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?

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.

As you say, AMW's role was a public one as a UK Trade representative - a role where he answered to Cabinet ministers.
Why is there so much questioning of Royal Family behaviour, and so little questioning of behaviour of those Cabinet ministers?
Might they also have been involved in questionable behaviour - especially as many are still in positions of political or financial power?

Especially as there are no accessible mechanisms through which the public can vote to change the status quo except “writing to your MP” but what difference does that make when MPs are allocated so little time in Parliament to discuss the RF? I find this shockingly undemocratic.

Parliamentary time for questions is allocated by government, and the Speaker is instructed to that effect; there is also specific time allowed for opposition parties to ask questions.
If either government or opposition ministers wished to discuss the Royal Family in Parliament it would be done.
The fact that Parliament to date has not carried out its role in scrutinising AMW's behaviour is a dereliction of their duty, not a reflection on the role of the Royal Family.
[No, Erskine May does not prevent discussion of the Royal Family, or judges, or others included in that paragraph; it simply says they must be discussed in proper form.]

Quite, it's maddening though!

AMW and Harry are completely irrelevant to the royal family as an institution of state. On the very hypothetical chance that something happened to Charles before William had been born, then a very hypothetical Prince of Wales Andrew and King Andrew would be a completely different person, with his associates and his activities closely guarded and his way of representing Britain dictated by the government. He may also have married someone quite different. In short, Andrew would have been a different person. And, if for some reason a King Andrew did anything untoward, he would have been ejected from the throne like his great-uncle Edward.

The Queen died in 2022 so this King Andrew would only have happened a few years ago. As Prince of Wales he would have been unlikely to have had the associates he did as the Duke of York. But, even if he did and the same accusations were still being made against him as heir, then he would have been removed from the throne or probably never even ascended it. Parliament and the then Queen would have acted to remove him.

Yes, people seem to forget that Parliament is sovereign.

That means that Parliament can remove (or prevent) an inappropriate monarch.

It also means that Parliament has a responsibility to scrutinise the monarchy if there are areas where it is not functioning correctly (for example, where a member of the RF is acting inappropriately in a government role).

Thank you. I think not everyone understands this, and they think we have an Absolute Monarchy, which is not the case.

Thank you, that's an excellent summary

Well quite. I don't remember getting a permission slip to sign for you to speak for me.

Edit to add For the avoidance of any doubt, no you do not speak for me.

The only possible explanation has to be that they’ve swallowed Sussex Squad propaganda. The SS promotes the idea that W is violent and enraged and has actually beaten Catherine. They claim he’s chewing the rug all the time in rage against H, his wife, KC and Camilla.

It’s partly extrapolated from some of H’s writings about The Battle of the Dogbowl et, but mostly absolute batshittery.

But it’s amazing that, on zero actual evidence, this myth persists…which is why I asked Simpson to explain their dislike of William. I just don’t get it, unless it’s as Ive described here.

I disagree but as I stated, I do have a crystal ball here!

If the RF want it to happen, it will happen.

Oh yes, stories from Harry 🙄 and Sussex fans with their nonsense. Well, they really should think of something better to lie about, because every time I've seen William out and about, he's the very vision of calm.
Apart from an item on the news about his Suicide Prevention initiative work. I saw him speak to a woman whose husband took his own life, William was in tears. They didn't appear to be tears of anger.

No, it's up to the government. They won't want somebody completely incapable getting near Trump or Macron or whoever.

Why would the RF want THAT to happen? I think they wish he’d go to the other side of 5he world!

Do you also believe KC controls RAVEC? 😀

I did ask you this earlier but you didn’t reply. What do you think they want Harry for? He is fifth in line to the throne. George is going to be more high profile as he gets older, as are his brother and sister. The RF have managed without Harry since 2020. What do they need him for?

typos

Can you imagine?

But it’s amazing that, on zero actual evidence, this myth persists…which is why I asked Simpson to explain their dislike of William. I just don’t get it, unless it’s as Ive described here.

Why do you make things up?
You have not asked me about my dislike of William because I have not said I dislike him !

All I said was that in my opinion I feel he can show signs of disguised anger at times. It is an opinion that has obviously set some people off! But it's an opinion I am quite entitled to express.

And how could you have a working royal who has declared that working royals are all “trapped”? He told the world that he wanted freedom.

That’s not a viable position for a working royal. Bet he wishes he’d kept his whinging to himself now.

But it’s irrelevant because he will never be allowed back into an official role.

Didn't he and Meghan take a "Freedom Flight"? Didn't they actively criticise the RF in their various tv programmes and interviews?

Well, who doesn’t? If showing signs of disguised anger debars someone from public life, then there’s no hope for any of us!

Isn’t it called frustration?

I don’t like the “medicalisation “ of every normal aspect of human behaviour. It’s just being a normal human being.

I think they think people have forgotten.

Maybe they have, as well. Harry seems to forget a lot of things.

I don't think it's "set people off", I just think it's a bit baffling because of what we see of William and how he behaves.
Anyone else you could see this in? The Archbishop of Canterbury? John Craven?

I often see barely disguised anger.

Due to a barely functioning autocue for instance.

Oh dear. Not a happy man. He was unable to improvise as well.

Can you imagine if there was also a frostbitten appendage was in the mix and there was no 8 hr cream?

Imagine no more…

Uncanny.