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?