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 they weren't cleared completely of any wrong doing. Are you a daily mail journalist?
The judge said the claimants failed to provide proof, and that understandable suspicion is not proof.
He did strongly criticise the claimants legal strategy of making widespread allegations without evidential evidence.
You may think I am being pedantic, but legally the difference matters.

Just was just some photos on a couple of front pages when I look at them on the BBC ‘what the papers say’. I wondering if they were trying to suggest K was the obstacle to W and H sorting on their problems.

I do think private family relationships should stay private.

The problem is Harry. Every time he does an interview, some kind of poisonous remarked directed at the Wales family emerges.

I think we the public should be ignoring this. Too many posters simply feed it. So the press keep publishing these stories.

I wondering if they were trying to suggest K was the obstacle to W and H sorting on their problems.

Possibly - though they usually try and blame William for lack of reconciliation betwen King and Harry.

I think Harry should be looking at his own behavior and what he chose to write about his family.

I think anyone would be extremely wary about reconcillation having had that even more so because the digs and leaks even now haven't stopped.

Giles Coren admitted that he had completely made up the Rose Hanbury rumour, intending it satirically from the perspective of ‘how on earth would he know anything about the RF private lives?’

From his own tweets and an extract from Robert Lacey’s book

It was reported that the palace threatened Giles Coren with a lawsuit. At that point he said he had made it up.

His original tweet was on a thread about the rift between Catherine and rose.

,

Thanks for that Andy Burnham. I didn't know that.

And the most shocking thing about the SS on there? Several posters are clearly churchgoers!😲😳. How they square their glee and malice with their so-called faith I can’t imagine.

They certainly seem to like to present themselves as churchgoers, it's an appearance which pleases Americans but in reality I very much doubt they are.

Having said that, in reference to your final sentence, the amount of gossip and character assassination that goes on in PCC meetings would shock you, 'This isn't for minuting but............' is the usual preface to some good information!

I have discussed issues with the changes to how the king describes himself as defenders of all faith when he is the head of the church of England or officially supreme governor. There were people disagreeing this was an issue claiming to be church goers, who did not even know the church of England has an electoral roll. I suspect they go at Christmas and know nothing about Christianity beyond bible stories.

Adding the phrase “evidential evidence” to my lexicon immediately 🤪

Well, two of the worst accusers in the Salem Witch Trials were ministers.

I have finally looked at a few clips of William on TGNS, and credit where credit is due, he came across as very personable and made good, genuinely funny jokes, and I agree that it was a PR blinder. He could talk about Earthshott very knowledgeably and he seemed very positive, affable, and down to earth.

I find it interesting though that his (crisis?) PR team positioned him bang slap in the “celebrity” space, because I thought that was where the royals definitely don’t want to be?

Mind you the schmoozing with Tom Cruise also signalled “celebrity” too despite W being there there for the British film industry. Maybe that was the fault of the reporting though to be fair?

But all good. William had done his homework and I should say imho as a Republican that I have nothing against W personally or Catherine, they both seem to carry out their roles professionally.

The jury is out as far as William’s future reign is concerned though. And whether he will effect serious change which I think most people agree, is badly needed.

But recently William has granted two interviews that were, let’s say, on the more showbizz side of discussion, rather than any serious questioning.

The late Queen E2 was very much a traditionalist and KC3 acceded to the throne too late to effect serious change and is battling illness. So a lot of people are looking to William to drag the monarchy in to the C21st century.

And there are a lot of serious questions to be asked about the breadth of the top job’s remit, the question of how hard a king is expected to work and until what age, the thorny question of royal taxation and inheritance tax, the transparency of finances overall including the institution’s strategy regarding the Duchies, whether it’s necessary to maintain a royal rota, or whether he favours more critical and transparent royal reporting, whether it’s necessary to maintain sixteen or so grand palaces or mansions that the monarch can access, whether more of the Crown estate should be opened up to the public?

And I would definitely like to ask him in the light of the AMW scandal, if the individual members of the royal family should be subject to more individual scrutiny and accountability, and will concrete mechanisms be put in in place if one of them is found to have broken the law to prevent a cover up in future?

Another question could be, what does he think of Andy Burnham’s idea of having a written constitution?

Those are all the questions I am interested in hearing about, and what I find frustrating about the hereditary system is that, unlike for an elected head of state, the candidate doesn’t really have to lay out his manifesto in any great detail in advance of their accession to the head position.

We all are just expected to trust that change will come… .