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?

No. But as someone who used to brief high level (although not as high as this) individuals, I would be utterly flabbergasted if he didn’t.

Isn’t it because the email contains VG’s social security number, information AMW had no business having, and he asked his police protection officer to investigate VG using that information, which was way beyond the policeman’s remit?

He should not have had that information, and the request was clearly wrong, but that is very different to saying that the 'request from AMW amounted to the criminal offense of misconduct in public office', hence I'm asking who was making that argument.

that it is the Windsor connection to and protection of pedophiles that disturbs me the most.

I also find it odd and distrubing.

I wasn't shocked with Saville - what did shock me was how long and how extensive his offending had gone on because it meant so many people had turned blind eyes. I always thought he looked and acted dodgey and thought it very odd he was so fated.

Epstein was actively courting rich and powerful - Andrew behavior with him should be thoughly investiagted - and shows shocking poor judgement but the number of US bussiness men and poltcians who seem to have got off completely free with their asociations is also fucking odd. I'd hope police and CPS were doing their jobs with Andrew and if they did have issue that press would be reporting that palace PR or not.

TBH didn't think Charles with his lack of judgement was going to be a good King - but so far he's doing okay - and yes a lot of that is down to PR from palace - so clearly they are doing a decent job.

I do think it makes it harder to justify getting rid of monachy - greater scrunity I think most in country could get behind - but William looks less scandal prone anyway.

If you look at historically at just how bad kings have to get to think yes it's worth getting rid of it all it is surprising. We had The Interregnum - and went back to Kings. Other constitional monarchies that exist also seem strangly stable - monarchies are statistically among the most stable, peaceful, and wealthy forms of government in the modern world.

Having a monachy helped Itay and Japan surrender in second world war - there was a consitional way to get rid of politician and miltary that wanted to fight on - which Germany in second world war didn't have and did have to be fought to utter devastation.

I do think we are over due a bit of reform with our current system more evolution- more eyes and more questions - but I do not think a huge constitional reform of getting rid of them is any way worth it yet - not least becuase I think the Union and EU are bigger adjustements that will take up polictical time and energy in coming years.

Important to remember that the King’s mentor as a young man, Mountbatten, was a paedophile. And there is a suggestion in the biography of Andrew that he was sexually abused (in a very upper class way) as a boy. All very murky.

Is 'upper class' abuse better than abuse in any other class? That is a horrible comment.

If I recall correctly, the detail (not 'suggestion') was that AMW had been sexually abused first from the age of 8 by school staff, and then by a friend's father taking him to a prostitute at the age of 11.

Had such detail been printed about any other person alive in the UK, without that person's consent, there would have been uproar.

It was printed about AMW, whom the public loves to despise, and who is a very useful scapegoat for a lot of powerful men, and has therefore very largely been ignored.

I hope that AMW can be brought to justice. I also hope, if the case comes to trial, that it is tried before a judge rather than a jury as I suspect, given the behaviour of the public to date, that he would struggle to have a fair trial with a jury.

I use the term “upper class way” because he was taken to lose his virginity as a young teenager to a professional. Appalling, but not uncommon in those classes. And very few, if any, people in his circle would have considered it abuse. Rather the opposite. Disgusting but true.

I too would be surprised if he wasn’t briefed but my surprise that he may not have been told doesn’t mean that he must have been told curlew.

We don’t know.

And as many were surprised at what transpired, I can’t say for sure that KC knew.

So many figures from my youth had dark nasty clouds over them. I was just as surprised there. I’m sure others were too.

That ‘upper class abuse’ is not confined to the upper classes.

It is disgustingly and it is shameful but to say it is an upper class thing is wrong.

It is just plain old abuse.

Fair enough. The only people I know who have been treated like this are very much members of the upper classes. I bow to your superior knowledge. It is disgusting whoever does it.

In your opinion ...

I use the term “upper class way” because he was taken to lose his virginity as a young teenager to a professional.

As I said, a horrible way to describe abuse of a young child, which included sexual abuse by school staff from the age of 8, and has been made known to the general public without consent of the person abused.

And the euphemism you've used above does not cover an 11 yr old being taken to a prostitute.

How am I minimising? Thorough explanation, please.

Right back atcha - stop trying to accuse me of things. You keep on doing it and I let it go at first, because I’m not an aggressive person, but please now desist. I think it’s displacement activity.

The very sad and disturbing thing though is that to be briefed about this side of JS those who knew about it - and I’m not sure anyone knew the extent of it had to consider it important enough.

There was clearly no danger/threat to Charles so the security services won’t have said anything.

We assume that people at the BBC / high profile politicians - PMs / other celebrities had some inkling if something going on and it was no impediment to JS’s fame and access to top levels of society. Why would Charles be briefed on ‘wrong doing’ - no one who knew cared about these victims.

It isn’t ‘superior’ knowledge.

it is just a fact. Some guys in my class got ‘treated’ to that by older relatives.

It is fucking awful. Plain old abuse. But certainly not contained to the upper classes.

Just because the only people you know subjected to this are/were upper class does not mean the children of the upper classes are the only ones.

I’m not sure why there has to be a class distinction at all. Not for children being abused.

no one who knew cared about these victims

And that is the tragic thing about it.

Not sure “sexual abuse” is a euphemism. Happy to use another term if you prefer.

Amen @fuschiaproudparrot

It’s people in positions of power over young people and with some sway over their parents.

in Ireland that included the church, teachers, sports coaches. They all promised parents they’d look after their children or where there were no children saw an open invitation to do whatever they wanted,

There is a brutal podcast about the horrific abuse of young swimmers by a coach. He called to their houses, he promised their parents he’d look after them. He was so open at the pool and in front of other kids that the poor kids affected thought their parents knew and accepted it.

These paedophiles went into places where they had access to kids, and you didn’t need to be wealthy to achieve this access.

I know people sexually abused by teachers (jailed)c priests (jailed), volunteer organisations I was a member of had people abused, luckily for me, a friends older brother was very protective of his sister and me, so I’ve nothing to report but kids my age killed themselves without explanation

To direct it at a class is very handy, but it was society as a whole who failed kids, and I appreciate the steps organisations now take to keep kids like mine safe

I agree with you. However, I do think it’s important to indicate the particular type of abuse AMW experienced which young boys were subjected to by their parents who thought they were doing the right thing by their children-even initiating them into adulthood in a way they would discuss and plan with other parents. However disgusting, it was not the same as the predatory behaviour of many school teachers and priests for example.

'taken to lose his virginity as a young teenager to a professional' is very much a euphemism, particularly when you are describing specific abuse of an 11 year old.

ETA it was not the same as the predatory behaviour of many school teachers and priests for example.

For some reason, the abuse that was described at school from the age of 8 is being ignored.

Why are you surprised @bluegreygreen? , I’m not! 🤷‍♀️

The public are tolerating Harry and Meghan and their shenanigans. There doesn't seem to be much anyone can do about them. Their titles should have been removed long ago and they shouldn't be on any royal websites or social media.

Fuck me what have I just read? Firstly you have no idea what sexual abuse he was subjected to, you are actually downplaying the abuse of Andrew as an 8 year old boy and then an 11 year old boy as not the same as predatory behaviour by a school teacher? Who do think was likely to be sexually abusing him at 8 years old that somehow makes it more acceptable in your eyes?

Yes obviously.
But I fail to see how Charles could have known nothing about the various paedophiles he has been friends with, even in one case giving a rent free cottage to a paedophile friend who already had criminal convictions