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?

Many of us don’t go in for performative grieving. I agree totally with that.

But yet again, we come up again the family v state role.

If you support the notion of a hereditary monarchy, then the family aspect inevitably comes in to play.

If you share weddings and funerals with the public, then the public are likely to have opinions on how the royal family respond to a death in the family. You can’t only expect them to have opinions when things are going swimmingly and not when things are going wrong.

As difficult as it must be at times, that is the package that comes with being royal.

And although Diana was divorced, she was still the mother of the heir and spare and as such she deserved more recognition than she received initially.

I know some of it was whipped up by the press to deflect the blame from them, but PR is about perceptions and the RF were coming across at that time as pretty cold, aloof, and out of touch.

So the palace PR failed.
A contradiction to many of the claims on here about how powerful and far reaching it is.
So much for them being hand in pocket with the press.

The media and pr can only do so much in any situation. Pr cannot make the public accept Prince Andrew as a working royal or believe he was telling the truth in his TV interview.

Ah, so you do agree there's a limit.

Already stated this in a previous comment. It's not a gotcha

I agree with this actually.

I carried on as usual too.

But I also walked among the crowds and can still remember the charged atmosphere 29 years later. It was extraordinary and attempts to dismiss it as “meaningless hysterical nonsense” and “ridiculous” much later on are similarly re-writing history imho.

I am not entirely sure what it was, but it wasn’t nothing,

Well, based on this thread, and the hypothesis..... it's certainly a volte face.

No it's not. You simply don't understand complexity in replies

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Brilliant!

Not the whole public mood. I absolutely detest this lumping everyone together - if you say it enough times, it becomes true....not.

This is how the past is mythologised and then historians have to pick things apart and show that no, it wasn't a universal feeling. I know it wasn't amongst my acquaintance. My mum was a strong royalist but she thought Diana was going off the rails in her last months and found all the fuss after her death over the top.

It's like the Blitz - the 'myth' is that everyone in the country wanted to carry on and keep fighting despite the bombing. But in fact historians have shown that there was much more dissent and lack of resolve amongst the population than the popular view would have us believe.

Absolutely.
It's really missing the complexity of the situation, isn't it?
"The public mood".
So simplistic.

But I also walked among the crowds and can still remember the charged atmosphere 29 years later. It was extraordinary and attempts to dismiss it as “meaningless hysterical nonsense” and “ridiculous” much later on are similarly re-writing history imho.

Spot the problem here...

Yes, you walked 'among the crowds'. Well, yes, they crowds were a particular demographic, weren't they?

That's like going to Henley Regatta and saying that 100% of British people support the Conservative Party because the crowds there did.

What about the huge majority who were at home, or getting on with their lives? The crowds would be a very keen and particular group.

Yes agreed that attempts to dismiss it as hysteria are rewriting history of showing they don't understand what was happening.

It was genuine grief, although it was based on personal identification with characteristics people shared with princess Diana. For example divorced women painted as a crazy ex wife (a common misogynistic trope at the time), often identified closely with princess Diana. Gay men often saw her as an icon because of her groundbreaking work around hiv and her fashion. Lots who had struggled in life saw her struggle and rise from that as one they identified with.

I know some will dismiss this, but I paid attention and tried to understand who was upset and why. I think this type of organic public reaction is very rare and our elite are usually too divorced from how ordinary people feel to understand it.

No. "The public mood" is very simplistic and ignores the complexities.
As pp have clarified.

Oi! I didn't say people weren't upset! I have to watch you like a hawk, in case I'm misinterpreted.

What I said was that people weren't demonstrative. We watched the coverage respectfully on the news, but didn't walk around in tears or go and join the crowds in London, or sign books of condolence. I watched the funeral and found it moving.

But I'm not a wailing and weeping in public sort of person, and I didn't know anyone who was...and still don't.

Sorry I didn't write an assignment about this cultural phenomena.
The public mood phrase doesn't mean everyone felt this way about Princess Diana. It means enough people felt upset about her death that it dominated the public discourse.

We can see that through letters to newspapers, incredibly long queues to sign condolences books all round the country and internationally. People leaving flowers and cards at a number of sites. The enormous numbers of people who watched her funeral and donated to the memorial built soon after her death.

You can dismiss it if you want. It doesn't wipe what actually happened

What actually happened? There wasn't a universal response as people have been explaining.
I didn't have that response, nor did family, friends or colleagues.
So, no. There was no universal "public mood".

I think you are underestimating how famous Diana was at the time.

There were a million people watching the funeral on the streets.

And around 2 to 2.5 billion people watched it on tv across the world.

That’s roughly the same global audience as for the coronation of Charles 3.

But Diana’s funeral was before the era of modern broadband, social media, and live streaming; the majority of the global audience watched it on a television.

So the Palace were facing overwhelming public interest to put it mildly.

And as a pp says, even the most skilled PR operative couldn’t out run Prince Charles standing before the Archbishop of Canterbury on his wedding day, and a global audience of 750 million, promising to “forsake all others” which became clear later, was an outright lie. Of the fundamental injustice of how Diana was used quite cruelly by the institution.

I'm underestimating nothing. I was there.

I am commenting on the claims about royal PR.
Not as successful, far reaching and powerful as people claim.

Constantrunner has already explained it much better than I can.

And no it didn’t just affect a specific group of fanatical admirers. Lots of people did come from far and wide to London to lay flowers but there were so many ordinary Londoners who were going about their day who also stopped and paid tribute. The crowds were unusually quiet and respectful. It was extraordinary however much current monarchists want to dismiss it.

"lots of people" isn't the same as "the public".

As often seems to happen with recollections surrounding Diana’s death, “public mood” seems to be conflated with “vocal minority”

Quite!

Well clearly some people still care about how Diana and how she was used by the RF or Charles Spencer’s book Swan Song wouldn’t currently be sitting at number one across the entire UK book market and is the fastest-selling hardback non-fiction title in Britain for 2026.

But the book hardly mentions Diana 🤷‍♀️