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?

Sorry you couldn't access it.

It discussed Camilla and Scott Bessant, along with the Mark Bolland story.

It also went back to the beginning, to Charles' friendship with Richard Jenrette over architecture.

All reported in readily available articles.

Andrew was given a mansion to live in by Charles.
He still travels to the middle east frequently to meet up with friends and was spotted in France talking about buying a property there.

Getting his titles taken away might seem a big deal t9 Andrew, but he should be in prison. So it's really not a big deal.

Yes, it's fascinating.

And originally Andrew was offered frog more cottage the beautiful house harry and Meghan lived in. But it wasn't good enough for Andrew the nonce so Charles gave him a mansion on his private estate.

Getting his titles taken away might seem a big deal t9 Andrew, but he should be in prison.

In an absolute monarchy, possibly.

Not in a constitutional monarchy that functions as a democracy, and has a rule of law, with an independent judiciary.

He has not been charged, tried, or found guilty.

But Charles can’t put him in prison, that’s the court’s job. He isn’t under house arrest so is allowed to travel. You might not like it ( nor do I!) but that’s the current situation we are stuck with.

I think some people don't understand the law in the UK, and who is allowed to incarcerate.
Mind you, bearing in mind the wild claims upthread about the power of Gyles Brandreth, perhaps he could do the honours.

No people don't generally support a nonce evicted for not meeting the legal obligations in his lease and given another mansion by his brother, after rejecting a beautiful cottage as not good enough.

Lost his job? He should have been convicted for passing on confidential information in his job. The rest of the royal job was visiting golf courses he was patron of and eating at various dinners. And using his job with pitch at the palace to make more money for himself.

He is still flying out regularly to the middle east and has visited France, in spite of some royalists trying to pitch him as a sad man sitting in an attic room alone.

Charles is protecting him. He is clearly showing he is still under royal family protection.
No one is going to take that on.

It's like Jimmy savilles. Loads of people knew what was happening but time and time again senior officers ensured savilles was protected from any legal repercussions.

And yes I still remember that Charles the king has been good friends with three paedophiles or nonces, including Jimmy saville.

The royal family simply don't care about nonces.

I am not disbelieving you but I am very surprised that he has been to the ME with the ongoing conflict . Do you have a link please ?
I did read about a trip to France but understood he was strongly reprimanded.

Precisely. I don’t know what pps expect! It’s not in our power to overturn the law.

How do they propose to get round the fact that he’s not technically broken the law? They keep banging on about it - but why not try lobbying an MP instead? It’s not against the law to have sex with a 17 year old girl. That’s not my fault! I can’t help, sorry.

You don't think passing confidential information or raping sex trafficked teenagers us against the law?

I think you are getting carried away here and your repeated word of the use " nonce" is clearly used for effect ( as you see it ) . I do think Andrew is a slimey bastard but he is not a "nonce" as he has not been convicted of this. You are entitled to your opinion but you in reality have no idea of what Charles thinks , does or has done in relation to Andrew. Repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it a fact. Your exaggeration to encompass the whole of the RF negates your point massively.

Very good points

🙄

It turns this poster's point into something similar to a News of the World or Sun headline and you immediately shrug 🤷‍♀️

I have written to my MP more than once. But I know he will not be prosecuted for anything to do with VG. However, the passing on of confidential government papers is absolutely appalling.

He passed on visit reports, itineraries, details of investment opportunities in many countries, other sensitive government material and commercial information, all strictly confidential. All to Epstein

Then we have his best buddy David Rowlands. He shared a confidential 2010 UK Treasury briefing concerning the banking crisis in Iceland with David Rowlands and his son. Both bankers. And then there's the chinese connection, I could go on and on.

What I do not understand is why his travel records, when, where, who with, are sealed for decades. He is obviously traitorous and I would have more faith in all of this if these records were released. But they are obviously very bad.

The Palace was given evidence of 30,000 emails containing controversial financial dealings back in 2020. They covered it up. Course they did.

And people wonder why we are not fans of the Windsors?

We all know they will cover up literally anything if they can. My opinion of how the Palace/Monarchy is run is rock bottom. Hardly surprising.

😁

You listed people as proof but you don't read them ? Well that doesn't make sense does it ? 🧐

That.

I sometimes see some words bandied about here and liken it to a 6 year old repeating a swear word they’ve heard somewhere. They say it once, get a reaction and keep saying it because they think it is big and clever.

It isn’t.

He is a slimy bastard - no question.

Do I want him to be held to account? I do. But sadly because of VG’s death it will make it difficult. We can’t prove he knew she was trafficked and she was 17 which is legal in this country.

To wish for justice would mean for someone else to have to come forward and say that he knew and went ahead anyway.

There have already been enough women irreparably damaged by JE and his ilk and I don’t think I would want to hear of more. It’s heartbreaking enough as it is.

So if he could be held to account for the government papers? That would be a good start in exposing his slimy bastardness (even more than we already see).

It's obvious she hasn't read them, because they actually don't support her points. In fact the Robert Lacey one is quite sad, and made me feel sorry for William.

Jimmy saville was never convicted. He was still a nonce just as Andrew is.

Agree.

I would like AMW to be held to account.

There are 2 possible routes: the sexual offences and misconduct in public office.

The sexual offences that AMW might be found guilty of (once charged and tried) occurred before 2003.
This is relevant, because the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sections 57-59) introduced offences around trafficking into the UK for sexual exploitation.
There was also, before 2003, a defence of a genuine though unreasonably mistaken belief as to the consent of the complainant.
Changes in law are not retrospective, so AMW cannot be charged something which would be an offence now but was not pre 2003.

Misconduct in public office is a common law offence where it is possible but tricky to achieve a conviction: for this reason in most cases the CPS tries to prosecute on the basis of another offence where possible.
The CPS summary is here CPS MIPO . It also has a link to the Attorney General's Appeal Court judgement summarising the principles.

I would also very much like the more powerful men who are still managing to fly under the radar to be exposed and prosecuted.

This really gets to the point. Which is why posters are asking you @simpson To state what you mean precisely by "disguised anger" the constant drip feed of some posters continually feeding the narrative of angry William in the hope it's become accepted as such. Agree with @CoffeeCantata hostile states continually deploy ways to destabilise democracies. Their probably not to bothered with AMW who's actions to bring the monarchy into disrepute are playing out anyhow. PW as the next future HoS would be a far better target to undermine the monarchy as an institution, creating division and destabilising our institutions.
Nonetheless I don't personally think that changes in respect of transparency on a number of matters wouldn't benefit the country. I also don't see doing so now is the rime given the current issues that prevail nationally and internationally.

Interesting you think me pointing out that Andrew raped sex trafficked teenagers and Charles has been friends with three nonces including Jimmy saville is like a tabloid headlines, but the person claiming having "sex" with trafficked teenagers is not a crime is ignored.