Talks about reconciliation 2

[bluegreygreen]

I've never started a thread here before, but I thought some people might be interested in this take on the story by a PR podcast I listened to yesterday (started listening to this podcast as I know very little about PR!).

It would be good to know if any of the resident PR people agree.

When It Hits The Fan: A Right Royal Whodunnit

I'm sorry about your mother 💐

I was thinking about this. For most of us, a bereavement will mean a horrible time but at least a few days off work to get our heads together, sort out arrangements etc.

Charles had to grieve, and be in the public eye, and take on a huge job all at once.

Charles had to grieve, and be in the public eye, and take on a huge job all at once.

They gave him an absolutely punishing schedule in those first few days. I wonder someone didn't say when it was in the planning stages, look, this is too much.

I think there were genuine concerns that there would be much higher republican sentiment on the death of the late Queen and the schedule was to really be seen to care and cover the whole country.

In the end everyone - including the RF I think - was surprised how much support Charles got.

In the end everyone - including the RF I think - was surprised how much support Charles got.

Yes, there was real warmth towards him from the crowds outside BP when he first came back there, and I think genuine fondness for him now.

And be criticised because he was upset by a leaky pen and an uncleared desk for an official document signing!
after reading the other thread I’m wondering if his staff are actually up to scratch!

Yes outside when people started saying god save the king ( which I thought was premature and rather crass) , he genuinely looked moved to tears! , so much so he went over for an unscheduled meet and greet! .
I was moved ! And I’m not one for sentiment.

It's more like to be the new PR team. Let's hit Charles where it hurts by going after Highgrove. Let's blame it all on William to divide him and his father. Derail divide, disrupt.

I want to know what happened to those ducks that Harry illegally moved. They are American ducks. He can't just move to my country and terrify the wildlife.

Well that would make more sense to come from Sussex surely?

Don’t be daft, facts of any type related to the topic are of interest, they expand the discussion.

Opinion is fine too when stated to be such.

Opinion stated as fact isn’t.

There’s a Twin Talk on YouTube about that @BemusedAmerican . The Sidley twins are slightly bonkers but they are big animal lovers and all the proceeds from their channel go towards animal shelters, especially rescuing animals from kill shelters. They also raised thousands to help wildlife displaced by the California fires.

Yes - if I as in royal PR I wouldn’t let those ducks disappear from the public’s mind!

Were H & M responsible for traumatising waterfowl?

Were H & M responsible for traumatising waterfowl?

No but I did hear they accidentally stepped on a ladybird though 😂

They rehomed ducks because they didn't have the right environment

Ooh and dont forget public record where

porkies were told by MM in court, which she publicly had to apologise for.

An email she sent to Jason Knauf "about pulling on the heartstrings " (of the public) if ever the content of her communication with her father was revealed.

That they "were married 3 days earlier" a huge insult to the taxpayers footing the bill for their wedding, but this much needed "spectacle" was not obviously of her choice.

... so not tabloids

"Your grandma couldnt stand your manipulative, scheming wife and that your not much better!" 😂

so you think that posters with a differing opinion are welcome 😂

I fear with Harry, he can very much do as he likes.

I think that's open to opinion!

Didn't they chase the ducks and panic the mother by separating them? Didn't they decide that the ducks 'couldn't live on a stream, they had to have a pond'? I would have thought the ducks would know best about that. Where do they imagine most ducks live?

Chasing birds (or any animal really, but birds tend to be more in evidence than wild mammals), especially a mother with young, is never a good idea. In order for this to be justified the birds would have needed to be in very present danger (eg, on a busy road).

Why am I picking up on this? Because H & M and Oprah have made a massive publicity deal about it and tried to portray it as cute and hilarious.

(And waterfowl are a big interest of mine, so I am invested!)

Yes. I think that's been said many times, many ways.

Genuine posters, yes.

Posters with an ulterior motive? No. And not just because they bring absolutely nothing to table and wouldn’t recognise a good discussion, let alone one based on facts, even if it bit them on the backside.

This makes a lot of sense, RandyRedHumpback, but you can see why those who buy into the mindset tend to be those who support H&M

Pity the facts are so inconvenient, but it also explains why there are mass disappearance/deflections when tthey're pointed out

I don't understand why Williams Office would want to throw any negative press at the King?

A united King and Heir is a strong position, the two are not in competition, both currently experiencing good press. KC more popular than was generally expected, PW getting cut some slack from bad press re his reputation of being work shy because of some well chosen causes to support, general support for his family after Catherine's illness and the very cute kids being seen more. Both KC and PW are currently in good graces with most of the press. I would say both would try not to rock the status quo.

As to the gardeners, sounds like a non-story.

I read some of the comments on the other thread. Sounded like one of the high turnover was a head gardener who had been there decades. So probably not a problem with the king who has been the employer at Highgrove for years and likely has less time now to micro manage than he did previously. However it could be a problem with the known head gardeners replacement managing in a different way to people were used to causing an increase in turnover? I wouldn't be surprised at low wages or high turnover is entry positions in a royal household, having worked for a royal (with those picky high standards of the King) would look good on a CV. So go in, get your training, take the low wage then move on with a great first or second job on the CV. Many staff are exceedingly loyal and very well looked after, must be as they do stay decades and must have a lot of dirt which they do not sell. Loyalty from household staff must be of huge importance to the Royals for privacy reasons.

I doubt very much that it's come from William's office! Sounds like malicious gossip to me.

I thought you needed a license to move water fowl in the state of California, so they broke the law.
H&M obviously know better than mother duck what’s better for the ducklings. Typical!
How do you know they don’t have the right environment for the ducks?!

Not “everyone welcome” after all! 🦆 😂

I find it terrifying because yes, I do see it in action - even here on MN, as you say! People who, when presented with hard, irrefutable evidence, just dismiss it and keep repeating the mantras: Why do you care, you don't know them, it's racism, different opinions aren't welcome etc etc.

I've observed it for a while now and it's scary. I've argued many times against the 'You don't know them' line by saying that, with all the personal stuff H & M have put out (documentary, OW, Spare plus many an interview or word-salad speech), we do in fact know a lot, and from their own mouths. But this is always met with silence, or just a repeat of 'You don't know anything about them'. It's moronic and depressing to anyone brought up to take an intelligent interest in news/current affairs etc.and to look critically at things. My retort is usually 'Well, in that case...are you saying that H & M are lying to us, if you claim we still know nothing?' Again, silence.

I get that many of their supporters are being directed to come and disrupt and derail discussions. But what I don't get is, what to they get out of it? What do you gain from deceiving yourself in this way? From ignoring or dismissing hard evidence that things are not the way you claim they are?

Willing self-deception is a strange thing, and something I can't fathom. But maybe it's the way some people cope with the tough world we live in. It gives comfort but asks you to believe unlikely things, rather as religion used to do.

I don’t think a man who doesn’t know where penguins actually live is someone who should be considered an authority on exactly where ducks should live!

it was obviously not for the benefit of the ducks at all ! , either he didn’t want wildfowl on his property that he’s not allowed to shoot or it was an excuse to Cosy up to Oprah .