Part 2: The Press & The Royals a discussion

[Whaeanui]

Following on from this thread: Part 1 https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/4786923-the-press-the-royals-a-discussion?page=1

As we know, the press often manufacture stories to create divisions between the women in the family, more often than the men. They have also hacked private communications, with cases ongoing. The public seem to feed off this and none of the family get treated very well except the monarch-although not always.

For discussion: 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, and how can they achieve that? How will previous and current legal proceedings alter the relationship?
Please do not intentionally derail this thread by discussing your personal dislike of particular family members or if they deserve it. I would really like to continue this discussion on how the royal family and the press interact, as above.

Oh you will have certain links hidden until they check it MrsDeWinter

Not sure why my reply was hidden twice now, but I posted an article by Camilla Long in The Times, which goes a long way to explaining why the Royal Family tries so hard to have an accommodation with the press. It is utterly malicious and brutally harsh, featuring such bon mots as:

It won’t do, this uninspiring, threadbare, wheezing collection of corpses.

Yikes.

It’s the link you use, some get hidden for awhile till they check it.

Thanks @Whaeanui

Trying again. I honestly read it with my mouth open. What a horrible life they lead, always at the mercy of the press.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/charlies-looking-gnarly-if-i-were-the-heir-id-start-pushing-for-an-abdication-date-ff7zhd8cv

@polkadotdalmation and @jeffgoldblum Don't want to go off track but politeness says I must thank you for the advice and yes I have noticed the bees like dandelions. I don't feel too guilty as the grass verges here are full of them as the council doesn't cut them till much later in the year.

@MrsMaxDeWinter

What an article! (If anyone needs it not behind a paywall, I can archive it and post the link on here)

Whilst it is gobsmackingly caustic, I think we are entitled to see something like this. We (who are not great fans of the Institution) have had 10 days/2 weeks of non stop luvvie Coronation stuff. I, personally, am heartily sick to death of it. Even my local Politics show today which I always watch, spent the last 5 minutes on the Coro. It was eight days ago FFS, give it up!

So to me... despite the article being a bit mean.. I welcome it. If only as an antidote to all the sugary sweet stuff we have been spoon fed for weeks.

Oh @Roussette I don't know.

There are many who have made the observation that this line-up does not reflect the modern age, and its a shame the King does not have younger people in his family as part of his working team, but this felt more like gratuitous shit stirring than reasoned criticism.

It's a bit much to write that the guy whose coronation was just last week should now abdicate!!!

Also insulting the Queen's memory, she was over 90 after all, and continued working through her last week.

I wouldn’t think much of an organisation that dumps its elderly employees , some of whom e have worked for it for over 60 years, because they don’t provide ‘sexy’ enough optics.

@MrsMaxDeWinter I thought she was actually fine about the Queen and how 'she built a relateable world around her'. I think she imagines Charles is not going to be able to do that. And I think she is right. And she said "It’s not that I mind older people doing jobs for as long as they want — the Queen did hers much better than almost anyone at 96". That's all she said about the Queen?
Yes it was caustic. Yes, it was mean as I said. But perhaps I'm a bit royalled out.... and being unfair.

Well absolutely, but it's The Times which is owned by Murdoch. The hypocrisy is actually breathtaking. Maybe Rupert should read it - it could easily apply to him.

It's particularly awful when the appearance of the Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra was to thank them for their life long service and friendship to the late Queen.

Tacky tacky tacky article.

that article’s not particularly nice but in the name of free speech and all that, she might as well get it out of her system.

I enjoyed the Coronation and we haven’t had a youthful monarch recently - I like Charles’s Benevolent Gardening Grandpa mixed in with “For God’s Sake We’re Late Again!” or words to that effect. He’s got no Prince Philip to scare the shit out of people and check pens work before he gets within 20 feet of them.

But whatever I think now, I may change my mind and I want to see the opposite viewpoint as well and as long as it’s not just gratuitously spiteful or ageist or whatever, criticism is really important.

Can’t read the article but from the summary it sounds incredibly ageist. However, free press and maybe she raises some good points for the TF to consider. They will need to draft in some younger family members to help out. Charles probably wasn’t expecting to lose Andrew and Harry when he began talking about slimming down. Maybe Zara, Beatrice, Louise etc - Catherine and William are in fire though. I like Charles but he needs to manage his emotions better - moaning in the coach about having to wait five minutes is not a good look

Sadly I can’t read it behind the paywall but it doesn’t sound particularly pleasant and I’m not a fan of this writer typically either.

The Archive version linked earlier is now approved, and I was able to open it.

Here are the screenshots.

Scathing no doubt. But this is the kind of style constantly used on H&M, which is usually celebrated on here.

I can't read it but from the opening couple of lines that I can see I think she's having a go at Princess Alexandra, is that right? Having a go at a woman who must be getting on for 90 who has supported her cousin (the late Queen) for virtually all of her adult life is cheap and nasty.

The tone is not for me I’m afraid. While there’s a point there somewhere and some of the lines, especially about Anne are quite accurate and funny, I just don’t like insulting people because they’re old. It’s too far for me and if she had done away with that nonsense and made a point about perhaps, the future of the monarchy, that would have been much more readable. Free speech, great. But I can think of better ways to make a point if I had a big platform, ways that don’t include mocking elderly people who have devoted themselves to service they think and many think, is valuable. I may be a republican, but I don’t think it’s necessary to make the point by being viscous.

The nastiness of that article must be contagious tonight as one of the (am guessing) twitter dregs has posted the 'kkk' moniker on the Catherine thread....

That’s a nasty article to insult the elderly, republicans or not.

That was nasty for the sake of being nasty. I don't agree it was in a style used to attack H&M, at least no articles I've read (don't read gutter press of shit social media crap).

Either way, criticise something you don't agree with. Call out bad behaviour, but that article is vile. Attacking,people because of their age and religious beliefs and their appearance.

I don't criticise meghans looks, her children, her pregnancies, her love for her husband or he lifestyle choices. I criticise what she says to hurt innocent people. Ditto Harry.

That is exactly Camilla Long style. All over.

Infact, she has been quoted/ attached and gleefully cut and paste on here with this style for H&M. Not only that, but posters also agreeing with her and what a great article it is.

Infact, just recently, another poster just cut and paste a similar style of article from another reporter about Harry's ghostwriter (since anyone who supports H&M has to be denigrated). Not only did the poster agree with this style of writing, they also had support cheering it on. Just only saw this one yesterday, so it was sometime this week.

Hopefully, by this article, people can see what is apparent to to others with regards to how H&M are reported on and in the future realise how harsh writing is about the couple. Though I won't hold my breath.

@notanotheroneagain absolutely. This is exactly the kind of snide mean style dished
out to M & H daily and for months. They get shared here and agreed with too, for sure.

I reported

Also, hopefully the RF should also realise this is what H&M had to put up with.

This all goes back to your original question.

The palace knee-jack reaction is to pass it on to someone else - by briefing on someone else to take the fleck. But how long can they keep this up. You can only have so many scapegoats. And with members having been known to be 'good' for years, against new 'villain' MM. Well, who's going to take that mantle now? The public won't easily buy it, if they have known that good 2 shoes for years.

The newest married ins are males via cousins - our misogynistic papers and culture are not that open to that. MM is far and keeping her head down. Now that Spare has been promoted, it looks like Harry is doing the same. Realistically, how long can people rage over someone they are hardly seeing for days/weeks or even months?

But papers must be sold now. Money made now.

This is what H&M have been trying to tell us all, including the royals.

The only conundrum for the Sussexes is that they need to promote their charities. Quite a challenge when you leave your front door and you are nitpicked as 'attention seeking/staged' or whatever other bollocks, to put a negative spin on you, when your trying to promote your work.

Dear God what a venomous article! In the Times no less. I’m confused with the article in the Mail today - I think it’s a soft launch into more negative commentary in the Mail but time will only tell.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12080863/amp/SARAH-VINE-hate-say-Id-watch-one-Harrys-worth-docs.html

@notanotheroneagain From someone who has just finished putting an incredibly negative spin on William and kate, this is rich coming from you.