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?

"Connection to pedophiles" you realise they are in every community right? My marriage blew up because of one a lady 6 doors away lost her children because she chose another (over her own children) my family member was briefly engaged to a flasher i lived within close proximity to two known pedophiles and a man who raped animals (ive no idea what they are called) perversion is everywhere its not just a rich person's thing

Again calling him a nonce he hasnt been convicted of anything its pathetic name calling at best

Yes the courts would have to establish that Andrew did not know he was raping sex trafficked teenagers and thought they were consenting.
The court in Virginia guiffries case had already accepted prince Andrews TV interview could be used in court. It was incredibly clear Andrew lied throughout. The interview would have been used to establish that Prince Andrew was willing to lie in public about the Virginia guiffries case. By showing Prince Andrew is lied it brings his character into question when he then claims in court he did not know he was raping a sex trafficked teenagers.
I am not saying this is an easy case to prove, but prince Andrews interview made it easier to prove.

If you can demonstrate or prove that he was aware she was a victim of sex trafficking then please tell the authorities.

We’d be right behind you.

I suspect you can’t which is nothing but a shame. We’d all like to see justice but for that you need proof. I’d be delighted to see proof appear but that would mean another person broken and I just hope that isn’t the case.

Do remember Diana corresponded with that heinous prick Savile too. Hindsight and knowledge afterwards is a great thing.

Jimmy saville is not your next door paedophile who downloads images of children being abused. He raped hundreds and hundreds of children. He was a close friend of the kings. There were complaints about savilles behaviour to young staff when he was visiting Charles.

Peter Ball had already been convicted when the king defended him of offences with multiple teenagers spanning years. Charles gave him a house and financial support. The 2018 independent enquiry into sexual abuse concluded that balls friendship with the king had helped shield him from consequences for years.

The palace claimed the king was misleading by these individuals. Apparently the king and his staff are unable to make even rudimentary checks of close friends, not even googling them to see previous convictions. The truth is anyone in their orbit regularly is vetted, but being a paedophile, or my preferred word nonce, is not an issue.

Eh?

The law demands proof beyond reasonable doubt. It’s very difficult to prove someone knew something - sometimes impossible.

I have explained above about how Andrews TV interview would be used to show he is a liar on this issue and would thus undermine his own testimony.

Yes Diana wrote to Jimmy saville. She later wrote she found him creepy and disliked him.

Epstein took photos. There will be proof. We have already seen proof Prince Andrew met Virginia guiffries

I wrote to him too. I was desperate to be on Jim’ll fix it. And yes absolutely he is creepy and though I never met him I dislike him intensely.

Hindsight is a great thing.

As for proof re A? I would love to see it surface. It might yet. I still believe that he was a sacrificial pig for those much higher up the chain.

His interview was indeed telling. But sadly I think there would still need to be more.

That wasn't my point as you well know. It's your language.

No I didn't.
Why do you then object to the use of the word nonce? I much prefer it as strictly speaking a paedophile raped children under puberty age. Nonce is a far more inclusive term.

@Constantrunner
If you’re going to continue in this vein for a while, perhaps move it to the Andrew thread ?

It would be interesting to see everyone in those photos. Not just A and not just men.

I don’t believe for a moment that only one woman was involved in procuring others and they all need to have a light shone on them.

I still find it incredible that only one woman is doing time. I believe she is but a dot on the tip of an iceberg.

Yes I agree it's gobsmacking that only one woman, who is clearly guilty, is doing time.

I misunderstood your post. I don't object to the word per se - it just seems you like to throw it around a great deal. As I said it diminishes the validity of your posts.

For example as I said.

And as I pointed out to you before.

I agree. There's merit in this .

It does. I think slang words for serious things can trivialise them.

I suspect it’s used to be a vaguer catch-all insult than paedophile because technically AMW hasn’t been shown to be the latter.

That’s the issue some pps are angry about here, but raging about it on MN doesn’t get us anywhere, does it?

Since H&M have returned to UK, Kate &Wills are everywhere. Obviously a case of shoring up there public persona.

It’s good that Catherine is well enough to undertake a fuller programme.

No, it's a case of carrying on as usual.

A paedophile raped children under puberty.
Yes nonce is a wider inclusive term. That is why I use it. Prince Andrew is not a paedophile, he is a nonce raping sex trafficked teenagers.

@Constantrunner

This is a PR discussion thread, if you want to talk about the relative merits of different words to discuss statutory rape, please move it somewhere else, it’s not appropriate here.

You keep saying that. And it could be true. It may equally be the case that he had no idea she was trafficked.

You state it as though you know for sure it is true.

If you do know for sure then show your proof to anyone who will listen because you will be doing us all a huge favour. There is nothing everyone here would like more.

As it is going at the moment? It just looks like you are obsessed by the word nonce. Or nonces. And it does trivialise everything to those who have been victims of people like that.

You have no idea who may be reading here - they could be innocently reading a thread about PR to find themselves triggered by the words and phrases you are using.

If it was on the AMW thread - they could avoid it.

I’m sure most everyone agrees that the truth of everything to do with JE needs to come out - including A’s involvement and that everyone needs to see justice done.

I’m afraid that despite your words and insistence, it is beginning to look like you are making light of it/ having fun with it all.

That is not on.