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?

No, I think it's more than he's trashing KC and it's juicy gossip. Not necessarily abiding love and admiration for Diana.

It's certainly nore about Spencer and his eulogy.

There was a similar mood in London although much less frenetic when George V died.

The RF's talent is its abilty to shift and change just enough to ensure its continued survival. The 3 big crises, the abdication, Diana's death and the sickening revlations about AMW have all in their way rocked it but still they pull through. I won't be around to see what dramas William's reign brings if he is on the throne for 30 plus years but I don't doubt there will be some. They weather every storm because that vast wealth and privilage is what motivates them. I wish we had a republic, we would grow up as nation when we stop venerating/despising/gossiping about what are in effect just people who happened to be born into or marry into the "right" family. i read some of the stuff on here about Harry and Meghan and it is jaw droppingly obsessive, one post that i recall was someone saying they had not been able to sleep since they heard they were moving back to the UK! And it's not just on MN, the crazy is everywhere, not healthy behaviour

Er - people love scandal and sensation. I read big chunks of Lownie’s book on Andrew and Ferguson but it doesn’t mean I like them.

Really? I suppose it was a big deal.

Some of the response to Diana's death certainly wasn't healthy or proportionate.

You’re still not getting the point. I (and those here who are taking issue with you) are not dismissive or disrespectful to Diana. I watched the news coverage and the funeral and found them moving. Lots of people were in that camp.

But please don’t try to suggest that everyone was on the streets, sobbing and laying flowers. And if you weren’t it doesn’t mean you were being disrespectful.
Yes, personally I found them moving mass hysteria distasteful and slightly disturbing and many people did. It’s no good us on here trying to precisely quantify how many felt like this and how many didn’t, but it was not a universal reaction.

Remenber too, that it was late summer and London was rammed with tourists.

Yes, good points 👍🏼

@Lifeomars

I agree with you but I’m not sure that the Windsors can weather all these storms
The landscape is so different now and their PR can’t control it

Remember ‘protocol’ ? That was always the bullshit pulled out as and when it suited the Windsors .

That was probably was the defence when the public was shocked by the cold Windsor response to Diana’s death( it seems the public was right - they were cold ‘she’ll be forgotten soon’) . No flags at half mast because ‘protocol’ . Then panic to put the flag at half mast when they realised they weren’t going to get away with that .

We don’t hear much about protocol now do we? Now they are trying to increase their support by being ‘emotional’ - cue William’s concerned face . But this new approach does not come naturally to William hence it’s falling flat . He might have managed ok in the 1950s and 1960s - not now .

They are floundering because monarchy - esp a bloated billionaire monarchy enriched off the backs of the people - is being continually challenged to explain themselves

If they weren’t protectors of pedophiles and so financially greedy they might have been be able to allow more transparency- but they have covered up too much for too long .

I have pointed out a lot of facts regarding malfeasance in public office and we now just wait. So you will have to put up with my 'moaning' if I choose to post about the subject.

If I want to bring it up in an appropriate context, I will.

It was wild wasn't it? I remember feeling very sad that a young woman and a mother had died in such a terrible way but the country went mad. My sister did a lovely thing, she and her children lit a candle at home for all children who had lost their mothers which i thought was appropriate. I'm in a reasonably sized city and the steps to our council house was ankle deep in bouquets and people were queing to sign the book of condolences. Yet just before the fatal accident most of the media were running salacious stories about her and Dodi Al-Fyad. Speaking of whom, i wonder if Diana was still alive what she would have made of the terrible crimes of Mohamned Al-Fyed.

CoffeeCantata

Here are some impressions of the week from hard boiled journalists who had the same impression as me:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/31/death-of-diana-the-week-that-rocked-britain

https://time.com/4914324/princess-diana-anniversary-paparazzi-tabloid-media/

https://spectrumnews1.com/wi/madison/ap-online/2022/08/31/a-moment-in-time-ap-journalists-remember-dianas-death

There are hundreds more in the same vein.

Charles and Camilla have been anxious to diminish the impact of Diana’s existence since her death, because to them she was an inconvenience, and it was reported often that Charles was jealous of her popularity, so I understand why their supporters do the same and are constantly trying to derail away from the palace PR failure at the time.

The records are sealed until 2065, and I can't see that changing even though there is pressure to do so.
There has been an inquiry into his appointment, and the government agreed to release specific early papers as to how he got the job.
Various reports say they will be released but only after the police investigations are completed.

That is a lovely thing, how very thoughtful.
It was certainly a horrific death and very tragic.

Now I see an increasing number of royalists describing anyone who rightly continues to ask questions about Andrew as ‘moaning’

How disgraceful.
And revealing . Is THAT really what you have to think in order to support the Windsors in 2026

To add, @Lifeomars, I'm sure she'd be shocked about Al Fayed, as she was about Jimmy Savile, who she had once trusted. It's a shame that she couldn't have lived out her post divorce life and found more happiness. I understand that she and Charles W were getting friendly towards the end, which is a positive.

If anyone has lost someone very close to them in extremely tragic circumstances, as I have, I think the death of Diana meant more.

I had young children, I was at home, and I admit I sobbed watching the funeral on my little telly in the kitchen, whilst the kids wrecked the place. But I was probably sobbing for what my family had lost too, if that makes sense.

No way would I have ever watched it in London with any grief on display for the world to see. My grief is private, I thought it was moving but over the top.

This is a great post and sums up the current PR situation really well I think.

The origins of all three of the PR battles that BP are currently fighting, relating to AMW and the Charles Spencer, and to H&M to a certain extent, can be traced back to the Palace doing far too little far too late and dragging its feet over reform.

Yes-there were people out in the streets through the night to buy the latest editions of the papers. And people threw flowers onto the cortège.

I agree with every word of this post! I think the behind-the-scenes influence and soft power is what motivates the RF too; alongside the substantial financial rewards.

I remember, it was quite extraordinary.

Yes true, protocol was always the reason given. But the royal family themselves have dropped so much protocol, especially after Elizabeth died, that it would be hard to use the protocol reason. It's crystal clear protocol changes when they want it to.

If we didn't have a monarchy I think it is reasonable to assume that Diana would be alive today. She was all but procured for Charles as a very young virgin bride and they were a total mismatch. All to give the monarchy heirs and a stake in the future. That we do this to human being is one of the reasons I would like to see a republic. I am close in age to Diana and could not imagine being married at 20, and then pregnant almost immediately, it almost seems medieval these days. The RF of course learnt from this and "modernised" accordingly, as I said in an earlier comment, the central goal is the survival of the "firm", they modernise just enough to prevent the whole of the public saying they have had enough of them.

Diana woudn't have known about Savile, she died in 1997 and the revelations about Savile came out in full after his death in 2011. She might have heard the rumours and chosen to discretly distance herself, but she, like all of us was not in posession of all the appalling facts. Agree she would have been horrified about Al Fayed.