PR and the Palace; are the mists clearing?

[Whentherainsetin101]

For those of us interested in the PR aspects of how the institution of the monarchy presents itself to us, the unsuspecting public, and given that Charles Spencer’s book has prompted a re-examination of events which took place over twenty-nine years ago, I thought this might be a good time to examine what Andrew Lownie calls;

“that gap between the curated narrative and the reality”.

We now know lots of things that weren’t obvious thirty years ago, for example;

We know that BP sometimes issues statements that question the credibility of the “accuser” rather than addressing an accusation directly.

We know that the relationship between the press and the palace is largely self serving on both sides.

We know that the royal rota tow the line in exchange for access.

We know that certain tabloids favour certain royals eg Fergie and The Sun.

We know that BP leaks and briefs certain stories to deflect from other more damaging ones.

We know that BP uses “safe” public figures to broadcast their spin for them eg it used to be Nicolas Soames but now appears to be Rory Stewart.

We know that many things presented to us in one way are in reality very different, eg the late Queen Elizabeth’s marriage, AMW being “banished” to Sandringham.

Given all of the above, do you think the Palace are losing the PR battle, simply because people are now much more switched on about ‘spin’ and because they favour a much more authentic approach?

Is AMW not banished to Sandringham?

I think Rory Stewart tutored William and/or Harry before Eton and the relationship with Charles has continued. I doubt it’s formal - it’s an understanding and mutual appreciation / benefit plus patriotism.

Doesn’t really look like they are losing the PR battle, no. People seem to remain vaguely positive about the RF and some of them have popularity ratings that a politician would kill for. They have had some perilous moments lately with Harry and Earl Spencer but both attempts to out PR the RF were so incompetent that they had the opposite effect.

Earl Spencers own ratings are clear when consideration is given as to whether he maintains good relationships with his children and exwives.

The RF win hands down. They are respectful and inclusive. The RF has not lost any ground. Spencer has identified himself as uncaring, selfish, money grabbing and destructive.

Who is 'We'? Who are you speaking for?

@Whentherainsetin101

What an interesting topic, thank you for starting this thread

I have had views about the Monarchy for many years and yes, I think they are losing the PR battle. I see far far more dissent amongst the public then ever before. It's not the Royal family versus Earl Spencer, it's the RF versus the great British public some of whom are demanding more for less £ from our royals and are questioning the use of the public purse

Support for them is falling because of a generational divide and it seems to me the Palace does not have a clue PR wise. It is all still run by the men in grey suits, courtiers of the old school and QE2's era. Occasionally they wheel in some hotshot PR person, they never seem to last because this is how it's always been done is ingrained in them all

The latest bulletproof PR crisis manager William employed has lasted since January now. Her description of herself as being "arm in arm with big names facing their toughest times” says it all really

Us? The great British public, The ordinary man and woman in the street.

This all sounds very daft and tin hat.

I’m not sure that’s true about courtiers from QE2’s era running the RF’s PR - the head of comms for BP is Tobyn Andreae, ex Fleet Street, and their media secretary is Rhiannon Mills, who they poached from Sky. Kensington Palace have Lee Thompson, who is in his 30s and from NBC, and Liza Ravenscroft, ex journalist and PR person. All appointed since 2022.

Lol at you assuming that you speak for anyone beyond yourself let alone the whole of the British public.

Another view could be that the King and the working royals just try and get on with the job but there's always exploitative and foolish people around trying to use the royal family to get attention for themselves or keep eternal tabloid-style soap operas going on forever because that gets clicks and money.

Us? The great British public, The ordinary man and woman in the street.

Really? Who authorised you to speak for the great British public?
Do they know you have taken it upon yourself to speak on their behalf?
I am one of the British public, an ordinary woman in the street. I don't recall giving you permission to speak for me.

And when you refer to things that 'we' know about the late Queen's marriage, that is ancient gossip, probably older than you are. And frankly none of your business.

I understand that the British public are broadly in favour of the RF, and I appreciate that some of the charity work they spearhead is very valuable. Also their work with the forces. I also understand that the monarch holds a unique position when it comes to soft power eg King Charles’s speech to Congress.

The monarchy is less popular with young people though because presumably they respond better to institutions that are more democratic and accountable? Authenticity seems to be a buzzword, rather ironically, in PR circles nowadays!

And given how hard it is to make your way in the world atm as a young adult, and with the gap growing wider between the haves and the have-nots, the young perhaps don’t respond as well to huge displays of wealth and emphasis on status?

And don’t you think that the more we are able to “look behind the facade”, and appreciate what is spin and what is not, the more the cracks are beginning to show, and the less credible the monarchy appears to be?

Maintaining aloofness and mystique is harder in a more enquiring, less deferential world where everyone walks around with a camera and a sound recorder?

My own objection to the monarchy is that, with our unwritten constitution, it depends on what the historian Peter Hennessy has termed the “good chap” system, He applied it to government but I think it applies equally to monarchy.

In other words, the system depends on unwritten rules and that leaders being "good chaps" of both sexes. who understand the unspoken boundaries of power and choose not to cross them. And I think that without proper, solid scrutiny and openness, this makes us vulnerable.

We the public are forced to trust that those in power truly represent our best interests and that the RF serve us and not themselves.

Perhaps I am imbuing the royals with too much personal power when I say that, but given how far the AMW scandal has rumbled on with no one stepping in to stop it, when it should have been handled years ago, it has really given me serious pause for thought recently that the balance of power is not working as it should and that there aren’t sufficient checks and stops?

Woah, I think you are taking my posts very personally. How else am I meant to speak if not from the perspective of an ordinary person? I was responding to a question!

“We” are the people who are in receipt of the PR. Or the people at whom the spin is aimed,

There’s a huge difference between offering an opinion and speaking on behalf of “everyone”. With respect I don’t need your permission to offer one. Not if you believe in free speech anyway?

I agree that the RF’s main vulnerabilities seem to centre around finances.

And yes, William seems to recognise the fact that he is fighting many battles at once.

The future of the institution rests on his shoulders and I don’t think his father and grandmother have done him many favours frankly by continually pushing reform in to the long grass.

Yes that’s undoubtedly part of it. The royals are forced to make a Faustian pact with the press.

Btw, when the royals invite us to buy in to the “magic” of a royal wedding for example, doesn’t the state of that marriage become our business?

Isn’t that the whole point of having a hereditary monarchy with a family at the centre of it, rather than a supposedly soulless head of state, that we follow their christenings and marriages and funerals?

In which case, you can’t have it all ways and only allow access to the good bits.

You say that but is it really?

Have you ever wondered why the institution are do secretive and their press requires so much “handling”?

Why does their PR have to be managed so tightly?

Why do they not encourage more outside scrutiny of finances for example?

Why do they need to bring in so many PR operatives?

Why do the palace brief and leak instead of offering straightforward responses?

How about opting for authenticity and credibility?

Op, I think you need to define your terms more precisely. When you say “young people “, what do you mean?. School children? 18 to 30s?

Most teenagers and possibly university students I’d guess never give the RF or the British Constitution a second thought - I know I didn’t!😀. Maybe a few who are studying politics, but that’s a tiny demographic.

I’m only guessing but I should think young people who are interested in these things think more in terms of political parties, or of single issues like Gaza, the oil industry etc. I’d suggest that bothering about the monarchy isn’t even on their radar. Not saying that equates to support but I don’t think they give the mechanics of our system much thought.

Thank you for acknowledging the difficulties William faces on top of a gruelling time in his personal life over the last few years, which threatens to drag on. I’m surprised he has a hair left on his head and I don’t say that nastily- I feel for him, trying to keep the show on the road in circumstances of unprecedented challenge.

The problem the RF has is that once the scales slip they never go back. I was passive and never questioned having a monarchy, post Andrew and I'm ashamed I live in a country that thinks it needs one in this day and age. Add to that an incredibly disinterested youth.

If the press ever decides they'd get as many clicks from 'the man who was nearly King' as they do from whatever brief visit Will does now everything could change dramatically and PR won't fix that

I think your point about seeing behind the facade is interesting - a few years ago I would have agreed that unknowability is key for the RF and that any exposure that wasn’t tightly controlled would be disastrous. But then came Harry’s book - and while I’m sure it’s been excruciating for the RF to have their conversations, texts, circumcisions and teddy bears discussed in public, if anything it has strengthened their position I think. Maybe because people relate to them and sympathise with them. And Harry’s popularity as the spiller of beans has been in freefall since he left. Similar has happened with Earl Spencer more recently.

Funnily enough as societies change they might have been forced to open up more anyway. I’m not sure that the old QE2 style mystique would work so well now. So Harry maybe did them a favour there, not just humanising them but also positioning them as victims of his behaviour and deserving of sympathy. (Not that this was his plan ofc.) I also think some of the ‘normal’ married-ins have helped, so Harriet Phillips is a nurse, Mike Tindall famously down to earth, the Middletons an ordinary mc family who are seen as providing support and stability for William.

I agree that the Andrew problem was ignored for far too long and think the blame for that is probably shared between QE2 and government. Good to see KC3 finally removing him. If it results in more scrutiny and more care taken to uphold proper standards then so much the better. I think it will - it felt like they were teetering on the brink for a while there. I also think the statement about H+M being private citizens partly came out of the Andrew scandal and was designed to protect the RF from their behaviour, eg Meghan having photos taken with vulnerable people and then selling her outfits off the back of them. The RF know that while they seem to have survived the Andrew scandal, they might now be one news story away from serious trouble - they just can’t be associated with behaviour like that.

I do think though that all families contain people who are largely decent and people who are largely awful. Andrew was always really awful. I don’t think they’re all like him but obviously it’s problematic when awful people are handed jobs like that. Hopefully his disgrace has been a warning that the public will not tolerate royal grifting, and also set a precedent for how the awful ones can be dealt with.

I was thinking about students and young adults up to late twenties I suppose?

It’s a good point that many of us weren’t terribly interested in, or enamoured of, the RF at that age. But I think we were more accepting of, unquestioning and deferential towards the institution? Whereas nowadays young adults tend to be a little more cynical and media savvy perhaps?

Perhaps, but I think the politically engaged students nowadays are focused on specific issues and just don’t even consider the question of the monarchy- I actually think it’s become less of an issue in recent decades. My children 30ish bend my ear on a number of subjects but if I brought up the monarchy as something to get angry about I think I’d get a blank stare - they bypass it as being low priority.

Tbh, I think rage against the monarchy is rare - most people don’t see it as the big issue that say, Republic, do. I think most people are pragmatic rather than principled (I am) and think - it works OK - let’s focus on more urgent things.

I am just curious as to why their PR is not really working then.

Liza Ravenscroft is the Crisis Manager brought in to an organisation in tough times.
Andreae is ex Deputy Editor of the Daily Mail, makes sense, got to keep that media onside.

Rhiannon Mills is Press Secretary for Charles and Camilla.
I wonder if this is all 'damage limitation'.

Sure you are.

I am not a fan of the monarchy but have to say I’m loving the soap opera drama of HAM at the moment. Whatever people can say about the royal family they cleary have a fantastic PR firm who know what they’re doing.