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?

I have NEVER seen anywhere that they pay capital gains tax. Please provide a link.

The monarch agreed to pay income tax several decades ago after a public outcry. They still get to decide what they include as expenses unlike every other civil servant who have to follow strict rules.

@Theunamedcat

I haven’t seen a defence of Andrew in a while . Shocking but not surprising.
If you were aware of some facts you would not be posting that

Epstein was first convicted of child solicitation in 2008 . He had been closely tied to the palace before this and continued to be despite his first conviction .
They knew.
We are learning that an RAF base was used to ferry Epstein and trafficked women into the UK. This was after his first conviction. Who exactly ok-ed that ?

You are completely wrong . The Windsors covered for Andrew as they covered for other pedophiles ( Ball, Mountbatten ) .

THAT is my main objection - they are sinister
They issued public statements in 2019 calling Virginia Guiffre a liar - and have never retracted it . This despite knowing about Epstein .
The Windsors would be covering for Andrew still if it werent for events out of their control - the partial release of the Epstein files .

And Andrew is not under any restriction . The entire pantomime was window dressing to fool the gullible .

He has his passport . He is reported to be house hunting in the Middle East ( the Windsors are v comfortable there - says it all)

Educate yourself - though that will mean you can no longer be a Windsor supporter.

@Theunamedcat

The Windsor connections to pedophiles is what alarms and disgusts me .
Their greed is another issue to add to the list but you are wrong there too.

They started to pay voluntary income tax after public outcry .
BUT - they themselves decide how much and sorry their finances are a closed book. Yes there is a much trumpeted ‘accounting’ but that is presented after William and Charles have decided what to include. MPs have asked for more transparency and been ignored .

They decide for themselves how much income tax ( commentators have said that William is underpaying by millions )
They do not pay :
inheritance tax
capital gains tax
corporation tax

No reason for these exemptions. Much based on something something 1400s.
Offensive in today’s struggling UK

I understand that Ari Emmanuel’s autobiography is published today . He has already hinted that M was difficult to work with so should be interesting .

@Constantrunner The King is exempt from all taxes, in his position as monarch. He pays income tax voluntarily, and capital gains tax voluntarily on private income (including the portion of the Privy Purse that does not derive from the Duchy of Lancaster).
The Prince of Wales is exempt from income tax on his income from the Duchy of Cornwall (Crown exemption), but is subject to taxation otherwise.
He cannot access any capital gains from any Duchy transaction so does not pay capital gains tax in respect to the Duchy (he receives the annual profit as income).
He pays income tax on his Duchy income voluntarily, and income and capital gains tax on all other private income.

The document you are looking for is here Memorandum of Understanding on Royal Taxation . It's a public document from 2023.

The first reference to the King paying capital gains tax comes in the introduction at 1.3., and special aspect of the Duchies is outlined in 1.5.

The whole document is worth reading (it's not long) but for capital gains tax the main sections are 1.9, 1.12, 2.4, 2.11-12, 2.15, 2.26, 2.28, 2.38.

Thank you, interesting and informative.

Whether they do or not they presently pay tax and how much isn’t really the argument. I’d say that it’s about whether they should hand over profits from the Duchy’s for better use elsewhere.
But you could say that about many of the rich. Some - Bill Gates for example - did set up a foundation. But many hoard so much.

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.

Some people must see a very different section of the media to the one I look at regularly (I don't subscribe to any one source, but ensure that I see headlines from a wide range of papers and online sources regularly).

There is rarely a week goes by without at least one headline criticising the King or William in some manner.

Perhaps this is the same level of comment to the one that said there were no media reports of Camilla's friendship with Scott Bessent?

Yes, I've never seen fawning in the Guardian, Times or the Independent. Perhaps it's in tabloids, or magazines like People and Hello! ?
Although I think the Sussexes give stories to People, they seem very pro.

I couldn't check your link, it didn't work, bluegrey, so I had no idea what it said

Reading that memorandum of understanding is a waste of time

It is of precisely zero legal value

It a lot of flummery trying to look legal / administrative when in fact it means nothing ,it could - and should - be stopped tomorrow.
It simply summarises ‘this is what the Windsors want and we aren’t questioning it ‘

If William were subject to the same law as the rest of us it is estimated that he’d pay double the tax is offering now .
Id have check Charles but no doubt it similar .

That’s true

The whole medieval duchy rip off could be stopped now .

@Ukisgaslit If William were subject to the same law as the rest of us it is estimated that he’d pay double the tax is offering now .

But how do you know? How does anyone know? Unless you're an expert accountant privy to the financial accounts of all aspects of the PiW's finances, this is pure speculation.

I don't know the ins and outs of the Duchy of Cornwall.

But as I've said before, these things employ many people.

And another thing - on the Scilly Isles all property is owned by the Duchy. This means you can only rent. No posh housing is allowed to be built. This means that 'ordinary' people, like you and me, can live there - although it tends to be locals who've always lived there, in reality. And no cars are allowed.

If the Duchy didn't do this it would be a millionaire's playground, rather like Sandbanks in Poole, where huge vulgar mansions sprawl everywhere and helicopters are landing every few minutes carrying the super-rich and their guests.

I'm a pragmatist - I care very little for rigid dogma. If this makes the Scilly Isles a place where non-wealthy people can still live in a lovely place, then I like it.

I don't know where pps are seeing fawning - I don't read actual newspapers - I just read the BBC news. Maybe they are looking at the celebrity mags???

I think it's quite ironic, though, that this thread is about RF PR - or Windsor propaganda as some would see it. Yet some pps have clearly swallowed the much-mentioned Koolaid where other propaganda is concerned - the more dangerous variety, fostered by governments which do not wish us well. When pressed, I've never got a single pp who claims that William is an angry bastard to actually tell me where they get this idea from.

I highly suspect I know where they get the idea from - and it's largely parrotting (without critical thinking) from other sources....but what are those sources? Are they what they think they are? 😈😎

It’s disguised, silly! Only those with The Sight can detect William’s permanent incandescence 🔮

@CoffeeCantata

This again ?
Now you are trying to imply that posters who criticise the Windsors are part of some childish group ?
I write what I believe and have always done so . I’ve been here a long time without name changing .

You also know perfectly well that I listed authors on another thread who describe Williams anger . Robert Lacey , Robert jobson - I don’t read that sort of thing but there are others .
That is setting aside the headlines we have all seen
Some who mention Williams anger in the papers are trying to tell us something.Others think it makes William look good.

I expect the new PR will be ‘William is calm and mellow now, honest’
It’s transparent.

I was able to open it using Google drive.

I did some googling and I did indeed come up with a photo of William looking angry ….
Standing on the church steps after the Duchess of Kent’s funeral when AMW was trying to talk to him .
Proof .

Our opinions on his charisma obviously differ and I respect your different view.

To answer your question, I think we all know the kinds of things they do. Working members of the royal family are expected to undertake royal duties; they represent the monarch in public life. The number of working royals has dwindled in recent years and the King and his siblings are obviously getting older now. William and Catherine picked up additional duties because of this, and 'Megxit'.

At the same time, William has spoken about reducing the number of working royals once he takes the throne, and is not on speaking terms with his brother right now (allegedly) so probably is against the idea.

Personally, I would love to see PH back as a working royal but if not that, then I find the idea of his 'rival court' (as the press seem to be calling it) interesting historically.

Look, I absolutely will eat my hat if I am wrong here and appreciate I am biased because I like Prince Harry and would very much like to see those brothers on friendly terms again.

You are talking about a man whose bodyguards are openly shoving US citizens on the streets of NYC. Then he accuses his venue of sabotage because the teleprompter goes down. Do you really want this man serving as an official UK representative?

The school footage is appalling. He has also been filmed happily greeting Sussex Squad members. He's being sued by his own charity. He has been removed from African Parks. He made vile comments about a judge.

To me he is a liability to your country.

I couldn't check your link, it didn't work, bluegrey, so I had no idea what it said

I'm not sure why, as others seem to be able to access it, but if you Google 'Memorandum of Understanding on Royal Taxation' the first link that comes up is the government document.

Thank you for your answer. I personally cannot see a need for Harry if the RF have managed perfectly well without him. Ok, so they lost a working royal with the death of the Late Queen, but that was four years ago now and nothing seems to have ground to a halt. William has spoken of a different approach with more focus on less “causes”, so that would negate the need for more bodies as it were. And I can’t see that William will be able to forgive Harry for being complicit in attacks both on the wider family and on Catherine. I don’t think Harry is doing himself any favours by trying to make “documentaries” or whatever about Diana. He wasn’t her only son.

As for a “rival court”, that’s clearly click bait nonsense. I’m not sure why you would think it is historically interesting. We don’t live in medieval times. The Sussexes should not be jostling for attention with our HoS. They are not at all important, apart from in their heads and the heads of some of the nuttier corners of the internet.

It is a shame that Harry has not turned out to be the supportive member of the family that his mother must have wished him to be. I think it is sad that he has not found fulfilment in his life and seems to be endlessly playing the victim and bemoaning his lot, when he is actually in a very fortunate position. He seems unable to see any positives on his life and that is a pity

@Ukisgaslit

I confess I don't read those journos - I don't say that in an uppity way - I just haven't read their stuff. I just read the BBC and some online things.

But if W has got cross over the past few years, I for one don't blame him! He's had a lot to be cross about. But the nasty stuff goes much further than this - as I said, it tries to make out he lashes out with his fists and that Catherine bears a scar which is the evidence for an attack - leading to being hospitalised. It's crazy, crazy stuff.

@smilesy
Yes - H is a pretty sad character really. He's backed himself into a corner through his own stupidity. People did try very hard to warn him - W urged him to take things more slowly with Meghan, to make sure she knew what she was getting into. After the Sandringham Agreement, the pair were given a year to reconsider. They've been helped, supported and helped some more, but they've gone their own sweet way and now things have gone very sour indeed for them.

But young, fun, sparky, charismatic - Harry isn't.

I did say the profits should be diverted for use, rather than proposed the break up of them.