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?

Strange that our civil servants could be so upright and fastidious about Al Fayed and yet be so accommodating of AMW’s nefarious activities?

It definitely was wider than London. Various family members said there were queues to sign condolence books in Liverpool, Norfolk, Herefordshire and a friend of mine who was living in Amsterdam even said there were flowers laid on the steps of the British Embassy there,

I very much agree that Private Eye contains some excellent journalism which I applaud, but Ian Hislop is still very much a male of a certain age, class, and background.

He is, however, the journalism and featured news items do not always reflect that.

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.

I think this is an enormous over-simplification.

I think people understood and reacted to what had been done to her during her life. That she was, in the RF’s eyes, collateral damage. They understood the essential injustice if it.

They also had followed her growth from slightly awkward twenty year old bride through to confident divorcee. An evolution with which many people identified.

She also did change the way the RF approached charity work through her work with HIV patients, homelessness, and on land mines.

And I think as Simpsonthecat put it, her universal appeal meant that her death as a famous figure, allowed people to grieve for others when they hadn’t been able to do so previously, for whatever reason.

Again this is all a distraction away from the failure of the Palace’s PR strategy at the time.

Have to say…I was gutted about that - I enjoyed his painting as a child. Oh dear.

Someone who worked in TV once told me that you’d nearly always be surprised at who’s nice and who’s horrible in TV - it’s hardly ever the way you might think.

But of course, RH was a criminal, not just a nasty person.

That’s debateable! There is a streak of misogyny that runs through Private Eye imho!

I hate to police threads but this one is about palace PR, not about Gaza, Lucy Letby or Rolf Harris!

The derailing is getting out of hand.

I never made it about Lucy Letby or Gaza, it was about the context of Private Eye, a poster seemed not to understand what it was.
Rolf Harris was in context because of Diana and her connection to Al Fayed, and our comments that she couldn't have known at the time but would have been horrified had she lived.
Instead of sweeping criticism, perhaps address individual points.
No-one is derailing.

Do you read it every fortnight? I'm a proper old school feminist, I'd have noticed.
Anyway, stop derailing the thread.

I wasn't in any way holding the RF wholly responsible for the way Diana was used, i knew her grandmother was in cahoots with the Queen Mother and that the Spencers in general are the modern day equivalent of aristocatic familes such as the Boleyns and the Howards (many other examples throughout history but they spring to mind) who used their daughters to gain influence with the monarch.

All journalist and publication have biases and pre conceived ideas - it's why ideally you have people from a variety of backgrounds and view points in media - arguably an increasing problem in todays media and arts but perhaps not for this thread.

Palace PR is a long game - it's different to celebratory culture.

Spencer book was damaged by getting things wrong about Piers Morgan - not a man to be quiet - casts doubts on other conversations - and does seem to have impacted book launch. Palace there made their comments - which did to me sound snide at time- then waited gone about usual bussiness and events have proved their point.

The news cycle moves on very rapdily - RF have big state functions to attend and charity events that pick up press yes Harry and Andrew bubble away in background flaring up now and again but other stuff happens - and long term palace PR keeps plugging away and RF and monarch sit in background usually ignore by most of the population doing their stuff.

The family have made massive misteps with PR in past - even recent past - and been hugely unpopular - but the top people do have a role in public life and they do have time on their side - so often do recover.

Oh the cheek! 😆 😆

I was replying to others who have derailed actually.

Whenever republicans comment on a broadly monarchist thread, they are accused of derailing and told “to start your own thread”.

And surprise, surprise, when we do start our own, a load of broadly pro-monarch people arrive and start derailing! 🙄.

Well, that's certainly not me. So stop derailing and tell off those who actually are.
Oh, and stop being so binary. I doubt very much it's Republican - Monarchist on here apart from a few very obvious hardliners from many threads.
Perhaps there are shades of....gold and purple?

She also did change the way the RF approached charity work through her work with HIV patients, homelessness, and on land mines.

Princess Margaret, of course, was working with HIV patients before Diana (including shaking hands and hugging them), and was also patron of London Lighthouse.
She just didn't always do it with cameras.

Sad how this gets forgotten.

Thank you for the reply about Palace PR.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying about royal culture and celebrity culture being two different animals.

I disagree profoundly though about the reasons why the Royal Family is able to play the long game and ride out so many scandals.

Some of it may be out of respect for the office of head of state and the formal functions that entails.

But a lot of it is also about having very well resourced spin doctors, great connections in the media which almost block out dissenting voices, influential friends, tame journalists and historians and friends in broadcasting keen for a gong etc etc.

The palace also have great legal teams at their disposal, endless funds to pay for them, and are not averse to issuing legal letters and NDAs.

And we have unfortunately lazy MPs who do not sufficiently challenge or scrutinise or insist on transparency within the institution, save for a few notable exceptions.

I wish there were more shades of gold and purple frankly.

it seems to be mostly pure pigment on here! With ermine and diamonds thrown in. 😆

(Edited for clarity)

I'd prefer a more fluid discussion, some posters on here have been great, others... shall we say more rigid and repetitive. It's more interesting if everyone considers everyone else's points.

Some of it may be out of respect for the office of head of state and the formal functions that entails.
But a lot of it is also about having very well resourced spin doctors, great connections in the media which almost block out dissenting voices, influential friends, tame journalists and historians and friends in broadcasting keen for a bong etc etc.

They have always had spin doctors and great connections in parliament and media.

I do not think they block out dissent - I just do not think most british people care enough TBH.

Times when revolution looked possible was more than just RF so MPs put down dissent - Peterloo Massacre /chartist movement national strike and eventaully made reforms - parlaiment was already sovereign and holding bulk of the power.

In fact their lack of visible power or slowly giving it up over centuries is a huge factor in how they've survived - visible real obvious power no longer resides with them but with parliment.

It's less respect for the role I was getting at as they have a stable platform a base on which to then build on.

When they get unpopular in press they continue doing what they do and the media eventually moves on. Without that role/base they'd be more vunerable - like politcian losing public or celebrities losing media interest and sales their base of power/influence as it were.

Their role is not as depenedent on public opinion in short term but I do not doubt they keep a careful eye and finger in pies to keep long term view on their side - if they do anything so outragous - and I have no idea what that would be -that entire public thinks yes it's worth upheaval of getting rid of them then I do not think they'd survive. So I think they are careful to avoid line crossing as much as possible - and to counter things like Andrew with rest of families good works.

That's actually interesting about Princess Margaret, she did have gay friends before it was widely accepted, so I wonder if that's how she got involved

Really interesting points.

I think my counter argument would be that ideally their roles should be much more fundamentally dependent on public opinion or choice in both the long and short term.

The end of a seventy year reign might have been a good time to take soundings for example?

The trouble is, at that point, everyone feels it is disrespectful to object to monarchy when family members are grieving, and during official state mourning, so there needs to be a checking mechanism that is rolled out every ten years or so at non-controversial moments. It could be easily and cheaply done if the authorities can now send out national emergency alarms to mobile phones,

And although I agree largely with your statement,

visible real obvious power no longer resides with them but with parliment

I still think they have more influence than a purely constitutional monarch should eg the spidery letters, the King’s consent, the tradition of Erskine May, the exemptions to land and tax laws, and there is still a huge problem with financial transparency and scrutiny while MPs are unwillingly and unable to question and challenge the status quo.

@OctoberMists

i agree with you that - like it or not - most of the British people just don’t care enough about the subject of monarchy/republicanism. They have other priorities and I think that’s healthy. I think strongly republican pps find that hard to accept but I think it’s very British.

I think our constitutional monarchy works. If it wasn’t working then people would notice and care. Look at the political crisis in the US over the past decade - I remember when the Capitol was stormed by people who didn’t like the election result. It was a chilling moment and one I never thought I’d see, They’re not out of the woods yet and who knows? Maybe Trump has changed America in the way a bad teacher ruins a class and things may never be stable and consensual again. I’m grateful for the stability and continuity our system produces.

It bothers some that the RF are wealthy- I guess if I’m honest it doesn’t bother me at all. The system works and gives us all a bit of fun/entertainment/pomp and ceremony etc into the bargain.

(Very off topic)

I came across this jewellery maker yesterday, working in niobium

Instagram - shades of purple

I grew up as a teen when it was normal to read daily newspapers with War of the Waleses going on in 90s. Both sides were press briefings and leaking and having books written and giving interviews.

I do not think many were left in doubt about how much press breifing was going on - then Blair years with poltical media spin being very at the fore.

The RF got through that and the Queen's jubilees being quite big national events in the end. They have over generations effectively wrapped themsleves in britishness in such a way they are just there getting rid of them is quiet the task and only worth it if they are causing great harm.

I also think Brexit hampered the republican cause for a while- as I think a larger section of the population will want more than vauge promises any change will be better.

It bothers some that the RF are wealthy-

Since Prince Albert I think they have been canny - buying property that belong to the family not the crown - which was an issue when Edward VIII went off and it has to be bought off him. So even if we managed to wrestle all the crown land, jewels, painting etc off them they'd still be very wealthy family. In fact I think that may suit some of them like Harry much better than what they got.

I still think they have more influence than a purely constitutional monarch should eg the spidery letters, the King’s consent, the tradition of Erskine May, the exemptions to land and tax laws, and there is still a huge problem with financial transparency and scrutiny while MPs are unwillingly and unable to question and challenge the status quo.

We are the first constitional mononacry in the world - well England was - Poland having first written one - and we've made the rules up and evolved over time. So not sure you can say they have more power than a purley constitutional monarch - all the exitsing ones are unique I think coming out their counrties history.

They may have more power than you want or indeed than population belives. I think all the fudges round land tax etc are all are very british TBH.

The polictians manage the monarch - it's part of their PM and canbinates job has been since Walpole first prime minster - and frankly should be able to push back. They may not do it publically as you'd like but I think they do - and every generation is getting more transparent.