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?

Whatever people can say about the royal family they cleary have a fantastic PR firm who know what they’re doing

Really? I think quite the opposite. I think their scandal management is appalling. And their efforts to modernise non existent. Maybe bringing in all these wonder kids is taking time. The Comms people are often recruited from government civil service, or fleet street which ensures most media is framed in the most positive spin possible. This doesn't stop the public questioning the stories put out.

Why do the palace brief and leak instead of offering straightforward responses?

Can you cite some examples of 'briefing and leaking' as opposed to straightforward responses and responses to what?

How about opting for authenticity and credibility?

How are you defining those terms - what would 'authentic and credible' PR look like, and who gets to decide what's credible? surely credibility is decided by the people on the receiving end deciding whether they believe the PR or not, not the people issuing it.

Some fair and really interesting points there.

I hadn’t thought about the “incomers” naturally diluting the monarchy’s elitism as they reflect society and marry from a wider pool of candidates.

However, I think we have to be careful to distinguish between class, and financial and legal privilege. The RF has become richer and richer in recent years due to soaring profits from the Crown Estate and a record public Sovereign Grant, and that’s including the BP renovation in the accounts.

They are still not subject to the same tax laws and land laws as the ordinary man and woman in the street, and although Charles and William pay tax voluntarily, we are not privy to the calculations on which those percentage payments are based.

I also very much agree that good and truly awful people can exist within the same family! With that point, I would argue though that the good ones should not be covering up for the corrupt or sexually abusive, and the RF can’t apply “familial” rules when it suits them, particularly when the bad apole is carrying out a professional job representing the UK at the time.

I think your point about recent revelations humanising the RF and making them more relatable are very interesting and go to the heart of what a RF is for? Do we want them to be mysterious and somehow apart? Or do we want them to be relatable? I am not sure that we know at this point. Why are we so interested in them? Are they simply a distraction from everyday struggles or tedium?

We obviously, if monarchy continues, need a head of state that represents our country respectfully and well, especially with regard to foreign powers and soft diplomacy.

But what I think your points highlight is the need for fewer key members. A very slimmed down organisation. Judt the monarch and the heir and everyone else should go and support themselves and live as normal a life as possible, out of the headlights.

Yes I think the pr is going wrong in the age of social media. Look at how badly the kings statement to earl Spencers book was revived. I saw many young people tweet or do videos about once again the king and royals accusing everyone else of being crazy and/or having memory problems.

I think Andrew though really knocked the royalty, and it's not over. More will keep coming out. Authors will repackage stuff already known and remind people of what has been forgotten.

There is also a renewed interest in Diana amongst young people and oast scandals are being shared.

The royal family have a lot of control over traditional media, but it's social media they are not winning on.

The idea of fewer royals is fine, if the funding also reduces. But the royals are reducing the numbers of people and thus engagements, but increasing the funding. No government seems willing to hold them to account as the royal family are so powerful

Well as I said, I disagree that it’s not working. It’s not surprising that they would engage professionals to help manage the reputational risks of the last few years. They seem to have weathered the Andrew storm, and the Harry / CS books have turned out to be largely positive for them. 2/3 think we should continue to have a monarchy, KC3’s polling is good, PPoW’s even better, their 75% favourable is pretty remarkable given the targeted attacks on them. They get high engagement and follower numbers on social media. Mostly good press and the churn of royal events, engagements and charity work means that there is a constant supply of positive stories, video and images. What’s not to like really.

Lol, you misunderstood me. The working royals just get on with their duties. The media create a circus that has nothing to do with the working royals in order to get clicks and advertising.

I don't think any of the assumptions in your questions are correct. I think you're imagining a lot of things.

I completely agree that generally speaking, people are pragmatists, and that there are far more important things for young adults to to worry about than monarchy, I do think the AMW debacle has exposed a worrying lack of scrutiny and opened the door on immense privilege, which some people are now questioning.

For the first time there have been ordinary members of the public shouting “Who knew what and when?” at the monarch during public appearances and I don’t think that that has happened for a long time?

I think Andrew is old news now. Would like to push him off a cliff myself, but unless further specifics come to light, that’s probably it from what can be done to him legally.

I don’t see that Spencer’s allegations will stick - those who know about Spencer will be very sceptical and those who don’t won’t care.

HAM are getting in with destroying their own images all by themselves.

I’m genuinely surprised to read that pps see a new interest in these matters among younger people. It strikes me that younger people are focused on other issues- environment, ME politics, housing policy etc - and their political interest looks to parties rather than questioning the structure of the constitution.

Think what you like! 😁

I am, as it happens, a very ordinary member of the public with a boring pt job, who is interested in history, politics and PR.

Is that only allowed if you are an out and out monarchist?

I am not affiliated to any political organisation, I didn’t even vote in the last election, which was wrong of me, nor am I a member of Republic UK.

I agree with the need to slim down, It’s already happening naturally though. I think we can ignore the very elderly ones of QE2’s generation, it made sense at the time but first cousins of the monarch are unlikely to be working royals again. So leaving those aside, they have gone from 11 to 7 in the last few years, having lost QE2, Andrew, Harry and Meghan. (And Philip I suppose, so 12, although he retired a bit before he died.) I don’t think there’s much else to be done at the moment, W+C are the only ones under 60 so they need Anne / Edward / Sophie to keep going until George is ready. It will be interesting to see what William does about Charlotte and Louis but we won’t know that for a while yet. I don’t think it will make much difference to the Sovereign Grant though, as I believe most of that goes on the buildings. Maybe fewer staff I guess and a bit less travel. I would actually like to see if there’s a way to get rid of some of the palaces or make them public buildings that generate more income. I’m not sure that there’s a need for BP, KP, StJP and Windsor. But I must admit I’m not very well informed about what they’re used for currently!

Just to answer a previous question - why does their PR have to be managed so tightly?

They are a globally significant brand and a large business responsible for hundreds of staff, so of course they need a professional PR operation. And their existence relies on an uneasy pact with the public, so managing that relationship is essential for their future. Plus their reputation reflects on the UK, so it’s really in all our interests that it doesn’t get trashed.

I agree that there may well be more to come from the Andrew saga, the gift that keeps on giving. If he ends up being charged and tried that will be challenging for them, to say the least. Getting rid of him was a smart move.

Not sure, a lot of people are stupid and believe the positive PR

And yet you claim to speak for the rest of us. Perhaps it's better not to kick off with claims like that if you don't want people to assume there's an agenda somewhere in the background.

MNs probably isn’t the right forum for this chat though!

When it Hits the Fan covered the recent statement on Charles S' book and were very complimentary, which they often aren't. I am not sure why you think palace PR isn't working. As far as I can see the most recent example of someone emerging from under the palace PR banner is Harry and his current PR is a disaster, no focus at all, ever changing messaging etc

The Institution rumbles on as it has always done, knowing that popularity will go up and down over time. They rarely comment and when they do release statements they are tend to be very effective in shutting down speculation.

They rarely comment and when they do release statements they are tend to be very effective in shutting down speculation.

And IMO that's a effective strategy - don't speak often and when you do people will listen. Not so sure about the shutting down speculation - people will always do that, but the palace refuses to get involved in a tit for tat, which is the adult way to do it.

And finally (apologies for the flurry of posts - I am about to start work 😅) - I agree that the RF comes very low on most people’s list of priorities. There are so many pressing problems and the younger people I know are concerned about climate change, AI, populism, social media, health security, food security, mass displacement of populations, loss of biodiversity, access to water, poverty, mental health, ageing populations and war. I really don’t think they see the RF as a major issue and if anything maybe appreciate the stability and continuity that they represent. DD is doing a multidisciplinary degree course which is designed to teach them how to approach some of these big problems. Safe to say, the RF has not come up.

Can you cite some examples of 'briefing and leaking' as opposed to straightforward responses and responses to what?

Are you saying that the RF don’t brief and leak? Have you never heard a broadcaster say “according to palace sources”? Or a “tame” journalist say “what I am hearing from the palace is such and such?”

My question is why do they do that and do it so often? Why not answer the question openly and directly if they have something to say and nothing to hide? I can only interpret that as an unwillingness to take responsibility I’m afraid.

At the time of her marriage break up, Diana was briefed against by Prince Charles’s friend, Nicolas Soames, who defended the prince and claimed to the BBC that Diana's allegations of adultery and fears of being spied on or slandered by royal courtiers stemmed from mental illness and "advanced stages of paranoia".

Years later, Soames expressed regret for his remarks, admitting that he should not have made such medical assertions after Charles later admitted to his adultery.

We also know that Charles paid £150,000 for a PR guru to rehabilitate Camilla’s image, a hugely successful campaign that unfortunately exceeded its brief and involved promoting Camilla while briefing at the expense of other members of the RF.

Those are two concrete examples but the whole point of private briefings is that they are anonymous and private. We are not meant to know about them. Things are not said on record presumably to allow the Palace to disassociate themselves from the comment if they need to?

How are you defining those terms - what would 'authentic and credible' PR look like, and who gets to decide what's credible? surely credibility is decided by the people on the receiving end deciding whether they believe the PR or not, not the people issuing it.

Good question! Yes, fair point, credibility should be decided by the person on the receiving end of PR but they need the full story to make that decision. And it can be argued that there is no other institution in Britain that operates behind such a thick wall of secrecy, and protection, save for the intelligence services.

Is that appropriate for our Head of State in 2026? Why can’t they be more open and accountable?

I'm sorry, just to say I am not deliberately being provocative to you but I could not disagree more. The Andrew storm is not weathered, he is under police investigation and it is never ever going to go away.
The Harry and Charles Spencer books does not mean that everyone is on board with the royals about this. There are grumblings, mutterings and some believing a lot that is written. Why do you call it 'targeted attacks', two people close to the royals have written books, that's all. We only know a fraction of what goes on and it is good to lift the lid on some of it. When you say 2/3 want a monarchy, I have to say I do not always believe tiny section positive polls, but even so, what about a third of the country being anti? Everything I have looked at it's a bit more 50/50

The positive stories are sometimes ridiculous and desperate and are often mocked.

I think Andrew is old news now. Would like to push him off a cliff myself, but unless further specifics come to light, that’s probably it from what can be done to him legally.

He is still under police investigation! And police/palace are going to have to do a very good job of PR if it goes absolutely nowhere

Are you saying that the RF don’t brief and leak? Have you never heard a broadcaster say “according to palace sources”? Or a “tame” journalist say “what I am hearing from the palace is such and such?”

I'd call that briefing rather than leaking, altho I have no idea why these palace sources can't be named.

My question is why do they do that and do it so often? Why not answer the question openly and directly if they have something to say and nothing to hide? I can only interpret that as an unwillingness to take responsibility I’m afraid.

So they brief and leak and give information, they just don't do it in a way and with the amount of explanation and clarification you expect and feel entitled to.

There can be any number of explanations; one being that they're not going to indulge in a tit for tat with anyone and get into long detailed explanations to be picked over, criticised, misinterpreted and argued with. That you interpret that as 'something to hide' is your choice.

What do you want them to take responsibility for?

Really ? You aren’t speaking for me .