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?

@CoffeeCantata

I have said repeatedly and for years , that it is the Windsor connection to and protection of pedophiles that disturbs me the most.

Odd that you have missed that.

I understood the point you were trying to make.

You were using the old line that somehow the Windsors form a bulwark against abuse of power by politicians.
That is an invention and the proroguing of Parliament proved it to be such .
Our constitution is weakened by the current system not strengthened.

The Windsors have power but it is secret , sneaky , hidden and they use it for their own ends only . When the theoretical bulwark was tested publicly it was shown to be nothing but hot air

Nope. As usual, completely misunderstood.

Anyway, I enjoy having a good discussion about these issues, because it's a thorny one. I definitely think that there needs to be more scrutiny of the RF, particularly of the finances, and I think reform is definitely needed.
Just repeating the same unsubstantiated claim about William being angry, or generalised, bullish and unsupported criticism doesn't really add much, it's just a bit pointless.
I hope justice happens for all the Epstein victims and AMW is brought to justice.
I'm going away now, so thanks for the chat 🙏🏼

Do elaborate …

@mybeautifulemeraldparure

Tell me you have no response without …..

Absolutely. But there are plenty of things that politicians don’t push for that I wish they would. That doesn’t mean I stop thinking those things are desirable and I stop lobbying for them.

It's 'the problem of democracy' - which (was it???) Plato described: you have to get elected. I'm all for re-joining the EU, but I'm not sure it will be a vote winner for Andy Burnham, for example!!

The Windsors have power but it is secret , sneaky , hidden and they use it for their own ends only . When the theoretical bulwark was tested publicly it was shown to be nothing but hot air

You've been reading too much 'Da Vinci Code' stuff. This is giving crazy conspiracy theory vibes.

They're probably all sitting around eating their cereal out of tupperware boxes and talking about horses. I suspect you'd be disappointed by the lack of evil genius activity going on in the RF!

@CoffeeCantata

You need to remove the personal attack at the top of your post

Of course offenders are found in every strata of society- though the Windsors appear to have an unusually high concentration associated with them

The other bodies you list have addressed the issues , published responses, offered open approaches to complaints etc

The Windsors have done none of that . They used their position to try to silence victims and have covered up . They offered no pathway , no transparency.
THAT is the difference .

@CoffeeCantata

Ahh the old ‘you are crazy ‘ response . Now where have we heard that before ?

I remember when posters said Mountbatten was a pedophile and royalists threatened them with legal action and also said they were conspiracy theorists.

No conspiracy . It’s a fact that the Windsors sneak around looking out for themselves
You must have missed the expose - it took years as - how convenient- the Windsors excluded themselves from the freedom of information act

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/14/queen-immunity-british-laws-private-property

But Charles did know about Peter Ball, the sex offender. As AMW and the RF knew about JE.

Ball was first accused in 1993 by Neil Todd, who tried to kill himself three times as a result of his abuse, and went on to do so in 2012.
Sussex police investigated Todd’s claims, and six other victims came forward. But support flooded in for Ball from within the establishment and he was never charged. Instead he received a caution for gross indecency, resigned his post as bishop and was allowed by Carey to continue officiating at church services. Charles called Todd 'a ghastly man, up to tricks' and gave Ball money and a property on Duchy of Cornwall estate.

What I don't understand is... why the Royals don't walk away from these people once it has been established that there is wrongdoing. It wouldn't matter, so many people curry favour with Royals, there'd always be someone else Charles could befriend.
Charles said he was 'misled' and the 'true context and details did not come to my attention.'
Well... effing well find out then! That's why you have MI5 and security services!

@CoffeeCantata

Re Peter Ball . I note that you are quick to assume that Charles is not at fault without knowing any details .

Ball was cautioned . Charles was writing in his defence despite this fact .
Ball was convicted and Charles housed him on his estate for years .
Charles called Ball’s accuser ‘monstrous’

Charles was questioned I believe by the court . His response was that he did not understand that a caution was an admission of guilt .

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/20/prince-charles-kept-in-touch-with-ex-bishop-jailed-for-abuse-peter-ball

@simpsonthecat

I didn’t see your post . Thanks for those details - I was working from memory

Epstein was first convicted in 2008 of child solicitation

He was in and out of palaces for years after that .
They knew .

They knew about Epstein when they called Virginia a liar too

@Ukisgaslit

I knew of a musician in a very elevated role (leader of an organisation) who was accused of paedophilia. Lots and lots of prestigious colleagues and former students were outraged by the accusation and there was a campaign to clear his name.

This man committed suicide soon afterwards - who knows, he might have been guilty and knew he couldn't cope with the disgrace/investigation etc, or he might have been innocent and broken by the accusations. We'll never know.

My point here is - of course lots of people will believe that someone they know, n a highly presitigious role of trust and responsibility, just cannot be guilty of such crimes. It's human nature - especially even a few years ago when there was less exposure.

So if Charles did defend his friend, he was only doing what the above highly prestigious and respectable musicians were doing - they may have been wrong, but they weren't trying to 'cover up' the issue - they genuinely believed him to be wrongly accused.

A highly respected teacher (Head of Dept) at a school I worked at was accused. He was incredibly popular and effective as a teacher and even after the truth emerged, ex-students still said he was one of the best teachers they'd ever had. The whole school was stunned when he was found guilty. Again, the point I'm making is that the staff all believed in his innocence - he was the last person you'd suspect - and were horrified to discover the truth.

I hope the point I'm making comes across in all these anecdotes: yes, people can be wrong, they can make the wrong judgement, but that alone doesn't mean they are 'covering up' or being wicked. Sometimes the most unexpected people, people you know and trust, are found to be wrong'uns, and it's only natural for their colleagues and friends to take some convincing.

Your defence of the Windsor links to pedophiles does not hold
Your anecdotes describe one individual in each case

The whole point about the Windsors is that for generations they have had multiple associations with pedophiles and sex offenders . Generations .

@CoffeeCantata
I don't agree. Charles quite obviously was in a unique position. He chose to support someone cautioned by the Police for heinous crimes. Yet, he still carried on with his support giving him money and a house. He didn't look any further, he called a victim who committed suicide over the abuse 'a ghastly man'

If it was your Deputy Head's friend, sort of understandable up to a point, but not when you are heir to the throne in the UK.
As I said, I don't understand why they just don't walk away from these people.

I’m from Ireland, our priest was jailed for sexual abuse. Some people really struggled to accept his guilt when the allegations were made and it broke the parish priest.

These evil people pick their victims carefully. Troubled kids, poor kids from large families, people with very strong faith

I listened to a man talk for hours every week and I’d no idea he was a paedophile. I just thought he was pseudo intellectual but mass was compulsory when I was a child. I wondered why he had lots of kids in his car all the time; but they were from very large families and their mums struggled to cope and was being ‘nice’ I thought it was off but had no idea what paedophilia even was at that point

My friends parents supported this man when the allegations came out. They had stronger ‘faith’ than my parents and couldn’t accept that a man of god would do these things and that the church would cover it up.

Neither of us knows, do we? We choose to believe whom we choose to believe.

I don't think Charles would have defended a man he knew for a fact to be guilty of sex crimes. You can call me a fool, or even a cover-up merchant - but I just don't believe it. I CAN believe he was gullible, naive, stubborn - whatever - but not that he chose to defend a proven sex offender.

A common trait with such people is their plausibility (OK, JS was always a creep, but he had his 'Jim'll Fix it!' image, from his work with the BBC, which helped him a lot). Again, call me an idiot - happy to be called that! - but I just wouldn't believe Huw Edwards was 'the mysterious sex offender' until I had to.

No, I never even hinted that Charles would choose to defend a man he knew for a fact to be guilty of sex crimes. I really have not said that! Why are you focussing on something I haven't even said!

However, surely you agree with me that he was in a totally unique position? And in that position he should err on the side of caution more than John Smith down the road. He would have been able to find out more about Ball and his misdemeanours. He chose not to. But instead offered his 100% support to this man, then down the line saying he was misled.

I've never been convinced that with an army of advisors around him C was left unaware of the rumours/ 'open secrets' that swirled around Savile.

I do believe he decided he knew best.