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?

Telling them you’re ill is one thing; telling them you have cancer is on another level because of the fear that word strikes into most people.

If I were C I’d have managed the first but not the second and with young children (as they were then) I’d have wanted very much to leave it at the “Mummy’s ill but the doctors are helping her “ stage.

Having her hand forced by those moronic bullies was unforgivable and the HAM’s silence during that time was deafening.

So you are against freedom of speech and just want anyone not praising the royal family to have the fear of god put into them so they shut up? That's nice.

Yes - Rose Hanbury was pretty quick off the mark, thank goodness.

But Colbert’s “apology “ was absolutely shameful. It wasn’t an apology at all - there was who mea culpa - just those weasely words “ I’m sorry some people were upset”.

He was a smug, unpleasant man.

You have posted in another thread the most vile comment i have ever seen on Mumsnet.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones

You need to research the precise circumstances and what was said. It was awful.

A nasty rumour was started by Giles Coren that William was having an affair with Rose Hanbury, C’s friend. There was more sordid detail which I won’t go into here, but it was gross and very hurtful. When C was off the scene for a while the SS claimed this was because C had found out and confronted him. They even claimed that W had hit and injured her. That’s when the “Where’s Kate?” Campaign started. Colbert did a whole spiel on this rumour at the start of his show.

It wasn’t free speech - it was slander and defamation of at least 3 innocent people on international TV. Oh - and both families had young children. Nice.

Well said.

In your opinion and my comment was also then twisted but lets ignore that fact shall we. It was not deleted so it didn't break guidelines either so wasn't vile after all otherwise MNHQ wouldn't of allowed it.

Coming from someone who is regularly posting awful comments themselves...pot kettle black?

@CoffeeCantata Colbert said about rose hanbury, not the other conspiracy theories. No coren was not the first publicly to say it.
And Colbert only said sorry for those offended, because the royal family could not stop anyone abroad talking about it without going to court.

A US tabloid was the first publication to publish the story about William and rose hanbury. Giles Corens tweet simply said, "I know about the affair. Everyone knows about the affair, darling".

Who was the first to disseminate the rumour? G Coren admitted he’d made it up.

(There’s a very interesting background to that too, actually, but that’s another story!)

Do you know which one? Tabloid, I mean.

I’d say that whatever the circs - Colbert had no good reason to do what he did. He showed himself up as cruel and bullying, which might be fair enough for some presenters, but isn’t this a man who claims to be a devout Roman Catholic?

His original nastiness was bad enough but that mocking faux apology, reeking of smug, media- man over confidence, was shocking in view of what had subsequently emerged.

??

Legal warnings were issued to Giles Coren by the palace. This is in the press. Of course he then said it was a "joke".

March 22, 2019: The Sun published an article claiming a "terrible falling out" between Kate Middleton and her close friend Rose Hanbury, the Marchioness of Cholmondeley. This article did not explicitly claim an affair, but it alleged that Kate wanted Hanbury "phased out" of their social circle.

As far as I can find there was simply no evidence for that - it seems to have been cooked up out of nothing by The Sun, and the affair story was meant to explain the so-called rift. But it was most likely a lot of fantasy on the part of Sun journos.

That’s also not an American article!!! , seems proof is asked for but never provided.

So you stand by your awful statement? It wasn't deleted because you did not attack anyone. I will not further engage. too twisted for TV

I vacation frequently in Salem, Massachusetts. Salem is famous for its witch trials. The Peabody Essex Museum has a great permenant exhibit on the trials.

Some of the alleged witches were accused by family who wanted their property. This included devout elderly women. One wealthy couple spoke out, had to leave town quickly, and had their property seized. Boundary disputes and inheritance disputes were the reasons behind the witchcraft accusations.

Essentially people who wanted their relative's land and wealth accused them of horrible acts, completely destroyed their reputation, and then seized their relative's property after they were hung or pressed to death.

The lies told about William and Catherine and the crazed threads baying on about them really reminded me of the Salem trials. I could envision the Sussex Squad standing up in court like the "afflicted girls" to share their skewed views.

@BemusedAmerican @jeffgoldblum

It’s the old story: a lie is halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on!

There was no established basis for these horrible rumours- but they were seized on by the SS and Theres and these groups have been very reluctant to relinquish them. It sits their agenda too well.

There are similar rumours currently about the HaMs but I ignore those too - there’s no hard evidence for them and even if there were what business is it of ours?

I judge anyone who gleefully rubbed their hands together over the Rose Hanbury case, particularly Colbert, but it tells you a lot about people if they relished that vert cruel episode.

The front pages of lots of papers are showing W and K next to H quote about some people not wanting W and H to solve their issues.

I deliberately left out the affair rumours in my summary of events around K’s illness, because none of it is verifiable.

Let me guess without looking.

Rebecca English again? 😀

It would appear that she almost has a vendetta against H since the court case.

And she is captain of the Royal rota! Not exactly objective.

The court case with The Daily Mail was extremely stressful, over multiple years, for the journalists involved. They were all cleared completely of any wrong doing. No wonder there is a focus on Harry in their writing at the moment, he may portray himself as the eternal victim but he really victimised people who were proved in court to have done nothing wrong. I don't think it's a vendetta but I do believe things that have been sat on will now come to light.