Palace PR strategy in the wake of AMW-Epstein scandal

[Asmuchastheypossiblycan]

I’ve just seen who I think was a Sky news reporter, reporting on the King’s visit to the Colchester area today, laying out what is obviously the current BP PR strategy in the light of reason developments in the AMW-Epstein scandal.

She said that the Palace wanted it to be made very clear that the RF are very much not ignoring this story and wanting it to go away, and referred her back to Edward’s words about the victims earlier in the week.

But that their policy nonetheless was going to be carry on with their engagements as usual, as they have faced difficulties before, and will do so again.

I’ve no doubt that this is difficult for KC and family but AIBU to think that in the light of what has happened, and the covering up of ALW’s financial and sexual wrongdoings, this isn’t really good enough?

Surely it’s not right that AMW is above the law?

Also, a man in the crowd shouted out a question to KC about whether AMW would be investigated, and two policeman moved him away!

Last time I looked, I thought we lived in a democracy which welcomes free speech?

Why aren’t reporters and members of the public allowed to air their views on this situation and express that AMW should be investigated?

Otherwise isn’t the Palace PR strategy in reality advocating “one rule for them and a different one for us?”

I was talking about international money but it is irrelevant because this is a pointless argument. We have a monarchy, they advertise the UK worldwide. Nobody is saying they don't attract visitors. Nobody is saying they are the only reason that people come to London. They are one of the many. There are loads of reasons to go to Paris as well. There are loads of places without a monarchy that have low visitor numbers and ones with a monarchy that have low visitor numbers. I made a bland point about how many tourists flood in to see them but I don't really care.

Shocked? Really? Someone could come up to you and shout something at you which causes you harassment, alarm and distress and you want for that not to be illegal?

There were no “weasel words”. My point was very clear. I’m sorry your comprehension is poor, feel free to ask specifics about where you need clarification.

Tourists don't come to the UK to see the royals because, unless they are a high-ranking dignitary, no one ever actually see them personally. They come to see the palaces and the history. The Tower of London is consistently one of our most visited attractions, and no royal has lived there for centuries. If we became a republic tomorrow, the buildings wouldn’t disappear; if anything, tourism would likely increase because we could finally open Buckingham Palace year-round like Versailles, which pulls in millions more visitors than our working palaces ever do.

the only time the living monarchy brings a significant spike in tourism is for a wedding or a coronation, which happens once a decade at best. The rest of the time, the royals are effectively basically a private family in public museums.

It was not harassmenet. He was stating facts and had no intention to harm. You see ill informed.

I wonder if there will be a distraction set of photos soon. The Wales kids on half term break, the selection of George's (boarding or not) school, an update on Charles' and/or Catherine's health. Or whatever. Place your bets now.

Of course there will! They take us for absolute fools.

@BoredZelda

No, I was referring to the Windsors re the ‘weasel words’ responding to posters thinking Charles and William just need to make a statement. I wasn’t referring to you at all . I’m sorry I wasn’t clear about that .

I’m sick to death of statements and words from the Windsors while the law is ignored

At the risk of derailing the thread (sorry Op), I find the Public Order Act fascinating.

Im not a "free speecher" and I do believe in consequences. I just dont always comfortable about police action and arrest when it's words. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't.
I haven't quite sorted my feelings/opinions and thoughts on this issue.

In the instance we are talking about, the guy shouted "sick old man" and another man who shouted out a question. Neither of them threatened to harm Andrew or KC. That man didn't say "sick old man, im going to punch you/harm you", which is what typically gets you arrested under Public Order.

I don't know the answer, thats why im reading up on the pros and cons of the Public Order Act and how it is used by the police.
But, yes, it shocked me initially in this instances, I just don't think the issue is as black and white as other illegal acts.

Once again, sorry for derailing the thread.

I saw a video of the man who shouted at Charles recently . He was elderly. And clearly no threat. And surrounded by police

Another massive misstep by the Windsors
They’ll be bringing back the brass band that used to follow them around when Republic asked questions a few years ago

I just admired what the elderly guy said to the police

Something along the lines of "what other options do I have but to call out a question?"

It's really difficult, take the Kings visit to a village in Essex this week, a lot of people weren't keen but then again a lot of people really were. But back to the PR strategy, never explain... the headline of the Sun currently is that the Epstein files prove Andrew was in New York at Epstein's house assaulting VA when he totally denied he was in NY at that time. I can't believe that there isn't a crime he could be charged with but the police have chosen not to investigate in this country due to who is he and the police in America don't have enough evidence to ask for extradition, the cynic in me wonders if the Palace took away his titles even that of being Prince because they expect at some point he will be charged.

Not derailing at all! It is an interesting subject!

I wonder if they still have the axe and head part wooden area for beheadings?! Not even joking.

Any day now. Kate’s video about her cancer was slightly unnecessary I thought.

I worked for UKTI briefly when Andrew was the spokesperson for them and we had to speak to palace staff to arrange things. They never said anything but you got the impression they weren’t happy in their jobs.

I’ve just looked at the Sky News website where it shows the front pages of all of the Sunday newspapers in a feature called The Wrap.

And on the front page of The Sunday Times is an article saying that Charles is hoping to “contain unstable Andrew in Norfolk”

So that’s the direction they are going in then? They have realised that the allegations are too serious to avoid so they are going for the mentally ill defence? Really?

She said that the Palace wanted it to be made very clear that the RF are very much not ignoring this story and wanting it to go away, and referred her back to Edward’s words about the victims earlier in the week.
LOL referring back to Edwards statement where he sounded like he wanted the RF to be included in the list of victims in all this?

Oh right so we keep an actual living family like zoo animals to get tourists to come? Maybe we should open up Buck House fully all year round and have them earn their keep in a kind of living museum, so tourists can pay to watch them 'in the wild' sitting on settees being served tea by the butlers and having their valets help them into their trousers?

The one thing this thread has taught me is to never to make a bland observation about things I don't really care about. Clearly people feel very strongly about the royals and I really don't.

I am, or was a royalist. I'm really sickened by AMW and SF behaviour, I applaud Virginia Giuffre's bravery for taking them on and wish she could see what is happening now. In light of recent information it's saddening that QE paid her off to try to silence her and that the RF refuted her claims.

All of this makes me wonder about the future of the RF. This is beyond grubby for me, they must have known. There's conduct and a code of behaviour for their £85mil public money plus an estimated billion pounds worth of of assets. I know SF was kind of banished for years but she did get back in.

It's so morally bankrupt how those two have behaved then been enabled and protected. It makes you wonder on the rest of them.

Some fact checking wouldn’t go amiss…

The Palace never lied that Catherine had cancer. When they announced she’d be having surgery and in hospital for 14 days the Palace press team told the press that her condition was non-cancerous. Catherine later confirmed this herself in her public address:

”In January, I underwent major abdominal surgery in London and at the time, it was thought that my condition was non-cancerous. The surgery was successful. However, tests after the operation found cancer had been present…this of course came as a huge shock”.

The Palace did make statements saying Virginia Guffre’s allegations against Andrew were untrue and categorically denied. They could hardly say they believed Virginia though given Andrew was defending the claims - although with hindsight I am sure a form of “we can’t comment on ongoing litigation” would have been a more prudent line. Since then however the tone has definitely shifted - their most recent statement included “Their majesties wish to make clear that their thoughts and utmost sympathies have been and will remain with the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse.”

And they didn’t lie that Catherine used hair extensions.They were asked by a journalist if she had a scar on her head and confirmed that she did, and then explained why. Other people speculated the visible mark was from extensions.

No - but what they can do (and I would hope they have) is instruct a law firm or another independent party to conduct a full investigation of all the records they have to find out exactly who knew what and what happened on royal properties…

The Palace did make statements saying Virginia Guiffre’s allegations against Andrew were untrue and categorically denied.

And this is the statement - 2019
"It is emphatically denied that The Duke of York had any form of sexual contact or relationship with Virginia Roberts [now Giuffre]".
"Any claim to the contrary is false and without foundation".

And here is the Palace statement in 2015 as a result of court papers
"It is emphatically denied that The Duke of York had any form of sexual contact or relationship with Virginia Roberts".
"Any suggestion of impropriety with underage minors is categorically untrue".

How absolutely awful that was. Imagine how that must have made her feel. How galling and upsetting for ALL the victims. They jumped in with those statements pretty quick. Yet the "thoughts and utmost sympathies for victims and survivors" statement has taken years to come out from C&C. Too little, too late.

And where's a statement on Andrew now? Total silence.

I assume they are being advised by some very good lawyers not to say anything in terms of a statement until more of the files have been combed through and potentially more info comes out.

There’s probably a lot of conflicting conversations coming from what the PR team would like to happen vs what the legal team is advising.

I don’t think they can continue to just say nothing though.