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?

Diana did write that she found saville creepy.

However, like many, she trusted him at first. As she trusted Al Fayed. These men are master manipulators.

I agree with you that Diana was used as a pawn, as had many young aristocratic women over the centuries.

But please don't put all the blame on the RF! Her father, her sisters, and probably most of all, her grandmother, plotted and manouevred to secure the match. Only her mother was against it. From the RF pov, yes, she was a virgin and a suitable match (in those days) for the heir.

She was a victim of archaic circumstances (no longer in force, thank God) and pushy relations.

Make no mistake - the Spencers were and still are a dysfunctional lot.

Pathetic, desperate post.

All I want is for some constructive ideas as to how to take things the way you want them with Andrew, not just 'Oh, Andrew, he's awful, he's a nonce, he's disgraceful'.

Well, yes, I don't think anyone would disagree with that. But don't just repeat it over and over - tell us what you expect the law to do about it!

Let's hope they are - I hope we can agree on that, at least!

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 marketing still works - and can still be used to mobalise a sections of the population even in todays world.

The palace plays the long game - and the monachahy over histroy has had real periods of unpopularity with public even fears about actual revolutions - and changes at top like glorious revolution or picking the Hanover or enocuraging Edward VII to leave - Victoria has eight attemps on her life.

Have they handled everything well - no - I think Andrew under Queen was not handel very well and Charles is trying containment. Camilla PR been handeled very well over decades.

I think they are looking ahead - I think Williams challenges will be considerable when he gets the top job - and he may well be more deceive on some of them than Charles due to nature and less strong family connections to say Andrew.

When you get a long regin there is often stagnation at end then periods of adjustment - how good Charle is judge to be will depend on his length of rein and what else happens.

Here are some impressions of the week from hard boiled journalists who had the same impression as me:
@Whentherainsetin101

Yes, I read particularly the Jonathan Freedland piece.

But it really doesn't speak for everyone! Britain isn't England, and England isn't London. London was a special case during the period after Diana's death - it was where Buckingham Palace is, so a focus for attention, it's a huge tourist magnet at that time of the year - and I remember seeing lots of tourists interviewed on the TV.

Of course there was a massive fuss and public mourning - no-one's arguing with that. But it doesn't encompass everyone. That would be like saying that the whole of the British public turned out for the Queen's funeral just because the streets were rammed. It's London, innit.

I don't like the way the death of Diana has been turned into a huge drama - when the drama was created by misguided people demanding stupid things. And because the RF didn't jump and start openly weeping (something they don't do, and I wouldn't want any HoS to do, thanks) they were accused of being hard-hearted - there is simply NO evidence for that. I used to work with historical sources and I'm only too aware of the way myths are manufactured (eg The Myth of the Blitz, which I mentioned above). Historians need to question their validity.

It's a bit like the myth of the Swinging Sixties - it might have been a thing if you lived in London, but I've heard and read so many older people say 'Not if you lived in Blackburn or Frome!'. Don't just swallow these myths - especially when they're so London-centric.

I know anti-monarchists love Diana because she seemed to oppose the RF, but really she didn't. She wanted her son to be King. That's another myth - that she was anti-monarchy and anti-establishment. It's just not true.

A lot of us did - I did as a child now get told we are re-writing history.

I was more shocked about Rolf Harris who painted the Queen at one point - though my Mother thought there was something off about him.

I'm not sure I'd have pegged Al Fayed as problematic especially if I was subject to his charm and desire to please as Diana was.

London was a special case during the period after Diana's death - it was where Buckingham Palace is, so a focus for attention, it's a huge tourist magnet at that time of the year - and I remember seeing lots of tourists interviewed on the TV.

DH was living in London has little interest in RF - but went to sign the condolence book for Diana - which I thought was mad at the time and out of character - I think it was the feeling of being part of something moving a lot of people but where I was most were bemused though a few did flowers and book signing.

I know! All these men, we had no clue, did we?

FiL came across Savile at Stoke Mandeville and he says there was something really off about him. I have to say I was more surprised about Rolf Harris as well.

Al Fayed had his application for British citizenship turned down several times. In fact he never gained
it. So more was known about him than was let on imo

Honestly it wasn't just in London. Where I lived had a condolences book and I saw the very long lines to sign it on my way to work every day.

People like me aren't saying this because we are anti monarchy as some are alleging as our reason. I am saying this because it is true. It was a real cultural phenomena at the time. And one I think a lot of people still don't really get.

I was shocked by rolf Harris. He seemed like a kindly uncle figure.

Yes, it absolutely was extraordinary. It was very shocking I think. I remember our neighbours going to lay flowers, which I found very strange, but I suppose they just got caught up in it.

No your right it was wider than just London - and it was a real cultural phenomena at the time.

But it wasn't as intense as in London outsdie - I think it was particulary bad in London and did make some very uninterested in RF like DH sit up and get involved.

There was a book in local town and there was a queue - a mix of monarchists and people who were shocked and cuaght up - but people were not routine queueing hours and you did meet more people making WTF comments in general life - which DH in London was not hearing and wasn't really covered by media.

I saw wtf comments in publications like private eye. Basically publications that look down on anyone who notices what any royal member is doing.

Private Eye is a satirical magazine. It has been for decades. That's what they do, highlight hypocrisy and lampoon people.

Thanks. I do know what private eye is.
Ian hislop sneers at anyone showing an interest in the royals.

It appears that you don't. Have you ever read it? I mean actually read the articles?
It sounds as if you haven't.

Not something I read - I've never got on with the style somehow and wasn't reading them at 18 when Diana died.

I do appreaicte them though. I first read about post offcie scandal in computer weekly -then peridoally hearing about in media - but I do know private eye kept the pressure up about it for decades. So I know they do good work.

It was my first the media not really representing world round me moment which in adulthood seems obvious but wasn't at 18.

Yes I have. Private eyes highlighting of the post office scandal was brilliant and some of the satire is funny.
But Ian hislop, in interviews as well, absolutely does sneer at anyone who was at all interested in princess Diana or the royals.

Ian Hislop appeared on a rest of history podcast talking about the history of satire. Some of the jokes and subjects are eternal

I subscribe, I think they do some excellent investigative work. They regularly have articles on local councils and the misappropriation of funding. They currently have articles on Venezuela, and there's a Gaza Watch section. In the current edition, there is an article about Lucy Letby, which raises all sorts of questions.
It's actually very informative.

This.

They are! I think it's very important.