say journalists have gone on record to say they have been briefed by the Palace.

Piers is just one of at least three journalists I can think of who have said on record that they are in direct touch with RF members or are briefed by the press. More recently Emily Andrews stated that one of her jobs is to do PR and spin positively for them. As was she was reminded, several times, she was the journalist who wrote the damaging but untrue "Meg commandmets" story, so it's clear that she does spin for some, and is briefed against others.

As for William, yes I agree that his friends do him no favours because they make him sound like an out of control bully and in fact support Harry's story about William putting his finger to Meghan's face, and then hitting him to the ground. And also the stories in the last week, if you believe Jobson, that he has a short fuse, is easily angered and not easily calmed.

'Are you confused? I quoted a statement you made, which I have now repeated twice, saying the Palace does not brief'

Not as confused as you it would appear. Nowhere have I said the palace does not brief.
If I was Tom Parker Bowles I'd probably be defending my mother against Prince Harry's utterings, off my own bat, not as 'palace briefings'. It's OK for Harry to make these claims about Camilla but not OK for Tom Parker Bowles to speak up in her defence without claims it's a palace briefing

Piers is just one of at least three journalists I can think of who have said on record that they are in direct touch with RF members or are briefed by the press

I remember watching him say that on GMTV around 2020 and wondering which RF member? But he said it a few times - and said it in a cocky manner!

I did not say it was not okay.

I used that example to show that they do speak, but through other people, not directly. So they do complain, and they do explain.

And again, I quote your own back words to you:

I don't think 'the palace' regularly brief anything - why would they do something that denigrates the monarchy or members of the RF who uphold that monarchy?

Do you know what the word 'regularly' means? obviously not

Okay Felicia😅

Well said Whaeanui and same here.

As a British citizen, following Queen Elizabeth's long reign of seventy years, I would have appreciated a chance to vote as to whether I wanted to live in a country with a monarchy or not. I am pretty sure I am not alone in that wish either.

I know that the system of hereditary monarchy does not allow for such a "pause for reflection" to take place, hence the immediate proclamations following the reigning monarch's death, but there are virtually no straightforward mechanisms through which one can challenge the status quo, except joining organisations supporting a republic or talking to your MP.

I was certainly shocked when a history tutor was arrested and bundled off to a police station at one of the proclamations for shouting out "has he been elected?" And there were general concerns about freedom of speech at the time https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-62883713.

Personally, I don't think the period of mourning was the most sensitive of times to mount a protest, but if not then, when?

I wouldn't blame anyone who mounts a legitimate and peaceful protest at the time of the Coronation and I hope they are allowed to protest freely.

And to cap it all, Camilla being promoted to Queen Consort from on high without any public endorsement certainly feels like manipulation to me.

@Wingedinsectsunite yes I share your concerns about freedom of speech and being able to peacefully protest too.

I don't think 'the palace' regularly brief anything - why would they do something that denigrates the monarchy or members of the RF who uphold that monarchy?

I also disagree and think this is denying a pretty obvious reality. This thread was started to discuss the relationship between the royal family and the press and how they could change this to be better for all the family, and society, by putting an ending to these types of leaking and briefing against each other. If you don’t think that happens at all, this is probably not a very interesting thread for you as this is what it was intended for.

Sorry, don't know the reference. Could you explain?

My comment was that it didn't happen regularly, not that it didn't happen.

Are you suggesting anyone who disagrees with your assertions that members of the family regularly brief against each other shouldn't be on this thread?
No matter if I think both mainstream press and social media have caused polarisation, allowed the rascist, misogynistic, unkind, unwarranted abuse of ALL members of the family to proliferate?

OK, see ya.

Define 'regularly '

I too wonder what is going on with these “friendships” between individuals like Morgan and Clarkson and the royals…. Is it like a genuine friendship or more a case of keeping influential journalists/presenters/columnists on side? Do the royals secretly loathe all the sucking up but know it’s a relationship where the journalist gets status from proximity and a few little nuggets of info here and there, in return the royals get sympathetic coverage?

These same people who have picked a target (Meghan mainly) and exploited any small rift within the family, clarkson and piers completely disproportionate bullying behaviour towards her being an example.

i could not remain friends with someone who was prepared to do that, even if it was motivated by some kind of misguided loyalty to me.

i know prince Philip was close to brandreth, but I don’t recall the Queen courting media friends. We actually know very little about her, presumably keeping her confidences very close. This may have been an aspect of why the never explain/complain thing worked well for her.

Wow way to criticise Diana’s own son who knew her well enough, and who may have seen the torment his mum went through when she thought everyone was against her. From what I recall, she even started to believe that William was also in on it too. There's been many reports of Diana claiming that William was her closest confidante, and that she even parentified him. To blame William for saying his mother was paranoid, from people who don't even know her such as yourself and others here is just beyond the pale. He has every right to state how he feels about his mother, and no one should criticise him for it. He is entitled to his feelings.

Who cares if there's many new posters? Seems like you're acting paranoid yourself 🙄.