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.

I think a clarion call has gone out, because the other threads have been deleted.

They are clearly gunning to derail this thread.

Exactly, there's been many reports of William being protective of his mother growing up, from
slipping her tissues underneath the door when she was crying, and her sharing her stories of her love life to him that other reporters found quite shocking. Even the crown shows a bit of this parentification that William experienced Also, imagine as a young child hearing or reading that your mother threw herself down the stairs while pregnant by you. Regardless of the reason for her doing so, that would be enough to cause humiliation and trauma for a child at such a young age. Not to mention the bullying that William reportedly experienced when his beloved mother did the interview. I can't believe so many people just dismiss what William says because to them Diana is a saint and can do no wrong. It's as though they think they know better than her own son. But if we were to judge her based on her actions as a mother, what Diana did was a pretty crap thing to do to her kids.

For those who have been engaging in the thread topic in good faith, I don’t intend to let the good discussion we had going, get derailed. I’m going to stick to the topic I set this up for and just ignore what’s not relevant.

I think it is rather sad that this has descended into an anti H&M story, versus anti the rest, etc.
Reading up the thread, the thing is Diana WAS paranoid, and she had every right to be. She had been shown 'evidence' (cooked up by Martin Bashir), that the RF were bugging her, etc. I remember reading about this at the time, and how she was ripping up the floorboards etc. I thought she sounded quite delusional.
Of course, now we know why.... and that is (I think) what P. William meant, when he said about the BBC feeding her paranoia. Remember Diana refused to use the Royal Protection officers, instead relying on security from Mohammed Al Fayed, at the time of her tragic accident in Paris.
When the RF go on these tours, members of the Press are invited to go along (remember Harry saying they were on the plane, albeit in economy). They go along because they are there to publicise the trip, etc.
It is a kind of simbiotic relationship. Diana was renowned for ringing up certain press people to give advance notice of where she would be... Now this is the stuff that gets out of hand. She found she couldn't turn it off.
Just as any major company release press info on stuff, so do the RF. It is the continuous 'briefing' that gets out of hand, and all the commentary, that goes on, especially on social media.
Personally, I really dislike it when public people air the 'dirty laundry' in public. I did not like it when Charles did it - interview with David/Joanthan Dimbleby. (This interview was orinally meant to be about the Princes TRust, I think); I didn't like it when Diana did so (Martin Bashir, and the book by Andrew Morton). However, I always thought Diana did so, beause when her own parents divorced her mother lost custody of the children, and I think she was probably scared that would happen to her, so wanted to get her side in first, so to speak. That is MY speculation, but it is a reasonable jsutification. Except later reports state she did not want to divorce.

The irony. You were quite merrily chatting to others about your disappointment with William because he called his mother paranoid. You derailed your own thread🙄.

Good questions. I think they live in a very different world to the likes of you and I. I think it must be actually quite hard to have good friendships with people you can really trust. I think absolutely they play a game with members of the press. The fact the tabloids are owned by just a few corporations means they have enormous influence and it would be hard to go up against it in any way if you’re public figures. The hacking cases going way bank to the beginning until now, including ongoing cases, should tell us just how much power they have.

I think what Bashir did was criminal tbh. I think Diana even started to believe that William was also bugging her via his watch. To manipulate someone like that to the point that they lose trust in their own kids is despicable. I think that's probably why William said she was paranoid. Also, just coz I criticized Diana doesn't mean I'm pro Charles or BRF. I think Charles was a selfish and uncaring husband to Diana and he should have done better to make things work instead of hooking up with Camilla. And if he had no intention of trying to make it work with Diana he should never have married her or at least divorced her first, instead of cheating on her.

Who is 'they'?

There have been plenty of seemingly disingenuous threads started by new posters designed to have people frothing against the RF - off the top of my head, the thread about PRince Edward losing weight, Charles being a hoarder, Kate missing the Commonwealth reception and one about the court circular. There's plenty of examples. It's odd to suggest that 'new' or name changing posters are only out to diss H&M. There are a couple of very prolific name changing posters who are especially vituperative about the RF.

If I am counted as a new poster… I have been on mumsnet on and off for about 10 years… I often lurk on the royal boards but only decided to contribute to this thread because it seemed a more balanced and nuanced topic from the outset.

I think it’s fair to say that there have been some different interpretations of the William/Bashir comments which is ok surely? (and as so often is said on MN, we are not a hive mind).

my parents married the same year as C&D and my siblings and I are similar in age to W&H so without being overinvested, their coming of age stories run alongside ours iykwim. I am incredibly sad that things have turned out how they have and still hope that they can heal their rifts and find strength in sharing a unique, somewhat traumatic upbringing. I’m sure this would be a lot more possible without the press attacking, undermining and finding the worst explanation for every word and glance they make, or creating enmity between their wives.

Once more.

Diana was repeating the same things she told Morton. So how Bashir got the interview in inconsequential. She was not paranoid as William stated.

@Toomanycaketins I’m sure this would be a lot more possible without the press attacking, undermining and finding the worst explanation for every word and glance they make, or creating enmity between their wives. I so agree with this! Imagine if all your family arguments appeared in the press, multiple times a day. Oh my god it would be terrible!

You mention an interesting point about the Queen.

It's why I automatically disbelieved Tom Bower's "Thank God Meghan is not coming" story during Philip's funeral. In fact, that story is the only one I recall where there was gentle push back by those close to the Queen, someone denied it, and observed, wryly, that it is hard to imagine that Meghan was the first thing that popped into her head after the death of her beloved husband of years and years.

And that leads to another observation.

After Diana died, the Queen was hugely unpopular, and those years were pretty awful for her, and the rest of the family. But did she hire a Mark Bolland or an ex Daily Mail editor or cosy up to the Morgans and Clarkson types? No, she kept her head down and got on with it. And died beloved and dear to her "subjects" and respected around the world.

That respect, that affection was earned, not manipulated by hiring ex Daily Mail staffers or throwing others under the bus to make herself more popular.

She learned a huge lesson from that ghastly BBC documentary. I believe that her only meetings with the press was when they met her on public engagements. She did not have to manipulate the media as her son and daughter-in-law have done, and keep doing.

I keep saying it: the rot set in when Charles needed to discredit Diana to rehabilitate Camilla.

@notanotheroneagain yes, she repeated pretty much the same sentiments a number of times. The press manipulated her for sure, like them all, but they were her feelings very much based in the reality she was living in at the time. The pressure for both Diana & Charles must of been intense.

D'you perhaps think William might have known more about his mother's state of mind and actions than most?

Exactly this, there seems to be some fantasy that if not for Bashir the interview would not have happened. It probably would not have happened with HIM. But she had said it all in the Morton book. And she was being courted by all sorts of stations, including the Royalists' favourite interviewer, Oprah, to do an interview.

I think you and @Coxspurplepippin are talking at cross purposes.

William was talking about Diana’s general paranoia in behaviour (fueled by Bashir’s lies to convince her to speak) not the specifics of what she said.

No no no. Posters on MN know much more than William even though they never met Diana or weren't even born when she died.

By the way if anyone is spoiling for a fight and is bored of the royal topics there’s a cream tea thread going where we’ve just started debating whether the cream or jam goes first.

Exactly !

And from what I recall, Morton did not feed her bugging stories to make her look under floor boards etc.
She said what she said and repeated it to Bashir.

i personally think there has been a shift from the royals just being there - the stoic, consistent, tweed-and-tartan clad queen and her Dracula like husband, who seemed old my whole life…. To a celebrity-type culture where they have “fans” and even their supporters have fans, the endless discussions about who uses the most private jets, rewears the best outfits and earrings and so on.

It has become competitive, whether the competition is each other or actually just to stay relevant/justify their existence. Sometimes the good things they are trying to do (Earthshot, invictus whatever) just gets lost in the background media noise.

I agree this probably started with Diana and her star power, the fabricated comparisons with Fergie and the picking sides post divorce from Charles, elevating Camilla, and now their sons and their wives.

I think a lot of people are questioning the monarchy since the queen died… and the frenzied cacophony of press articles, press releases etc trying to grab your attention and make someone look good, someone else look bad, recycling and “resurfacing” of stories from years ago. It’s actually really distasteful and almost makes me think I’d rather have the steady old queen or no monarchy at all.

Well said. Yes I agree with you.
@Toomanycaketins

And I honestly think it is going to get worse. The DM who are very pro Royal are reporting that Charles is worth just shy of £2 billion since inheriting after the Queen died, and urging him to pay IHT. This is unusual for that newspaper to say the least!

That extreme wealth will only grow enormously (money grows money) and be passed on to William to avoid IHT. Why the hell isn't Charles paying for the Coronation. It could just be something the royals do to alleviate the growing cynicism and dislike of such huge amounts of money being spent on this unnecessary party. We don't have to have one. He is King already. He, and William when his time comes, should be paying for it themselves.

You are so observant.

It's royals as celebrities, isn't it. Makes you understand why the most "unpopular" royals are also the most click baity.

It's like an unscripted reality show where the tabloids can't stop writing about the "hate" figures.

I agree it really is.

Who remembers when Big Brother started decades ago, with Nasty Nick. The media was in a frenzy about him!

And if there isn't a villain they just appoint one. Meghan is the punchbag for all that goes wrong with the RF.

I will just link it again, I did so elsewhere. Daily Express, 44 articles in a 24 hour period recently.

I believe wholeheartedly that Diana wanted an opportunity to speak to the camera and to the world openly and honestly about her experience.

And if there isn't a villain they just appoint one.

Absolutely, it’s so true.