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?

Of course OctoberMists
the most important point in relation to this thread is I suppose how people, if it were possible to choose whether they want a monarchy or not, could do so, given that what they really know about the institution is quite hidden and the narrative surrounding the royal family is so heavily curated?

Good points, @OctoberMists. I always note what constitutional historians say; it's not the power that the monarch has, it's the they prevent someone else having that power. This is particularly true in the case of the armed forces.

I’m not sure it’s good enough to explain our fudged non-transparent non-accountable system away by saying , “oh it’s all so uniquely British don’t you know!”

That may factually he the case in terms of our historical development, and it’s certainly very British in terms of class and privilege, but as mentioned previously, our unwritten constitution depends on us the people trusting that those in key roles are trustworthy and honest. And being able to hold them accountable when they are not. And that just isn’t the case currently.

Of course its heavily curated like everyone who has an Instagram or a tiktok you see what they want you to see! people on my Instagram see funny squirrel and cat pictures they dont see me cleaning the cat poop hanging off my cats arse at three am nor the rat that has infiltrated my garden and why should they

(Back on topic)
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.

I agree with @OctoberMists that a lot of the PR issues come down to the RF looking at things on a monarchy rather than celebrity time scale - decades compared to days or weeks.

The paragraph above has a number of points, and not all apply simply to the monarchy.

'Spidery letters' - yes, Prince Charles was known to write letters to politicians; he was also clear that when he became King that would stop (in fact was quite forthright with a journalist who questioned him about it). Most large business owners, large landowners and charities also lobby ministers - is this something that should be stopped for everyone?

I've previously shared the government guidance for King's consent, which is clear that it is simply a procedure of the Houses of Parliament. There is no option in the guidance for the King not to give consent (and I'm not confusing it with the Monarch's assent).

Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice is the definitive work on parliamentary procedure, currently in its 25th edition, and is available free online for anyone to consult. The particular passage which some people suggest prevents Members of Parliament from debating the conduct of the Royal family does not in fact do so; it simply states how such debates should be conducted: 'based upon a substantive motion, drawn in proper terms'. This also applies to the Lord Chancellor, Governors-General and judges.

Exemptions to land and tax laws can be changed at any point at which Members of Parliament pass new laws to do so.

In my opinion there could be more done to make the finances of the monarchy more transparent, such as having one place where all the structure is laid out and all the public documents are readily available.

I struggle with the tendency to blame the monarchy for the lack of willingness of MPs to do their job.

Our constitution is not "unwritten". It is "uncodified".
This means that it's across many different documents, not all in one place.

That may factually he the case in terms of our historical development, and it’s certainly very British in terms of class and privilege,

Oh please - class and privilege exist everywhere. Some societies may not have Dooks and Duchesses but there are elites and class divisions just the same.

And I like the fact that our history is one of evolution mostly, not revolution. The system has changed gradually, responding to changes in society, to produce what we have today and I'm sure it will evolve further - and that's fine.

We haven't had the disastrous, vicious revolutions which France and Russia had, with hundreds of thousands of people killed. I think that's something to be pleased about.

Really?

Well this so called power was a fat lot of good when Boris Johnston prorogued Parliament wasn’t it ?

Fanciful nonsense .

Yes, very good points. Marx and Engels thought the first Communist Revolution would be here, but then various laws were passed, not least The Representation of The People Acts.

@bluegreygreen
”Spidery letters' - yes, Prince Charles was known to write letters to politicians; he was also clear that when he became King that would stop (in fact was quite forthright with a journalist who questioned him about ”

Good lord think it through.

Why would he need to write his letters when he’s having his weekly meetings and can make sure any law he does not agree with will not apply to him ?
So what if assent is automatic? Of course it is.
Kings’s consent is the scandal not assent

Assent is just the rubber stamp - what the hell would a Windsor do or care about the laws that apply to us ? It is before it even becomes a bill that they stick their nose in and ensure that any law that may affect their own interests does NOT apply to them.

That is one abuse which needs to stop

I imagine that must have been because Britain industrialised before other countries and in the early Victorian period conditions in the cities must have been hellish - especially since they based some of their research in the Lancs industrial centres.

Yes, you're absolutely right, they referred to Manchester in particular.

Completely and utterly misunderstood the point.
Anyway....

But Ian hislop, in interviews as well, absolutely does sneer at anyone who was at all interested in princess Diana or the royals.

This is interesting.

I only know who he is by seeing him on TV game shows.

Is he a monarchist who has no interest in the shabbier corners of Palace matters?

Or a republican? In which case I'd have thought he'd welcome scrutiny.

None of the above.
The "sneering" comment makes no sense. Hislop and PE satirise all the institutions.

Ian Hislop, longstanding editor of Private Eye, once that the single most controversial issue of his satirical magazine had been the one printed after Princess Diana’s death. The front page had shown a picture of Buckingham Palace thronged by a crowd. “Media to Blame” was emblazoned in red across the top. Three speech bubbles hung above the people. “The papers are a disgrace”, says the first. “Yes, I couldn’t get one anywhere”, the second. “Borrow mine, it’s got a picture of the car,” the third.
Inside, the paper featured a mock retraction from all newspapers of everything bad they had ever published about the newly sanctified People’s Princess. Readers’ reaction was furious, although not because the Eye had dared to criticise the media. Everyone was doing that.
“Sh*tbag. The tragic death of Diana, Princess of Wales, has brought home to me what a truly shitty magazine you’ve become,” read one letter to the editor. “I never want to read your magazine or hear of you again,” said a second. “‘Jokes’ of this nature, and at this time of national grieving especially, will NOT be tolerated”, a third. “By God I wish you ill”, a fourth. There were many, many more. The magazine’s suggestion that the public’s hysterical reaction was perhaps a little hypocritical did not go down well.

And we have unfortunately lazy MPs who do not sufficiently challenge or scrutinise or insist on transparency within the institution

That's probably not helped by them having to swear an oath of allegiance to the reigning monarch and his/her successors.

Thank you, @KCitsweyourHammiewevecomehomenow.
It's sometimes difficult for some people to understand just how radical PE has been over the years and how nothing and no-one has been free from their barbs.

I think you can swear an oath of allegiance, but still subject an institution to scrutiny. There's probably a realisation that most of the electorate do not want radical changes.

The Army, RAF and Royal Navy swear allegiance to the monarch too.

I’m guessing Harry didn’t understand the words.

Oh Lord - the idea that everything is binary. I imagine he’s a bit of both, like most people. As I’ve tried to say upthread - most people just aren’t interested in committing strongly to dogma one way or the other. The system works and allows us to focus on more pressing matters.

Apart from anything else, it’s laughable that, on top of all the problems facing us and the wider world, some people are obsessed with the idea of spending a decade or so changing our HoS

Most politicians are self interested enough that if they thought pushing for changes to the current system would be a popular vote winning strategy then they would do it.

Of course they would.

No indeed.

Exactly. It would be like Brexit: there’d have to be months of campaigning and consultation and the British public would have to be informed about the various choices to replace the monarchy. Then it would take - I think - about a decade, as Brexit did, to stabilise things, pass all the legislation etc etc.

Do republicans honestly (not with rose-coloured specs on) really think there’s an appetite for this, either from MPs or the public.

Far better to put in reforms of a financial nature if deemed justified (I don’t know - but that’s what seems to bother ukgaslit and constantrunner the most). I think William V will likely be cool with this anyway.

I don’t think there’s an appetite for the kind of disruption and instability which long-term constitutional reform would bring. Most people are pragmatists, ruled by common sense rather than ideology.