Study social media Prince Harry, Meghan, Princess Catherine and Prince William

[RYGO]

Prince Harry is on top – for the wrong reasons

Prince Harry is the most talked about Royal on social media – but the majority of mentions are negative

https://archive.ph/4LrAq

“The research found that, perhaps unsurprisingly, Prince Harry was the most talked about Royal on social media with 3.9 million total mentions. However - as the study points out - the majority of those mentions were negative, primarily due to his autobiography, Spare, which made up 21 per cent of all mentions.

Speaking of whom: there was a spike in negative mentions of Meghan, the second-most talked about Royal on social media with 3 million mentions, after the couple were parodied on the American animated comedy series South Park.

Overall negative mentions about the Duchess were almost four times more numerous than positive ones: 384k vs 98k. Comparatively, the Princess of Wales - who is the third most talked about Royal on social media with 2.2 million mentions - fared much better in the study with the number of positive comments twice as high as negative ones (105k vs 48k).

The Prince of Wales may be put out at the notion of being less talked about than his brother, sister-in-law and wife, but the good news for William is that of his 659k mentions, 44K were positive and 14K were negative.”

Off the top of my head I can name senatable charity / Invictus games, some Grenfell tower banana thing as Harry and Megan charities. And arxhiwell whatever that does. They are alsp raising awareness about baked in racism and press bias and bullying.

For William and Kate I think willam does something with air rescue! And kates young early years which is great but not sure what it means it does.

I think the Sussexes will be happy they're being talked about. Shows people are interested. In the commercial world there's no such thing as bad publicity as it can soon be turned to good.
I think for the Waleses, it's not so necessary for them to be talked about because they don't need that to support their position. However if people are talking about them, they'd want it to be positive.
So I think both couples will be happy with those findings. Hurrah.

I don't think much about H&M, but this is an excellent point! I can name some of theirs, but don't have a clue about W&K, except she looks taking photos

Not surprising at all.

H has just released a book, has various TV interviews and featured in Southpark. So lots to talk about, lots of things to have opinions on - good and bad, and judging by a lot of the commentary, mainly bad - which spurs more commentary because most people like a pile on

Equally, M will have had all the 'where was M?' commentary plus the noted spike after southpark. Again all are quite recent and, therefore showing coverage

W&K have been keeping their heads down - a bit as usual - but also a bit because 1) they probably hoped the least said the sooner people moved on from H, and 2) their current job is not to outshine C before the coronation. K will have more than W because you need to factor in all the clothes and hair comments.

The most telling sentence of the whole thing is the first one - Every day, journalists like me receive emails from PR companies trying to cash in on the Coronation on behalf of their clients - This is a PR agency looking for a hook to get some coverage for themselves so will have picked on the most notable fact. If something better had come up about Biden, Nicole Kidman or whoever, they'd have led with that.

W&K’s future success depends on them not being talked about.

H&M need all the publicity they can get.

I think W&K need to be talked about, seen, publicised, in the media. Otherwise slowly but surely the public will be saying 'what on earth are we paying all this money for....'

From things I have read about I would also add Smart works for Meghan and Travelyst for Harry

William has Earthshot and he and Catherine together have Shout. A charity for the mental health for emergency workers and other charities supported by their foundation, their patronages (I can think of Welsh/ Irish Guards, National Gallery, , BAFTA, Scouts, English/Welsh rugby, EACH off the top of my head).

I think the couples' work has probably very little to do with their social media and more to do with perception filtered through the press. The study shows that negative stories get more clicks I think.

Which is sad because I think all of them are sincere in their desire to draw attention to good causes and the individuals working for good in society.

William and Kate claim work when all that has happened is their Foundation have given a grant to the charity. Grants are good, but it is not work for William and Kate.

Unfortunately Harry and Meghan have generated so much negative SM attention, because they are constantly in the news. Harry of course at the moment, but last year it was all Meghan as she was most active.

SM is a cesspit imo and loves to spread lies and disinformation. SM is the home of anti vaxxers and trump supporters, so it's hardly surprising such a divisive couple head the table of SM mentions.

What an unfair comment. You are likening them to Trump supporters and anti vaxxers? Ironic, given the work and exposure they generated to COVAX, the vaccine sharing programme at the height of the pandemic.

Harry has attended a court case in the UK along with Baroness Lawrence and other famous people... to highlight the unfair and unlawful practices by AN, along with forthcoming attendance at the Coronation. Meghan has barely been seen for months.
But that doesn't stop the unpleasantness.

@Roussette Your stalking me is just so tiresome.

Will you just stop with these ridiculous assertions like stalking!

It is a discussion forum we are on. If there is a post that I don;t agree with whoever posts it, I am quite entitled to reply.

If you don't want people to answer you or comment, stop posting stuff like H&M are the equivalent of anti vaxxers and Trump supporters.

p.s. me answering you now is not bullying.

Doesn't William do something with football? His earthshot prize seems worthwhile, I'd like there to be a world for my GC when they grow up. William and Kate did something with Harry about mental health, I don't know if they have kept that up with Harry leaving.

Sorry all a bit vague.

Interesting you separated Harry from Meghan. Combined the Cambridge to make the numbers look bigger.

Secondly, I also think the Cambridge numbers are about Harry and Meghan and not necessarily generated by them.

Frankly the only thing that surprises me is that anyone gets positive comments! SM seems to exist to rip people in the public eye to shreds.

I didn’t see this as an unfair comment. And I certainly didn’t read it as comparing H&M to trump supporters, etc. It merely says that SM, in the poster’s opinion, is a cesspit.

And it absolutely can be.

I read it that if you put yourself out there - and Harry recently really did - then you will attract more comments than someone who does not. And because of the people who seem to live on SM, lies and disinformation will no doubt be put there. Either to defend those who they have an affinity with by trying to discredit those they don’t care as much about or just because they can. I’m not sure which is worse.

Quite a few SM platforms have users who are so entrenched in their opinions that they will have something fairly robust to say. And they will defend their stance equally robustly.

Lies and disinformation are spread about most in the public eye - not just H&M. You only have to look at some of the spurious threads on here about the Royals. Not every ‘bad’ post is about H&M or W&K for that matter. They both have had bloody rotten and unfair things said about them.

It usually turns into a bitchfest or a backtrack mealie mouthed ‘oh but I feel for so and so’ or ‘I wasn’t saying that’ when called out for it. Or descends into bloodymindedness and deflection by starting bringing someone else in the mix to dilute arguments or set a thread off on a different tangent.

We’ve all seen it.

Some are entrenched here too. Deeply.

But nowhere did I take that as comparing H&M to anti vaxxers and trump supporters. I truly didn’t.

I wouldn’t be taking much notice about so called polls because not everyone will be voting with the best of intentions or will be taking the information they form their opinion on from a gobshite on SM. Same with newspaper polls. Because so much of SM really is a cesspit and folk have their own agendas.

Likewise froth inducing threads.

I really like Harry and think Meghan is the most beautiful royal by miles. It's a great loss to the monarchy that they were made to feel unwelcome in the UK by some of the snarkier members of the royal family and their toadying courtiers.

The very idea of a monarchy is ridiculous anyway. All this shows is that the UK's peasantry are happy to keep tugging their forelocks to people they consider their betters and they obviously don't mind being trampled on, so long as it's by someone like them. Gross.

And as if by magic…

Not every issue is a 'both sides' issue. Sometimes things are just plain wrong. The vastly differential treatment by our media of people who are in otherwise similar positions is a clear case in point.

And pretending something is a 'there's good and bad on both sides' conversation isn't the conciliatory reasoning of a wise and balanced person, it's the hallmark of a closet racist who likes the status quo just as it is. And the status quo is the problem. And by extension, so are its shills and apologists.

I’m equally sure a wise and balanced person wouldn’t be insinuating that people with a different view are closet racists - more so when there is no evidence of it on this thread.

If I see it I call it out. I’ve had my fill of racist comments over the years and to see it being used as a sweeping accusation to make a point only serves to dilute the seriousness of it when it actually is happening to someone.

It is probably wise to react to what is seen - not what one wants to see.

Likewise sweeping statements about tugging forelocks and peasants.

That doesn’t make for a balanced conversation either.

But once again, 1-0 for froth inducing threads against civilised discussion.

It is a shame. But not a surprise.

I'm not sure about the point of this thread. Or the wisdom of labelling people closet racists. No-one knows another's motivation. Or ethnic heritage. All nuance and debate seems to fly out of the window. Much like any Brexit threads.
I am reminded of an incident at school recently. Sixth form students don't wear uniform. A girl came in with a Palestinian t-shirt with a very provocative logo. She was spoken to: we don't wear political slogans, we have to be neutral, we can't allow anything like this, school is not the place etc etc. Oh, she absolutely understood and agreed. She thought the school policy was good and fair. However, she said "I am right".

Totally agree with this. I think anyone in the public eye has to assume there will be unkind things said about them on SM, whoever they are. If they come across as trying to appear kind and altruistic but there's a suspicion or evidence of them being anything but, then SM is brutal. Look at all the comments about 'Mr. Nice guy' Philip Schofield in the last few weeks.

Assume MNHQ are ok with a lot of name changing.

Well said