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?

And it can be argued that there is no other institution in Britain that operates behind such a thick wall of secrecy, and protection, save for the intelligence services.

Are you seriously under the impression that governments of any persuasion are telling the electorate everything in a straightforward, honest and open manner and that it's only the RF that keeps things to itself and the country in the dark about what's going on?

I’m tempted to say that they could stop the mission creep and reduce their staff roll by selling a few palaces and stately homes and returning the Duchies to the people 😀 , but I genuinely appreciate the straightforward answer to a straightforward question and think you make very fair points.

I certainly agree about their reputation reflecting on the UK.

And so much press and public interest warrants careful handling.

This only works though when the individual members do behave, do not profit financially in any way from their roles, are certainly not corrupt or abusive, and atm, we cannot wholly trust that is the case because they are not subject to sufficient outside scrutiny and because the details about AMW’s misdeeds are so shocking and have been covered up for so long.

I am sorry to harp on about AMW but leaving aside the sexual abuse allegations which are just awful, why are so many people content to let the matter “go away?”

Is that good PR?

This man profited from his public role as a UK representative by making deals on the side, aka committing fraud (allegedly) and passed on trade secrets to unauthorised cronies and endangered national security by inviting alleged Chinese spies and arms dealers to BP.

My point is, if the public are content about that “going away” then is that a PR win or a loss?

A win in terms of the UK’s reputation not being further sullied possibly?

But a loss in terms of credibility, morality, decency, and the fact that we don’t know if measures have been put in place to prevent it from happening again?

I should have said the Andrew storm is weathered so far.. I did say somewhere that what happens next has the potential to be very damaging, especially if he is charged and tried. From what I’ve seen the Harry book did nothing to the RF’s reputation but seriously damaged his own. Some will no doubt believe it (even though he himself admits its tenuous relationship with the truth) but the RF trundles on seemingly undisturbed, the only change is that people have more sympathy for them now. Lots of people have to manage a family member like that or difficult sibling relationships.

Re targeted attacks, I was talking about social media, the coordinated campaigns from foreign based bot networks.

I think there’s a long way to go before there is any appetite to get rid of the monarchy while it’s 2:1 against. W+C are very popular at the moment and will likely be around for decades. It all hinges on Andrew but they have already distanced themselves and it’s helpful to them that it was a government position that he held. IMO it would take something pretty seismic to emerge about William to move the dial. Hence the targeted social media campaigns I suppose. But so far they’re not having much success I don’t think. IMO.

Totally agree. The NANC strategy must take guts - youve got to grit your teeth in the face of attacks and say either nothing or something blandly diplomatic, when you’d probably like to kick someone in the backside. But it never compromises on dignity - they always look like ‘the bigger person’. Or they decide not to interfere with their enemy while that enemy is engaged in self-sabotage.

And usually time delivers up their attackers to them on a big serving plate. I think their PR is very astute.

The "never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake" strategy.

Of course! Despite being accountable to the people; politicians and the government are like sausages, you don’t really want to see the inner workings! 😀

The whole point is that the RF is not government and you are wrong to put them on a similar level. King Charles is a constitutional monarch. There shouldn’t be this constant mission creep, They should be symbolic and nothing more.

They are private people serving a state role and as such should be subject to the same laws as the rest of eg not covering up potentially criminal behaviour. .

@Whentherainsetin101

I don’t think anyone is “content” to leave AMW in peace, but what do you propose could be done within the law? Technically he hasn’t committed a crime. I have no idea how you could take things further unless new evidence comes to light.

iI often get angry about people’s behaviour but am told no law has been broken, so….?

Except when discretion topples over in to cover up?

The whole point is that the RF is not government and you are wrong to put them on a similar level. King Charles is a constitutional monarch. There shouldn’t be this constant mission creep, They should be symbolic and nothing more.

News to me that the monarchy isn't government given that every king's speech starts with 'my government.' And I'm not 'wrong' to put them on a similar level, you just don't agree with me.

What mission creep is that?

That’s an area none of us can know about for sure, though.

And again, the strategy is sound - say as little as possible and you can hardly be accused of a cover-up. A cover-up is a complex business.

That's a lot of words to say 'the image does not reflect the reality'-of course it dosen't, why would the royal family even need a press or public relations department if there were nothing to hide?

Yes it’s all going one way only . William will be worse than Charles. Both literally entitled but William is lazy and dull.

There is some weapons grade delusion on here re the ‘popularity’ of the Windsors .

It’s the 65 plus demographic propping up the bought and paid for ‘polls’
These older people’s views are often rolled into the so called popularity of William and Kate . Look at it broken down by age group and there s a different story . And that’s for polls - which are not reliable .

In real life look at their image management . Visits are a ‘surprise’ because they know they can’t draw a crowd .
When a crowd is needed local school children and a bus load from the nearest old people’s home are pressed into service .

They have 20 years maximum left .
Apathy is their enemy too not just disgust .

PS. Andrew is free to come and go as he pleases ( house hunting in the Middle East apparently ) and anyone repeating the ‘house arrest’ lie has swallowed the tabloid line hook line and sinker . That’s was all a pr exercise and window dressing. The Windsors protected Andrew for decades . He’s not the only Windsor with links to Epstein and his associates .
What has happened about the police investigation? Let’s hope lots going on behind the scenes.

I presume AMW will shortly move to the Middle East and be completely safe from justice. It’s completely disgusting.

AMW is a completely insignificant figure and it is the government that put him in the role of trade envoy and expanded his role from the one his predecessor in a similar role (the Duke of Kent) had.

AMW and Harry are irrelevant and completely unrelated to the role of the head of state.

@CoffeeCantata

There is lot of airy talk of the law from royalists .
Any comment on the 30 000 emails related to Andrew’s behaviour as a trade envoy?
These were handed to Buckingham palace 6 years go.

When was any move made against Andrew ? When the Epstein files were revealed in the USA . If they hadn’t been revealed the Windsors would still be covering up .

Whoops I forgot the old ‘links or it didn’t happen ‘

Here the royalist organ of choice ( not one I trust re the Windsors but anyway)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy02j5pl98no

His mother QE2 pushed and pushed for TE role for him (see below). I assume she knew deep down what her wonderful son was like and aimed to find him something to do. It backfired spectacularly as he was busy enriching himself and his buddies by passing on confidential government papers. All whilst partying with a sex trafficker and his girlfriend who is banged up for 19 years for trafficking and grooming umderage girls.

The Monarch's Mandate: In a February 2000 memo to then-Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, the chief executive of British Trade International, Sir David Wright, explicitly noted that it was the Queen’s "wish" for Andrew to take on a prominent role promoting national interests. Former government officials noted that once the Queen made her wishes clear, civil servants treated it as an order.Bypassing the Vetting Process: Because of the Queen's heavy backing and his status as a royal, Andrew was appointed as the Special Representative for International Trade and Investment in 2001 without any formal background checks, due diligence, or security vetting.

I think that while the battle might not be won yet, it's definitely affecting their image with the public. BP, while doing their best to prop up the facade, are too obviously biased and unsubtle in their manipulation attempts. Everyone knows about the attempts to manipulate the media and the unofficially allowed so-called leaks, that fool no one.

But then, Charles was never going to be one to provide a good image. He did too much damage as a younger man, and while he seems to be more staid and reasonable now, mud sticks. While Harry is out, William doesn't have the best image either. His angry and resentful man image, while not as bad as a younger Charles' with the cheating, TV interviewing, book publishing media nightmare, isn't exactly creating a bullet proof shield in the way QE mostly did either.

The obvious way for William to win is to reestablish his relationship with his brother. But I suspect he won't because... angry, resentful man.

"The obvious way for William to win is to reestablish his relationship with his brother. But I suspect he won't because... angry, resentful man."

Lol at the idea that the British public could care less about Harry or that the majority view isn't that Harry is the problem one.

Utter and complete nonsense .

That’s is exactly what the PR is trying to sell - oh nothing to do with Elizabeth or Charles

The lot of them are up to their necks in this.

Setting aside Charles own bags of cash and other investigations, a group of them paid off Virginia . Not because any one individual didn’t have enough money - because it implicated them all . That’s how a mafia works . They had known about Epstein’s ans Virginia since at least 2008.

The entire facade of the monarchy in the uk is cover up and subterfuge.

Yes politicians have let them get away with it.The Victorians put monarchy under more scrutiny!
That is changing and will change quickly once MPs see how younger people view the Windsors. .

The Duke of Kent had previously done the trade envoy role and stood down from that after many years. Andrew was an obvious replacement choice, given that it had a "royal" tradition, hence why the Queen suggested Andrew. It wasn't even a fixed role, but more a figurehead thing, hence having a royal do it for greater promotional purposes. If anyone expanded the role and gave it more scope and responsibility, it's the government.

"One of Edward's major public roles for many years was vice-chairman of British Trade International, formerly known as the British Overseas Trade Board, and later as the United Kingdom's Special Representative for International Trade and Investment. In this capacity, he travelled abroad to represent the British government in fostering trade relations with foreign countries and organisations. The then Prince Andrew succeeded him in this position, later known as UK Trade & Investment (or UKTI), although Andrew resigned from the post in 2011.[40] In 1979, Edward became the first member of the royal family to visit China, focusing on the British Energy Exhibition in Beijing."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Edward,_Duke_of_Kent

Andrew was an obvious replacement choice, given that it had a "royal" tradition, hence why the Queen suggested Andrew

Well, that went well didn't it?! She suggested Andrew because she wanted to find him something to do despite the heir, Charles, being strongly against it.
Even if the royal predecessor did a good job, each person should be taken on their merits and Andrew was clearly unsuitable for the role.

I doubt William would see many advantages in a closer relationship with Harry + Meghan given their reputations. The last thing the RF need is to be associated with H+M’s behaviour, making embarrassing geopolitical pronouncements, slapping people’s arses, tweaking nipples, trying to sell clothes using photos of sick children and victims of a terrorist atrocity. Plus they are wildly unpopular global laughing stocks. Not much to gain there for the RF I don’t think.

Sorry but the RF and the institution of the monarchy is an organisation in to which we collectively invest £137.9 million a year, the sum of the sovereign grant, which does not include enormous security costs which are estimated at £100 to £150 million annually.

Ceremonial events aren’t included either: for example, the coronation of King Charles III cost taxpayers roughly* *£72 million, and the late Queen's funeral cost approximately £162 million.

So yes, I do feel “entitled” to a full explanation although I would call it a very reasonable expectation.

What do you want them to take responsibility for?

~reasonable and accountable use of tax payers’ money
~probity in office eg do not cover up any alleged crimes by a member of the “firm”
~ trustworthy leadership
~transparency in communications
~continuity and stability
~leading ceremonial events
~unifying the country?

I didn’t know that about his appointment bypassing the vetting process simpsonthecat

I had wondered about the mechanics of hox that had happened! And they say the monarch only has symbolic power?