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 know! Very restrained. Unbelievable situation.

Yes, that was epic restraint.

For some of us the whole extravagant spectacle was horrendous, when there was a family trying to support two boys; and the idea that the main criticism is about a flag being lowered (which didn't normally fly above the palace anyway) or the Queen making a speech (to people not personally involved) is incomprehensible.

I do agree regarding contacting Diana's mother. My next comment will no doubt be read as an excuse, but it seems so unlike the Queen, imbued as she was with the correct protocol, that I wonder if a card was sent to the entire family and the message did not reach her.

while the late Queen was quite right of course to look after the boys in Balmoral, at one and the same time, the Palace PR did fail badly

Sorry - don't know who posted this originally - I've quoted from a quote.

Well, that's the line we've all been sold - that the Palace PR failed. But I didn't think so either at the time or now. I didn't get all the witch-hunts, the pressure on the RF to bring the princes back to London, the bullying mob-mentality which demanded that they come out and show their grief publicly...and it had better be good enough!

I was totally with the Palace on this - I just wanted peace and tranquillity and a dignified funeral for Diana. I'm for stiff upper lips in public - do your weeping and wailing in private.

No, not everyone bought the 'Palace have failed badly' line at all. No-one I know thought that.

@Whentherainsetin101 Aside from the PR failures of the palace having to be dragged kicking and screaming to lower the flag, and to coordinate a televised address by QE2, the fact that Diana’s mother never heard once from the late Queen is shocking I think, bordering on cruel. And indicates how relations were between the two families, which rather backs up Charles Spencer’s perspective.

The issue of not lowering the Royal Standard to half mast was not an insult yo Diana as many people assume. The Royal Standard indicates the monarchy and unlike the Union flag, the Royal Standard is never flown at half mast, even after the death of a monarch, as there is always a Sovereign on the throne.
Similarly there was huge public pressure for the HMTLQE2 to bow to Diana's coffin as it passed; as supreme head of the monarchy the sovereign foes not bow or curtesy to anyone, but the public baying at the time was unbelievable and the queen did in fact bow her head.
There were no PR failures, but rather public pressures changing the accepted ways. The aftermath of Diana's death was unbelievable for anyone who remembers it.

Exactly.

This was never what HMTLQ wanted at all.

She wanted to stay at Balmoral keeping the family together comforting W & H but mass hysteria forced her hand.

I would hazard a guess that many of those who are such vocal critics of the RF aren’t old enough to remember things which happened back in the 70s / 80s / 90s.

They judge the past from today’s perspective and also appear to have no understanding of a constitutional monarchy or indeed the law.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but should be able to reference the facts they rely on to arrive at such otherwise all is simple nonsense.

Absolutely. They weren't allowed to watch tv or listen to radio bulletins, for understandable reasons. They were taken out each day for walks, fishing and pony rides.
It sounds like a sensible approach to me.

Pretty sure a competent PR company could have sold the Great British Public the Royal Family keeping the boys in Balmoral in the care of their loving grandparents if that’s what was wanted. So either the company wasn’t competent or it wasn’t what was wanted. I have no idea which it was.

It didn't happen, so obviously not good Palace PR.
It somewhat challenges the hypothesis on here about how successful and controlling their PR is.

Will OP and the pps who think the matter of AMW has been “ pushed into the long grass” please say precisely what they propose they would do about it WITHIN THE LAW.

I'd like to see the trade envoy records released (although I appreciate this might not now be possible if they form part of the police investigation) and the reinstatement of the Court Circular records relating to Andrew, his visits and engagements.

Yes, would like to see trade envoy papers released.

I was disappointed that the recent motion only asked for papers relating to his appointment to be released; I wonder who was responsible for deciding that limitation.
There was cross-party ministerial involvement in AMW's time as trade envoy.

For those interested in PR, this is a worthwhile podcast to listen to

When It Hits the Fan

It covers the main PR stories each week, so covers royal stories when they crop up.

No I think you have misunderstood

The Windsor PR worked ( to some degree)when there was mono media .

Younger people do not look at tabloids or the BBC I suspect .

People are more media savvy and know that the ‘never complain never explain’ was always a lie . They have their favoured tabloid writers and they ‘take dictation’ as Charles Spencer put it .

I have seen such journalists use ‘the palace told me and I accepted it’ as a defence for writing something which was later contradicted.

The expensive PR / crisis experts are , in my opinion , working to try to address the looming demographic threat. Royalists are a dying breed .
It is often these transparent insta reels and clumsy tweets that are criticised

The fact that the royals work with the tabloids is long established. Camilla particularly.

But it’s failing . The entire establishment is two generations out of touch

What did you know about Epstein William and Charles and when did you know it ?

Retract your palace statement calling Virginia a liar. Stop wasting everyone’s time with lies and bullshit then you might stand a chance

Ooh - I’m not sure. I remember the mood, whipped up by the press and Tony Blai, was very ugly - bullying, even. They wanted to see the RF showing their grief in public.

I have a personal reaction to this - I’m not a demonstrative person where grief is concerned and there’ve been times in my life where I’ve felt my reaction hasn’t been emotional or obvious enough to satisfy other people. I get how the RF reacted and I don’t blame them.

Total rewriting of history.
The public viewpoint was organic, the media were trying to catch up.
Tony Blair was advising the royal family how to respond. He wasn't whipping up anything. He was good at recognising how the public felt.

I can agree with you there. Do you know if this is likely to happen? I would guess there’ll be a number of non-royals who would like this information to be suppressed - people who knew what was going on.

"the public" aren't a hive mind.
Public response varied. There was something of an extreme reaction from some quarters, but most of us carried on as normal.

Aaarrrggghh…the public aren’t an amoeba! I was involved in a number of different groups at the time - as well as friends and family - and no one liked the hysteria and public sobbing. Please don’t talk as if everyone felt the same way - they didn’t.

Yes, I think you're right.
"She was the People's Princess". What nonsense.

Where are the 30000 emails re Andrew as trade envoy handed to Buckingham palace years ago ??

It reflected the public mood at the time.

The public isn't an amorphous mass.
It didn't reflect my thinking nor that of most of my friends and family.

I know not everyone felt the same. I wasn't crying and upset. But 8 knew plenty of people who were.
You sound in a bit if a social bubble at the time if you knew nobody who was upset, even if it was colleagues or neighbours

It reflected the public mood at the time.

It reflected the mood of some of the public at the time, and was convenient for a certain Prime Minister.

It didn't reflect the public mood a couple of weeks before.

Quite, certainly not that summer.

Yes it did.
I know there is a constant attempt to rewrite history though.

I think the cultural elite were surprised at the reaction to Diana's death, just as they were surprised by the Brexit vote, which I did not support but again I knew clearly the vote was going to be for Brexit.