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?

For the second time, I have not said or implied that Lownie is not telling the truth here.

I am saying that he is unreasonable to expect overworked police forces to chase him, when there are established ways to contact the police which multiple other people with information have clearly used (as per the last formal update).

I will not be following you into any conspiracy theories, so perhaps we should leave it there.

bluegreygreen

If you are sceptical about Lownie, how about Gordon Brown?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj0dme87l84o

Agreed and the sleaze is embedded right down to the so-called minor royals many seem to be looking to to fill 'gaps' in the busywork.
It'd be interesting to see what's squirming should a microscope ever be turned on the Tindalls, Peter Phillips, Bea and Euge IMO.

Don’t forget Prince Harry and Meghan.

If the microscope is on one, then it should be all.

Hearing rumours someone is a paedophile is not enough. You have to actually know what he was doing. No one will listen to anyone saying X told me y is a paedophile. Well what do you mean you will be asked. That's all I know you can answer.
Nobody will listen to that.

A worker at Michael Jackson's house was told when starting never to leave her son alone with Michael. She did tell the authorities and nothing happened.

Many years ago my dad worked in PR and had a few contacts in London; one of them offered him tickets for my sister and i who were then young teens to be in the audience on TOTP. My mum totally put her foot down saying that all the DIs gave her the creeps but especially Saville and she wasn't going to let her girls anywhere near them. Many people who had only seen JS on the tv found him deeply unsettling, he must have been even more so in person.

They did NOT travel to Jordan for a wedding with an unknown friend. They went to prince Al Hussain's wedding and yes did meet the king during that private visit.
William and Prince Hussain are allegedly close friends.
The prince and his wife visited Catherine and William in the UK.

S9 yes I do wonder what's going on there

And Catherine lived in Jordan for two years when she was 3 and 4 years old.

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

I think, for some people of a certain class and generation, a bit of paedophilia was seen as a minor personal foible, like picking one's nose or wearing socks with sandals-mildly unpleasant but not something to fall out with a friend over (the term 'friend' being widely defined to include someone whose popularity might improve One's public image).

That is exactly the impression I have always had.
It's seen as strange and slightly hysterical that working class people care about this so much.

Charles brought saville in as a marriage advisor because he was a close friend

Stepping back and viewing the wider picture; it’s not a great look for the royal family is it?

Associated with paedophiles
One or two suspected paedophiles in the family
Financial scandals
Cover ups
Serial affairs and infidelities

It’s not all of them by any means but even the good ones have been complicit in covering things up!

We, as a collection of nations should, I think anyway, be able to expect far better.

You wonder “what’s going on” with them visiting friends and attending their wedding? Why is that something to comment on and what do you think might be going on?

It's bizarre

You know when you meet people or see people and you just have this gut feeling that you could never possibly be friendly with them, for all sorts of reasons...well, some of the royals don't have that capability

I can't imagine ever meeting savile and thinking what a great guy, I am going to confide in him, he's a friend

Yes, I said that. My family lived in the Middle East when I was aged 2-5 and I have been back to visit since because of that connection.

I wonder what thought process led to the decision 'this never-married person who still lives with his mum and has no qualifications as a counsellor or therapist is the best person to advise on my marital difficulties'?

Yes, I'm interested in the contrast between the comments of Gordon Brown and Vince Cable, and the lack of comment from Tony Blair and David Cameron.

I have read that Charles is very susceptible to flattery.

I have read many, many things.

It doesn’t make them true.

Yes - I read that Piers Morgan was responsible for the photos of Diana at the gym. And that Harry was at school when the QM died. Not everything in print is reliable, sadly.

Serial affair and infieldlies are very RF over many countries and history. It's more unusal not to have those TBH.

But yes there are clearly issues - the judgement with Charles generation seems really off - but palace PR is so fucking good they do seem to push past them.

Norway and Belgium royal family's have also had big problems in last few year.

I will say it is more normal to contact police when you think a crime been committed - though you then wait for then to come back with further questions as they start to investigte. That's clearly what Gorden Brown's done - and gone - not as clear if Lownie has done that.

I think financially there's been too many grey areas and not enough scrunity and I do think that is rapidly changing.

The level of scrutiny is not changing at all. What has changed is social media so people can share the details.

Seriously disingenuous. One of those things the poster apologised for getting it wrong.

It isn’t disingenuous to say that not everything you read is true and to provide examples.

It isn’t about this board or ‘a’ poster but across the board.

Not everything we read is true.

If it is? Then I look forward to discussing what I have seen written about both H&M.

I suspect some may not be keen to do that.

Unfortunately they can share all kinds of material- not peer-reviewed or authoritative necessarily.

That is the politest way I have ever seen saying that people can post/share any old shite that they want to CoffeeCantata 👏🏽