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?

Knowing people that were around him in the helicopter world, he was reportedly a bit of a childish s—t then. I can’t see he’s improved any.

The talking points about harry are part of the pr. Harry is irrelevant to the monarchy, any relationship issues are a private family matter.
And yet we keep getting directed to talk about harry as a way of deflecting from the protection of Andrew as a nonce and his misconduct in passing on confidential information. Or camillas friendships with right wing key trump aide. Or piers Morgan who wrote that disgusting violent and misogynistic article about Meghan.

It's all just deflection and part of the successful pr campaign.

I don’t like to always blame the wife but I do think things would have been very different ( and better) if H had married someone else.

The only tax exemption that William has relates to the Duchy of Cornwall; as Crown land it has Crown exemption. Despite this, he voluntarily pays tax on the income from the Duchy.

He is subject to all other laws, including all tax laws relating to income not associated with the Duchy.

It's possible.

The story put out is always that previous partners did not want to marry Harry because they did not want to deal with the exigencies of the job.
I do wonder if it was because they did not want to deal with Harry.

And yet we keep getting directed to talk about harry as a way of deflecting from the protection of Andrew as a nonce and his misconduct in passing on confidential information.

What are your thoughts on this comment of mine to the OP upthread, so far ignored?

As you say, AMW's role was a public one as a UK Trade representative - a role where he answered to Cabinet ministers.
Why is there so much questioning of Royal Family behaviour, and so little questioning of behaviour of those Cabinet ministers?
Might they also have been involved in questionable behaviour - especially as many are still in positions of political or financial power?

Not that one! The one about Bessent

@smilesy it's refreshing to have a positive and polite debate with someone on Mumsnet, so thank you for that.

I am interested in seeing how this all unfolds.

Ministers get investigated for misconduct and sacked.

There was no control over Andrew because no one had the authority to control him. He did what he wanted. The civil service due not want Andrew appointed as a trade ambassador, the pressure to do so came directly from the queen.

The royal family are incredibly powerful. No government ever has taken them on. There is no proper scrutiny of their actions or finances.

Look at the revelations that Andrew frequently took young women into Buckingham palace bypassing security so their names were never logged. Who else but the royal family can get away with bypassing security protocol for years?

Charles did not want him appointed .

Yes and as I posted before, the head of the CS took it as a direct order from QE2 so there was no.due diligence or security checks

Charles and others strongly advised against it and were ignored

So tell me what effective tax rate Willliam is paying, and what effective rate he should be paying with sources (not republic as they are usually quite wrong as their bias stops them reporting financials correctly - they remind me of Boris Brexit NHS uplift claims)

Looking at Grovenor estates. They paid 12% effective tax rate in 2025. I do believe William hands over more ? Closer to 25%

Sorry quoted wrong poster

When did this supposed rehabilitation of Camilla happen?

She is still in the bottom half of the popularity stakes on YouGov polls, in 2018 Harry ranked #1 even ahead of QE2 and Camilla ranked around #9 or #10. She has now moved up the ranks but that’s only because Harry and Meghan have dropped to the lower half. Since she became Queen, things have inched up a bit but nothing to indicate she has been gloriously ‘rehabilitated’.

The situation was rather more complex than you are suggesting.

The Queen wanted the appointment; Charles opposed it.

Many MPs and civil servants opposed it.

Peter Mandelson, who was a very significant player in the Labour government at the time, pushed for him to be appointed.
Mandelson was not in Cabinet in 2001, but over the time of AMW's role as UK Trade envoy (2001 - 2011) he was Britain's European Commissioner for Trade (2004-8), Business Secretary (2008-9), and Secretary of State for Business/Trade/Industry (2009/10).

We know, of course, how close Mandelson, Epstein, and AMW were
FT 2023 https://archive.is/19g6R (well before Mandelson was appointed US Ambassador by Keir Starmer).

Vince Cable, as Business Secretary for the coalition government, wanted to remove AMW from the Trade Envoy role as soon as the Victoria Giuffre photograph became available.
He was opposed by David Cameron, as Prime Minister, who went on record to support AMW.

We have not, since the whole story about Mandelson/Epstein/AMW came out, heard from Blair, Cameron, or Osborne, among other powerful figures in the political and financial world.

The royal family are incredibly powerful. No government ever has taken them on. There is no proper scrutiny of their actions or finances.

This statement keeps being repeated as if we are living in medieval times. People on the thread with historical knowledge have shown where this is incorrect, and have detailed times where monarchs have been deposed.

We live in a constitutional monarchy, where Parliament is sovereign. If Parliament is not carrying out its constitutional role, it is answerable to the people.

Charles was not monarch.
But Charles is protecting Andrew now by providing him a mansion on his estate.

She is doing better than she used to.
As I said the pr firm with the contract to rehabilitate camillas image won an award for their work. She was described as the most hated woman in Britain. Now most people might not actively like her, but they don't hate her.

@bluegreygreen the last time a monarch was deposed was in 1688.
Edward abdicated.

Trying to pretend the royal family are not powerful because James was deposed in 1688 is laughable.

The Duchy accounts (presented to the Public Accounts Committee each year) state that he pays at 'the prevailing rates'.

Net revenue surplus for the year
The Duchy of Cornwall is not subject to tax. On a voluntary basis,
His Royal Highness pays income tax at the prevailing rates in
respect of the net revenue surplus of the Duchy after deduction of
business-related costs.
DoC 2025 pg 67

The document I linked upthread gives (in Appendix B) which expenses are taken into account when calculating the tax due.

The Telegraph analysis worked it out at 33.9% effective rates for 2025
https://archive.is/RvdnN

We obviously have no information regarding his private income separate to the Duchy, or the tax he paid on that income.

I don't think AMW would see it that way. Someone (on this thread - I can't remember) was indignant that Andrew had just been reduced to the same status as the rest of us....but boy, that hit him where it hurt! That might not sound much, but to someone like AMW, that's practically a fate worse than death. He loved his status and title - and his big house.

What do people expect KC to do - let him sleep on the streets? He wouldn't get social housing, would he? I loathe Andrew as much as you probably do, but I honestly don't see a problem with him living in a more modest home paid for by KC. He needs to stay in obscurity - if he were chucked on to the streets we'd have endless pictures and news about him. No thanks.

Trying to pretend the royal family are not powerful because James was deposed in 1688 is laughable.

The point is that Parliament is sovereign. That principle was established long ago. The monarch operates within that understanding and if it came to a fight Parliament would win. All monarchs since then have been all too aware of this.

I think Queen Victoria was pretty feisty and wanted the government to do more about the Irish Famine but couldn't get her way so donated money personally.

Exactly @CoffeeCantata.

People may object to KCIII housing AMW, but it's worth stepping back to look at what has actually happened.

A man who has been arrested and questioned by police, not charged, tried, or convicted of any crime, has lost his job and his home. His brother is currently housing him.

If this happened to the average man on the street, there would probably be campaigns supporting him.

No free man is to be arrested, or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any other way ruined, nor will we go against him or send against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.

I don’t sadly.

I do think the pair of them have done nothing but bring out the worst in eachother but I firmly believe that Harry would always be a liability no matter the spouse.

I think he sold her a dream that was not his to sell. He then believed that they should be the fab 2 (not fab 4). They grasped for Camelot2. And ended up grabbing thin air.

I can understand why she would be disenchanted and disillusioned but she took it out on the wrong people. I think he filled her head with nonsense and she was daft enough to fall for it.

I think Meghan would be fine with a grateful and rich husband and I think she thought she got both with him.

She didn’t.

Edward abdicated.

It's worth doing some reading around the 1938 abdication crisis.