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.

This is also very true.

But it is fair to say that the BBC is eating itself from the inside too.

Some of the journalists on flagship shows are appaling - looking at you Evan Davis for example.

Because its Celtic fans at an Old Firm Derby.

They regularly sing anti-Monarchy songs, as well as some jovial chants supporting the IRA, sectarianism and bigotry.

It truly makes this Scot proud.

Quite, @MrsFinkelstein . They've got form.

Yup. Think they also chanted "Lizzie's in a box" after QE2 death.

Nothing about their vile football chants should be celebrated - blue or green.

They have plenty of decent songs to sing, shows who they are when they choose certain ones (again blue or green).

Exactly. It's a mob mentality.

Hoping you all saw the interview with Princess Anne on CBS. A fine example of transparency, and how to do this press stuff instead of the endless briefings against each other.

I am still surprised that Charles has not done an interview ahead of the Coronation as it would be a perfect opportunity to let the country see and hear him in his own words.

I had assumed he had done actually but yes had seen Anne’s interview. Her words on slavery were a bit deflective I thought.

Definitely agree @Whaeanui but it's always good to have such views expressed clearly so that they can be challenged robustly, rather through the sneaky briefings that don't allow you to see what these people actually think.

Wow.

Please make time for this great interview with Patrick Jephson who has interesting things to say about the Palace and the Press.

https://www.newsweek.com/tabloid-deletes-story-prince-harry-turning-woke-meghan-markle-lawsuit-1797828?amp=1

Interesting - what’s happening here? Is this the effect of the case? Is it the effect of the new signing?

Oh that is weird @skullbabe is that very common?

Definately not

Popping a link to this excellent interview with Harry's Ghost Writer here. He found himself outed and numerous misrepresentations were made about him:

"Then someone leaked news of the book.
Whoever it was, their callousness toward Harry extended to me. I had a clause in my contract giving me the right to remain unidentified, a clause I always insist on, but the leaker blew that up by divulging my name to the press. Along with pretty much anyone who has had anything to do with Harry, I woke one morning to find myself squinting into a gigantic searchlight. Every hour, another piece would drop, each one wrong. My fee was wrong, my bio was wrong, even my name....

...The genesis of my relationship with Harry was constantly misreported. Harry and I were introduced by George Clooney, the British newspapers proclaimed, even though I’ve never met George Clooney. Yes, he was directing a film based on my memoir, but I’ve never been in the man’s presence, never communicated with him in any way. I wanted to correct the record, write an op-ed or something, tweet some facts. But no. I reminded myself: ghosts don’t speak. One day, though, I did share my frustration with Harry. I bemoaned that these fictions about me were spreading and hardening into orthodoxy. He tilted his head: Welcome to my world, dude. By now, Harry was calling me dude."
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/05/15/j-r-moehringer-ghostwriter-prince-harry-memoir-spare

Also a great Twitter thread on The Express and the numerous articles they've published over the last 4 days:
https://twitter.com/edwinhayward/status/1655520685731487744

@BelleHathor thanks so much for sharing that. I’ll take a read of both

The headlines he shared in that tweet thread, truly that tabloid has completely lost the plot. Just crazy made up nonsense. They shouldn’t be allowed to do this to anyone.

@Whaeanui No problem at all!

The Thread author is brilliant, I'm glad he is documenting this. Funnily enough he was blocked by an Express "journalist" a couple of weeks ago when he did another thread highlighting the lack of "journalism" .

Who is comparing him to Tom Parker Bowles? I personally know that Tom is really intelligent and impressive with a fantastic education. Using those drugs has enhanced the gifts which he already has. Harry, on the other hand--

Sure you do

What an interesting reflective piece by Spare’s ghostwriter - it really is interesting how he came to be a ghostwriter and his process. I thought the little insights to what was chosen and what was as also interesting and his descriptions of his interactions with Harry (and Meghan and the children).

A really good thing from the Twitter thread is this breakdown of what happened on Saturday - attached below for posterity. I’ve already seen all sorts of comments - I wonder if people just don’t get tired sometimes.

Interestingly - but not unsurprisingly- the Daily Mail has reported on the ghostwriter article but only focussed on his argument with Harry not the media misrepresentation

Thanks for sharing that, I wonder that too. Crazy what absolute fantasy has been created.

Oh I loved the article by the author of Spare! Really interesting perspective.

Within days, the amorphous campaign against “Spare” seemed to narrow to a single point of attack: that Harry’s memoir, rigorously fact-checked, was rife with errors. I can’t think of anything that rankles quite like being called sloppy by people who routinely trample facts in pursuit of their royal prey, and this now happened every few minutes to Harry and, by extension, to me. In one section of the book, for instance, Harry reveals that he used to live for the yearly sales at TK Maxx, the discount clothing chain. Not so fast, said the monarchists at TK Maxx corporate, who rushed out a statement declaring that TK Maxx never has sales, just great savings all the time! Oh, snap! Gotcha, Prince George Santos! Except that people around the world immediately posted screenshots of TK Maxx touting sales on its official Twitter account. (Surely TK Maxx’s effort to discredit Harry’s memoir was unrelated to the company’s long-standing partnership with Prince Charles and his charitable trust.)

I’d love to know who leaked his name. Because it made people a lot more likely to buy it once it was leaked and only Team Sussex and their publisher would have known.

it was a leak that did THEM a lot of good, but not him as an individual.

One last snippet, it’s a worthwhile read the New Yorker piece:

His family actively discourages talking, a stoicism for which they’re widely lauded, but if you don’t speak your emotions you serve them, and if you don’t tell your story you lose it—or, what might be worse, you get lost inside it. Telling is how we cement details, preserve continuity, stay sane.