Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn and cauldron bubble: "Royal Protocol"

[queentim]

Often in threads about the royal family, the issue of 'royal protocol' is discussed.

This thread is one where we can discuss (the ridiculousness of) protocol and how people have noticed how it has been used to control and abuse those (women) marrying into the family, and the double standards leveraged against members. If you feel that way of course. Views on the benefits of it would also be interesting if that's your take!

Discussions should be about how it has been used, why, etc., and not to attack the subjects themselves.

Both light-hearted and serious discussions will be welcomed here.

Funny how the press is blamed yet tue ‘royals’ have offices stuffed full of PR ans press staff whose only role is to get the ‘right’ message out without publicly admitting that’s what they are doing .
They recruit from the very same tabloids

No, because it was wrong. No such "protocol", so any bots saying so were spouting bollocks and I can't see why anyone would choose that.

What I think happened was that one journo (Telegraph, I think) fucked it up - not too different to when the Telegraph fucked up Balcony positions and wrote a whole piece about how gracious Camilla had ceded position to Catherine, when no such thing had happened

Both were bollocks, but both got repeated endlessly. Even though both were inventions by the newspaper itself (can't see what interest any third party would have)

My opinion is balanced, not just picking up on things to have a go at the royal family about. I’m very sure there will be things that are outdated, but are probably made more of by the press, and as I say I think the other things that i mentioned are mostly based on preventing comments and comparisons, a system that’s maybe not perfect but is tried and tested and the best they’ve come up with so far. Thing’s always need a fresh pair of eyes, no matter what or who or where, equally nothings all bad either.

It’s easy to fudge isn’t it ?

I do remember certain ‘in the know’ posters here pointing out how the ‘protocol ‘ was correct as Australia is ( for now lol) a commonwealth country blah blah and Charles hadn’t visited and it was all quite simple ….

I see W and K have their own in house videographer .
No doubt soon it will all be 100% controlled inhouse , closed set , curated crowds tight image control .
They have finally realised that the young don’t look at tabloids online or otherwise .

Soon history will all be rewritten and ‘royals’ had nothing to do with tabloids will be the new line

@EdithWeston

Ive just noticed your last sentence!
You REALLY cant see what possible interest KP would have in muddying the waters while Willy was being absolutely roasted on SM?
Really ?

It didn’t matter if it was ‘true’ or not - distract , deflect - that’s the ‘protocol’!

@Novella. Yes there was an identical -word for word - tweet about it not being protocol for William to visit Australia before King Charles does. It was tweeted by many different Twitter accounts. The tweets were numerous. I looked at one account to check and it had no tweet history at all, and the account was recent, which is how they tend to work/operate, I believe.

The identical tweets were all over Twitter and all now deleted, it looks like. The identical tweets flooded Twitter, and then the identical tweets disappeared.

Of course that particular protocol doesn’t exist (afaik), but that’s not the point. The point is to get people to think it exists. Protocol is used when needed and denied when not. it serves a purpose.

Just saw your last post Novella, ‘distract and deflect’ definitely.

They play to win. They always did.

Yes thank you for that .

I see ‘protocol’ explanations as similar to the response to calls for the ‘royals ‘ to pay their proper tax ( ie the same bloody tax laws the rest of us are subject to!)
That is - public when it suits the Windsors and private when it suits the Windsors

Look up Norman Bakers book on the monarchy. His first pages describe elderly people not ‘allowed’ to sit down

Funny you should mention this, Novella; I was thinking of exactly the same, and do agree that this one was especially ridiculous - cruel, even

I'd like to think it was some stupidity cooked up by the flunkies and that the Queen would have been horrified if she knew, but then as I've often said the tone comes from the top so who knows?

The ‘queen’ has been through many iterations

Latterly it was smiley ‘tea with Paddington ‘ Elizabeth .

For decades she was one sour faced bat though . Never cracked a smile . I bet the elderly people left standing in discomfort was from the grim faced battleaxe era

It is interesting how much history is rewritten. It is impossible to find various footage such as King Charles TV interview where he publicly criticised his parents, or Diana's TV interview where she says clearly Charles affair with Camilla happened throughout their marriage.
It becomes easy for people, including Charles, to claim whatever he wants about the past. As us older people are just accused of making facts up.

I don't think you'll find footage, either, of Diana's father saying that she was a perfect physical specimen, in the run-up to the marriage. He may well have said it when she was a baby, in which case he repeated it when she was engaged to be married.

Related - Archewell, among other stakeholders, have helped to support a research study and 2-part report on online hate speech in Australia.

From Omid Scobie:
"Harry and Meghan's Archewell Foundation has helped fund a report examining the roles that news media organisations play in the spread, escalation and encouragement of online hate speech in Australia."

Here's the link to the reports available from Purpose (haven't read yet but I hear they're an interesting read - going to cross post this in the Dan Wootton thread!)

Online hate speech and the role of media in Australia

I think they were in straight "it'll have all blown over in a couple of weeks" mode.

I can see why they might want to turn the temperature down. But a blatant inaccuracy doesn't do that - it draws more heat.

Never confuse strategy with tactics.

IF he did say that, everyone would assume it was a comment on virginity. And he surely would not have done that

If he did say (that Diana was a perfect physical specimen) everyone would assume it was a comment on virginity. And he surely would not have done that

Unfortunately Lord Fermoy, Diana's uncle, did comment on exactly that; the quote was "Diana, I can assure you, has never had a lover"

https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/books/bodies-without-evidence-20020921-gdfnhb.html

It was Diana's uncle, Lord Fermoy, who made the announcement. "Diana, I can assure you, has never had a lover," he told the bemused press conference.

conversation of 1980 - 'Is she a virgin' and 'will she have to have an internal examination?' If the RF weren't thinking like that, plenty of the public were.

I doubt the 1980 press would have been that 'bemused.'

In 2011:

The Associated Press comforted the world last week when it announced, “UK royal bride’s virginity no longer an issue.” This was hardly the case 30 years ago, when Prince Charles wed Lady Diana Spencer and the bride’s virtue became something of a worldwide spectator sport.

Speculation about Diana

I thought it was more a comment that she would have healthy good-looking children.

“For decades she was one sour-faced bat though. Never cracked a smile.”

Really? Decades of sour-faced batdom? You sound a real peach, @Novella4 .

I thought she was fertility screened, not "virginity checked" (as there is no reliable way to establish that)

Also, if you're going to say it out loud "never had a lover" is a somewhat less intrusive euphemism from an uncle, than "perfect physical specimen" from your father!

I've notice lots of the so called protocols were promptly dropped a year ago once the official mourning at passed. Our now kind seems happy to shake every hand, kissed even, big smiles and apparently when near highgrove he's friendly, still gets out and about when he can. Relaxed I would say. And yes I noticed the nail varnish has brightened too

The virginity test is still A Thing in more conservative ciltures

to be fair and using nicer words. she was not popular when I was growing up in the 70's. I think once she became a little old lady, history got rewritten

Because the Queen reigned for so long it is easy how popularity waxes and wanes. Most people are in the public eye for a shorter time and I wonder if that perspective is why the monarchy resists changing quickly, because they know that the pendulum of approval will swing back and forth.