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?

And George ?

You want me to repeat specific inappropriate comments about George??
I have already explained the kind of comments I mean.

Oh yes there was a republican poster on here who loved to do that. 🧐

Youth support!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣 he’s old compared to the youth of today!!!! , this thread is hilarious!! 🤣

I have proof the moon is made of cheese…….

Headlines with no proof.

I read widely and I have never seen inappropriate comments about George hence my question .
There were some sniffy remarks about Louis at the PJ concert but most people just smiled to see a wee boy having fun .

I do hope you reported the inappropriate comments.

I watch Kevin O'Sullivan's "what just happened" online because he's a Trump lover and I like to keep informed about the other side. His standard phrase is that William is incandescent with rage but he never shows footage or privides examples. It's sort of like "Grey-eyed Athena".

Sing to me Oh Muse, of the wrath of William. Incandescent with rage, his heart sore with anger for the insults to his household, he sought vengeance against cheeky chappy Harry..

Looking at the most recent video of Harry ‘getting down with the youth’, Harry comes across as a try hard Middle aged man. The idea that the RF need him is quite laughable, when it’s actually the opposite.

There’s an interesting point, Bemused. You’re right about the mythologising and “archetypeing” of the various people involved. There’ve been soft- hearted pps on MN telling us that KC should remember the parable of The Prodigal Son and throw his arms around H. But the PS returned in great humility and offered to be a servant to his father…

The stereotypes persist though (Fun guy Harry - everyone loves him! Angry William - he’s bubbling under with suppresses rage!). They’re even ttrotted out on this thread!

I could only cope with a few seconds of that. Oh God….triggering!

What was the school thinking? I was a teacher once and I feel for those teenagers, almost outnumbered by strangers poking cameras in their faces. He needed to sit down with them and engage properly or keep his nose out completely.

And H was doing that awful sort of jigging dance/walk he does when he thinks he’s “down with the kids”. I expected him to grab his crotch at any moment. They understandably ignored him.

I’m sure that’s right - he would have been a target for spies while he had an official role.

But not now - he’s been totally discredited and disgraced and basically, cancelled as far as the FR is concerned. Hostile powers can’t undermine his reputation because it’s already destroyed. But there’s mileage in convincing us and the world that our next HoS is an unstable man with an uncontrollable temper who beats his wife. I can honestly tell you that this is the narrative promoted by such as the SS, aided and abetted by, I’m sure, by Russian and Chinese bots on SM.

I agree, it’s hugely relevant and it’s a stain.

Love the idea that the RF need Harry to recapture the ‘youth support’. Unfortunately for him, I expect they’ve had a glance at the polling. While it’s true that Harry’s numbers with younger people are better than his numbers with older people, they’re still not good. Here’s net favourability in the two younger age groups:

18-24
William 40%
Catherine 39%
Harry 0%

25-49
William 54%
Catherine 54%
Harry -7%

While it’s amusing, if a bit toe curling, to watch Harry try to position himself as the fun one who’s down wiv da kidz, sadly da kidz don’t actually like him. There’s no way the RF will want to get anywhere near someone so unpopular when they already have W+C. (And Anne, Edward and Sophie for that matter, all of whom are also more popular than Harry with younger people.)

Is this where it comes from? The "disguised anger" and "incandescent rage" rumours? So basically, just an assertion with no evidence. Perhaps they're just desperate to smear William, for some reason.
Most peculiar.

Indeed, several regular republicans have ventured into commenting indeed ‘diagnosing’ the children based just on public appearances or photos - I recall Curlewkate and Roussette (amongst others) defending their right to do so

Scott Bessent is United States Secretary of the Treasury

This is extremely interesting.

Thank you simpsonthecat

Camilla is very well connected and I think much more media savvy than Charles.

I am interested in this from a PR perspective.

I know that there is an unwritten code in the media, or simply deference, that protects the monarch and the heir to a certain extent but the media surrounding Camilla now is so reverential it is quite extraordinary.

There is virtually no bad press about her at all and hasn’t been for a few years. I think it was Lewis Goodall on News Agents who said the press around the monarch and his wife is even more reverential now than it has ever been?

Camilla though is still connected to Mark Bolland, the PR guru who was paid to rehabilitate her, as he said in an article that they still meet for lunch a couple of times a year, and of course Mark Bolland and his husband Guy Black or Baron Black of Brentwood (formerly Chairman of the Press Complaints Commission) , formerly connected to the Telegraph, and is now head of the industry body; the News Media Association; they are both are great friends with Rebekah Brooks, CEO of News UK managing major British publications like The Sun, The Times, and The Sunday Times. And RB of course has the full backing of Rupert Murdoch.

So between that merry group of three, Camilla’s press is pretty sewn up. She’s played a PR blinder.

Camilla is also chummy with Jeremy Clarkson, Gyles Brandreth and Piers Morgan who speak up for her on tv and social media.

I often wonder if these connections are related to why Harry and Meghan have been so thoroughly excoriated globally, and have received even more negative and persistently bad press than AMW?

So, in summary, our dear Queen has an interesting selection of powerful male friends that’s for sure, and they are serving her very well.

Reminds me of that diagnosis of ‘disguised anger’ yesterday 😂

All very strange!

I often wonder if these connections are related to why Harry and Meghan have been so thoroughly excoriated globally, and have received even more negative and persistently bad press than AMW?

Who knows, but I'm more inclined to believe the non-conspiracy-theory version: that HAM just seek publicity desperately and have done some pretty daft things in the process. They lay themselves open to mockery all the time.

This is because H, after telling us how awful the Men In Grey Suits were, has found that these people actually had a use - in stopping him making an ocean-going idiot of himself. He's been cossetted and doesn't realise how dim he actually is. All he has left is the 'Fun Guy Prince Harry' image, but now he's a middle-aged Dad-bod, and it's worn pretty thin.

Meghan is like a flower which withers when the cameras aren't on her. She wants desperately to be famous, to be adored and feted. But her only selling point is her royal connection, so.....

I don't think HAM need any help in getting bad press. Honestly - what do you think the press SHOULD be saying about them that's positive? Please give some examples if you think coverage is unfair.

And where is the evidence of that? Zero arrests zero charges his brother the king said they will comply with any investigation

they HAVE shoved him on an estate protected at no extra costs and as im sure you have been told numerous times having sex with a 17 year old trafficked woman in the UK was not a crime at the time we cannot retroactively apply the law however distasteful and morally wrong it sadly wasnt illegal

Yes and billionaire Scott Bessent played a pivotal role, alongside Mark Bolland, in rehabilitating Camilla. He introduced her to US high society leveraging his elite connections to media figures and influential leaders.

What a shame he's such a verbal unpleasant mouthpiece for Trump and the worst of his policies

@Whentherainsetin101 whatever the truth of your points (I don't know), one thing is clear; Harry and Meghan are architects of their own misfortune.
There was no need for anyone to create bad stuff about them, it's all their own doing.

The King and the prince of wales voluntarily pay income tax and I think capital gains tax they dont have to they just do

No-one "needs" harry

The royal family do what they do and they do it well the king is very good at soothing overseas he is funny knowledgeable and likeable camilla can be a bit marmite but they do seem to match William and catherine are friendly warm and endearing the children seem nice I dont get the drama