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?

I can believe all kinds of things but not that he knew of JS’s crimes. I remember when Louis Theroux did one of his weird weekend programmes with JS. Obviously he didn’t like him (JS was extremely grumpy and suspicious of him which obviously he wouldn’t have been with Charles). But he couldn’t pin anything on him. Yes, I’m sure some people must have known - his victims, obvs, and some BBC staff - but lots of people who had dealings with him didn’t realise what he was up to.

I think from a PR perspective wouldn’t it just be easier not to mix with paedophiles, to not have lots of extra marital affairs, to not use your trade envoy status to do dodgy deals that profit you personally on the side, not to allegedly abuse vulnerable women which results in a pay off of £12 million, not to marry someone when you are in love with someone else, not to invite Libyan arms dealers to Windsor, not to be involved with cash for passports, or cash for honours enquiries, or staff bullying enquiries, not to use money raising tactics that attract the attention of the Scottish Regulator , to pay the same tax as everyone else and abide by same laws everyone else has to obey and perhaps not to fall in love with your valet?

OK so maybe that last one was a bit unfair but ye gods, we are all women of the world on this board, we don’t expect our monarchs to be perfect, or even slightly better than average really, although they position themselves as superior, but the Windsors really do seem to be involved in far more sleaze and murky financial dealings than you would expect from a head of state. Why can’t they just be averagely decent?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/sep/10/scotland-yard-assessing-complaints-against-prince-charless-former-aide

And they seem to get away with it every time!

Far, far more external scrutiny is required.

Sometimes the best PR is not to need PR at all.

Louis Theroux couldn’t pin anything on him-but was sure he was guilty. It is very hard to believe that KC3, with all the information at his disposal would not have had suspicions.

I think if he did he was prepared to overlook them bc JS was a master at raising money for charity quickly. I don’t think BP was too scrupulous about the source.

But that doesn’t explain why JS was brought in as an advisor and some reports said, a marriage counsellor?

And why was Charles so gullible and open to all of these “advisors and mentors”? Van der post and Mountbatten and Peter Ball?

At best it doesn’t seem like Charles is, or was, a very good judge of character. At worst, the mentors all had one thing in common. I am not usually one to believe conspiracy theories but it does all seem very odd indeed.

Wouldn’t it be lovely, in an ideal world, to be so perfect that you could judge strangers to such a degree.

You say you don’t expect them to be perfect so that is a start.

Because none of us are. Not one.

Our transgressions may differ in type and degree but every single one of us are human and can make mistakes or have errors of judgement.

The only difference is that most of our mistakes slip under the radar or at least are not dissected by folk on the internet.

From a PR perspective? Yes it would be great to not have to fight fires at all.

But none of us are perfect. Not even Royals.

Yes, mentioning the valet thing was unfair as it is unsubstantiated.

But if we want to talk about unsubstantiated? How much did palace pr muddy the waters concerning a certain newcomer to the family?

If they have any sort of sway with the media as has been mentioned, have they been responsible for quashing those rumours too? They are all over the internet and other social media sites but never in the press. I’d hope they are not true. I don’t suppose some here would be stating that they are with the same conviction as they have other mutterings. Why not?

Me? I don’t know if there is any truth to any of the rumours. It isn’t my call.

I don’t know if that royal knew someone was trafficked. I don’t know if he did anything else. I know he makes my skin crawl but I don’t know that.

I don’t know if KC &Di had any inkling about JS. I didn’t. Nor others since.

Seeming this and believing that just enables folk to chat their own shite under their umbrella of facts.

You want to believe it is odd? Fair enough. But just feeling odd doesn’t make it so.

I don’t believe anyone here would want their lives under the same microscope.

How many of you are so sure that you know a sex offender on sight? How many of you would be devastated to find an uncle was that way inclined? Your best friend? A mentor? How many of you would want to believe it?

If folk must examine every single thing, then I would think it only fair to discuss all the rumours. But that includes all of the other members born or married into the royal family and how they may or may not have been protected by the palace pr or indeed maligned by it.

So, in the same vein, do you think Harry a good judge of character?

Do you think other members of the RF were right to be express caution?

Or did Harry also think he knew best?

What is it they say - narcs and paedophiles groom everyone around them.

You can never tell a sex offender until they make a mistake by then its too late

Sometimes you get a twinkle i hated Jimmy Savile he terrified me as a child my cousins used to say they would write in to get me on the show I cried buckets! Did I know he was a sex offender no not at all did I meet many other sex offenders over the years and be clueless yes absolutely! Because despite what people say you NEVER know until you "KNOW" and by then its too late "not my Nigel he is lovely" you cant believe it your brain wont LET you believe it but its true

Sorry but if my life was examined under a microscope, the person doing the examining would die of boredom. Like many people I have a ltr, dc, a pt job, a few friends and a dog.

And I am not a figurehead who represents Britain, or head of the C of E. I don’t need to set high standards.

With all of the Windsors wealth and privilege and staff, surely it’s not that hard to lead a decent life, be accountable, raise money in conventional ways, submit to more scrutiny?

You must acknowledge that the things I have listed point to “something being very rotten in the state of Denmark?” Do you think it’s purely coincidental that all of those things have happened?

To have one mentor who is a paedophile is not that odd perhaps but four?

I genuinely have no idea about the rumours you refer to about a newcomer???

But fwiw, I think they are all pretty dodgy tbh and the reason Fergie and Sophie got stung is because cash for access was the normal way of doing things. And so was making a bit extra on the side eg peppercorn rents and tax dodges. Ditto AMW, he probably did what he saw everyone around him doing, but because he is so stupid and crass, he took it to extremes and was blatant about it.

There are such intelligent and knowledgeable people on this board. Have any of you read Entitled? The evidence is there of a deliberate, long-standing cover up which goes directly to the crown. Lownie employed a forensic accountant and it shows. The evidence is detailed. And you are all just either ignoring it or pretending it didn’t happen?

Some of you have dismissed Earl Spencer’s entire book on the basis of one error. Why don’t you apply this rule consistently?

How come many of you choose to ignore the King’s part in the Andrew cover up? Why does the fact that the late Queen, Prince Philip and the then Prince Charles jointly paid off Virginia Giuffre to the tune of £12 million not raise issues for you?

Why do the wider intimidation tactics deployed by the RF to silence staff as set out in Entitled not raise issues for you?

Why is everyone so determined to believe in the Windsors and so willing to believe they are trustworthy when there is so much evidence to the contrary?

Well quite @Theunamedcat

I’m still astounded that my teacher was an offender. He went on school trips, summer camps etc and no rumours swirled. It all came out some years later.

I’m even more amazed that the (famous at the time) person who visited our school hasn’t been named at all in any scandal.

Filthy git.

You’ve managed to google everything else thoroughly enough OP. I’m sure you will be able to find the rumours I referred to by the magic of Google.

What I wonder is why the magic little microscopes are not applied to everyone in that family. Working or not.

As for saying some don’t have concerns and issues? I believe you may be trying to put words in the mouths of others.

‘How can you not?’ How do you know we don’t?

Given that you responded to my post with this one? I said nothing of the sort. So I would be obliged if you don’t judge me thank you.

It seems to me that some like to think they know what people think and what people know and what people feel.

They really don’t.

She wasn't paid off to the tune of 12 million we have no idea the settlement because of the non disclosure agreement and she sued civilly she should have gone to criminal court

In most cases you are advised to settle out of court especially if you can afford it

And the 9nes that did have dealings and knew - nurses - were tild to shut up.by yhe people in power.

As for ‘I don’t need to set high standards’ ?

I set myself high standards every day. A lot of people do. I’m not in the upper echelons of society. I just do so because that is how I was raised and my job demands it.

Good luck to those who are so perfect that they don’t have to.

Congratulations on your very high standards set daily!

What I meant was that my duties and security costs are not supported by the British tax payer.

And that as an ordinary person, without the resources and support staff available to the RF, I don’t find it particularly hard to live a life within the law, or a life that is not sleazy, just like millions of other people in the UK, something that is the very minimum of what we should be able to expect from our H of S I would have thought?

The point is that significant influence and wealth without sufficient scrutiny is corrupting in and of itself, and all sorts of dodgy people are attracted to it, another reason for us to have an elected and accountable head of state.

But they wouldn’t have settled with that enormous sum if there was absolutely no case to answer?

Please read Entitled. The behaviour of AMW set out in the book, such as the forty prostitutes in Thailand, and AMW putting massages on civil service expenses, and Lownie’s detailed research and double verified sources, from foreign office and intelligence sources, all indicate very strongly that Giuffre was telling the truth.

I read books actually rather than Google and my response was general not personal.

“Congratulations on your very high standards set daily”

Thank you. If I don’t? There are grave consequences.

And I am supported by the British tax payer too. Just as an ordinary person of course. In different guises over many years. And yes, that included my duties and indeed security at times. Includes my duties now.

Funny old world.

If you would like me to think you are responding generally, it would be helpful not to quote me. Or I will.

What else would I think if you quote me and write ‘you’?

So please don’t @quote me. I will then know you are speaking generally.

Do you think it would be possible to address the subject of the thread please?

My basic question was why, having read Lownie on AMW and the subsequent pay off and cover up, do so many intelligent people, still trust the Windsors?

It’s a legitimate question.

But even if we stretch credulity to the point we accept none of the people whose job it was to have C's best interests at heart had the wit to apprise him of the rumours surely he must have seen for himself how inappropriate it was to hold such weird (and not in a good way) character so closely adjacent?

Personally, I loathed the boggle-eyed chancer not least when it was ruining TOTP with its howling and ululating.

Do you think you might be able to stop @ quoting me please?

Thank you.

You lost me a bit on your OP by writing ‘we know’ when you say you get your information from books (which may or may not be only someone’s opinion rather than the truth - see Spare and Swan for example).

I don’t think anyone ‘knows’ other than those involved.

That and using ‘us, the unsuspecting public’ and ‘we, the Great British public’.

You are equally as sweeping about The Windsors. There are a few of them.

I’m not inclined to write other family members off because they have two clearly despicable relatives.

One thing we can agree on is that yes, JS was extremely unsavoury in every possible way. There was always something weird about him - the way he worshipped his mother in that very unhealthy way and seemed never to have any actual romantic partners…of either gender. Of course he didn’t have the concept of a relationship - he just used people, specifically young or vulnerable people, for sexual gratification.

But so many people and big institutions rated him- I remember watching a documentary decades ago where various charity officials heaped praise in him because of his enormous efforts for them. They bought the jolly, eccentric image completely - some people genuinely did, I think.

I can’t imagine Charles would have associated with a sex offender ( out of self-interest, if nothing else) so he must have swallowed Savile’s hype. That’s bad, sure, but he wasn’t alone.

I’m certain that when JS was anywhere near Charles he would have been on his best behaviour ( yukky though that might be to us on here) with very much his bluff, upbeat, Yorkshire, Jimmy Fix It persona. Not the creepy, sullen, sleazy bastard he was with Louis.

I can’t imagine Charles would have associated with a sex offender ( out of self-interest, if nothing else) so he must have swallowed Savile’s hype.

I think we could buy C's usual bleatings of not being aware of character deficiencies in associates had he firstly had no access to skilled advisors and secondly not been associated with a further three offenders one of whom was officially cautioned apparently to much consternation.

And TBF it's not the first time C appears to have exercised little to no judgement.

The near ruinous vanity purchase of an overpriced Dumfries House leading to the acceptance of plastic carriers containing millions in cash is another case in point tied in with an associated cash for access and honours debacle.

Going back to successful PR though it does appear all that's been successfully made to fade. 😐