"Reinventing The Royals" (2015) - BBC Two Documentary on the Windsors


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
All that shows me is Camilla's PA took the fall for Bolland. It makes no difference to the Sun who leaked the story. Why would the royal correspondent for the Sun say it was Bolland when in fact it was Camilla's aide?

Why would Amanda MacManus take the fall for Bolland? But there is still no answer for the larger question is why Bolland would leak the story at all. The backfire was foreseeable. Throughout the War of the Royals, leaks were almost always followed up by investigations into the identity and the motives of the leakers.

Regarding the Sun's motive, I suppose it is possible that Bolland confirmed the story after it was obvious the Sun already had it. It's also possible that the Sun manufactured the Bolland leak as a way to discredit Charles and Bolland.
 
Amanda MacManus was expendable. Bolland was tied to closely to Charles. Charles hired Bolland to implement 'Operation Camilla PB'. For Charles to admit Bolland leaked the story would make Charles guilty as well in the eyes of many.

It was easier to say a PA of Camilla's 'inadvertently' told the story to a 'trusted' third party and that person just happened to run to the Sun newspaper with the information
 
Amanda MacManus was expendable. Bolland was tied to closely to Charles. Charles hired Bolland to implement 'Operation Camilla PB'. For Charles to admit Bolland leaked the story would make Charles guilty as well in the eyes of many.

It was easier to say a PA of Camilla's 'inadvertently' told the story to a 'trusted' third party and that person just happened to run to the Sun newspaper with the information

Perhaps, but you still haven't explained what the motive was for leaking the story in the first place as opposed to just letting it come out naturally. I've explained why leaking the story at that time was detrimental, so why do you think Operation Camilla PB would have benefited from the leak?


ETA: I think you've confirmed the answer to the question about why the Sun would lie about who leaked the story: they were trying to discredit Charles.
 
Last edited:
It may seem detrimental in hindsight but perhaps at the time Charles wanted to push on the public any and all information that he though cast him and Camilla in a good light.

He was desperate and maybe didn't think it through.

In the end the Sun got a juicy story out of this. I don't see it makes a difference for the reporter to lie and say it was Bolland when it was a PA of Camilla's.
 
Yes, but the King could have used other residences. Already when he still was the Prince of Orange b.t.w. It is not for nothing that he seems very attached to his private villa De Eikenhorst, like Princess Beatrix has always had her most pleasant time at her little romantic private estate Drakensteyn.

Of course also King Willem-Alexander will be swallowed by the grey men: when he moves to Huis ten Bosch Palace, the dozens of figures around him are no longer avoidable. King Felipe seems to remain in his "Pabellón del Príncipe", which is "just" a nice house and reminds in nothing a royal residence. It is only illustrative for the fact that things are difficult to remain private in such circumstances (the fact that the press would always have known that Prince William met Camilla, with or without spin).

:flowers:


Felipe is likely to move to Zarzuela Palace when the old Kings are dead and his daughter is old enough to want a home for herself, Leonor will stay at Zarzuela II and Sofia will move outside the palace compound like her aunts did.
 
Amanda MacManus was expendable. Bolland was tied to closely to Charles. Charles hired Bolland to implement 'Operation Camilla PB'. For Charles to admit Bolland leaked the story would make Charles guilty as well in the eyes of many.

It was easier to say a PA of Camilla's 'inadvertently' told the story to a 'trusted' third party and that person just happened to run to the Sun newspaper with the information


Exactly, it was much more convenient to get rid of an aide, than get rid of the mastermind behind the PR operation.
 
It may seem detrimental in hindsight but perhaps at the time Charles wanted to push on the public any and all information that he though cast him and Camilla in a good light.

He was desperate and maybe didn't think it through.

In the end the Sun got a juicy story out of this. I don't see it makes a difference for the reporter to lie and say it was Bolland when it was a PA of Camilla's.

Anything is possible but I think it is unlikely. First of all, Bolland is a PR professional. Everything I've seen of his work indicates that he wouldn't make this type of PR blunder.

Second, I don't think Charles was desperate at the time. His approval ratings were on the rise because the public perceived him as a good father. All indications were that he was patiently laying the groundwork for his eventual marriage to Camilla. He knew it would be years before the public accepted her.

Moreover, William and Harry didn't immediately warm to Camilla. According to almost everything I've read, Charles was sensitive to their feelings and didn't try and force Camilla on them. It was carefully orchestrated, first he brought in Camilla's children, then William and Harry chose to met Camilla. So again, why would he leak that particular story when he knew it would eventually come out on its own?

I also concede that if Bolland heard the Sun got the story, he may have tried to put his own spin on it. On the other hand, the Sun reporter may have just made that up because he didn't like Charles. It wouldn't be the first time a tabloid reporter manufactured a story about the Wales' family.


ETA: I found this article with the history of Charles' approval ratings. It was at 42% in August of 1997 and 59% in March of 1998. Charles would not have been desperate. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...tons-want-Prince-Charles-to-be-next-King.html
 
Last edited:
The thing i want to know is the real motive behing these documentaries. After all, all this stuff is not new and i have the feeling that "reinventing the royals" is more or less a pretty new year present for a fraction from the public finding unbearable the fact that the Wales family is now in peace with herself. Is it really constructive to reharse old stories from the Bolland years ? To know who did what ? It's just a question ...
I'm positively amazed that some people seem to genuinely discover that the BRF, shock and horror, is surrounded by an army of PR and spin doctors and that some Royals, including Camilla, needed, of course, an intensive PR campaign to try to forget the hysteria of the 90's. I guess some are missing these years and the BRF became too boring without all the scandals. The articles about "Charles used his sons", "Charles and Camilla don't live under the same roof" or "Charles asked Bolland to diabolise Diana" seem to be here just to content some readers thinking, with a grin on their faces "i knew it, i knew it !". With the so called scandalous biography of Charles and the stinky papers seen here and there lately, i wonder if there's some clear attempt to highjack the wedding anniversary and Charles and Camilla in April., apparently still hard to swallow ten years later.
 
Last edited:
You raise a good point, Nico. The real driver is ratings and documentaries on the royal family are probably always popular (I don't know what the ratings were for that documentary). But there are only so many documentaries about a relatively happy family. The more controversy, the better.
 
The thing i want to know is the real motive behing these documentaries. After all, all this stuff is not new and i have the feeling that "reinventing the royals" is more or less a pretty new year present for a fraction from the public finding unbearable the fact that the Wales family is now in peace with herself. Is it really constructive to reharse old stories from the Bolland years ? To know who did what ? It's just a question ...
I'm positively amazed that some people seem to genuinely discover that the BRF, shock and horror, is surrounded by an army of PR and spin doctors and that some Royals, including Camilla, needed, of course, an intensive PR campaign to try to forget the hysteria of the 90's. I guess some are missing these years and the BRF became too boring without all the scandals. The articles about "Charles used his sons", "Charles and Camilla don't live under the same roof" or "Charles asked Bolland to diabolise Diana" seem to be here just to content some readers thinking, with a grin on their faces "i knew it, i knew it !". With the so called scandalous biography of Charles and the stinky papers seen here and there lately, i wonder if there's some clear attempt to highjack the wedding anniversary and Charles and Camilla in April., apparently still hard to swallow ten years later.

What the first part of the doc revealed is pretty much stuff that was already known. None of that stuff was new.

It should be celebrated that the Wales and now Cambridge household are in peace and the terrible drama of the 90's are long gone. Although, with Charles and Camilla's tenth wedding anniversary coming up, one can't be surprised a documentary like this has come about. There will be a lot more of articles and reflections to come, due to this anniversary. It's all part of the history of the House of Windsor.
 
. It's all part of the history of the House of Windsor.

I agree but is it really History ? It's more some never ending conjectures, because i guess we'll never know what really happened in the Wales household at this time.
Does it make really a difference if Bolland leaked something and Camilla's secretary not and vice versa. Are we, after all these years, still counting points and arguing over who shot first ?
 
I understand what you are saying, Nico, but this issue is of interest to some people who lived through it. They wouldn't produce the programs if no one bothered to watch.


To Nico's point about the purpose of the documentary, did the BBC even mention that Amanda MacManus admitted inadvertently leaking the information to the media? If not, that raises a huge question as to purpose of the documentary.


It would be one thing if they mentioned it but made the argument that MacManus took the fall for Bolland (although I can't understand why she would do so) but not mentioning MacManus at all really brings the BBC's motives into question.
 
I understand what you are saying, Nico, but this issue is of interest to some people who lived through it. They wouldn't produce the programs if no one bothered to watch.


To Nico's point about the purpose of the documentary, did the BBC even mention that Amanda MacManus admitted inadvertently leaking the information to the media? If not, that raises a huge question as to purpose of the documentary.


It would be one thing if they mentioned it but made the argument that MacManus took the fall for Bolland (although I can't understand why she would do so) but not mentioning MacManus at all really brings the BBC's motives into question.
I didn't hear anything about Amanda. (I could missed something though) I am to young to remember any of the Diana things and all this is kind of news to me. The first I heard of Amanda is in this thread..
 
I didn't hear anything about Amanda. (I could missed something though) I am to young to remember any of the Diana things and all this is kind of news to me. The first I heard of Amanda is in this thread..

Royal Rob stated that no one was fired for the leak, even though MacManus was, which indicates that the BBC didn't mention it. I can't believe the BBC didn't know about MacManus, so that proves the BBC is deliberately slanting a documentary in order to smear Charles. Very interesting and disturbing...
 
MacManus said she told a trusted third party who then ran to the Sun. Who is the third party?

I guess the BBC didn't mentioned it because the Sun's own reporter who published the story said the information came directly from Bolland
 
I can't believe the BBC didn't know about MacManus, so that proves the BBC is deliberately slanting a documentary in order to smear Charles. Very interesting and disturbing...

That's my understanting too...
 
MacManus said she told a trusted third party who then ran to the Sun. Who is the third party?

I guess the BBC didn't mentioned it because the Sun's own reporter who published the story said the information came directly from Bolland
Could the trusted 3rd party be Bolland?
 
MacManus said she told a trusted third party who then ran to the Sun. Who is the third party?

I guess the BBC didn't mentioned it because the Sun's own reporter who published the story said the information came directly from Bolland

I don't understand why it would matter whether MacManus revealed the name or not, it is another side to the story. A fair documentary would have reported it.
 
Why run this documentary - simple.


As the Queen's reign winds down the press are going to push more and more for Charles to be pressured to step aside - he doesn't 'sell' - but William and Kate do.


The republicans and the press basically disapprove of Charles as a person and as a future King and the anti-Charles media will get stronger and stronger until he accedes to the throne and then they will really try to destroy both him and the institution.


The BBC is more republican than monarchist media outlet so they will continue to push the anti-line.
 
Why run this documentary - simple.


As the Queen's reign winds down the press are going to push more and more for Charles to be pressured to step aside - he doesn't 'sell' - but William and Kate do.


The republicans and the press basically disapprove of Charles as a person and as a future King and the anti-Charles media will get stronger and stronger until he accedes to the throne and then they will really try to destroy both him and the institution.


The BBC is more republican than monarchist media outlet so they will continue to push the anti-line.
I do not look forward to this, if truee.....
 
Could the trusted 3rd party be Bolland?
I suppose it is possible but I can't believe that it was a deliberate leak, Bolland is a very well-respected PR professional and the leak did more harm than good.

If Bolland was responsible, it was probably inadvertent--which can happen to the best. For example, Bolland was trying to get a reporter at the Sun to run a positive story on Camilla and during the conversation, let it slip that William had met Camilla.

Of course, that doesn't explain why MacManus took the fall...
 
I just finished watching "Reinventing the Royals". I found that there wasn't a whole lot new, which is what others here are saying. What I did notice, though, with my tendency to notice little details, was Prince Harry's face when he threw the confetti on his father following the marriage to Camilla. He didn't look like he was a well-wisher as much as he looked rather angry--almost like he was settling a score or something. Strange.:ermm:
 
Amanda resigned as Camilla's PA as she mentioned the meeting between Camilla and William to her husband and then he told someone else who then went to the Sun with it. She was reinstated by Camilla a few months later and still works for her.

BBC News | UK | Camilla PA resigns
 
I just finished watching "Reinventing the Royals". I found that there wasn't a whole lot new, which is what others here are saying. What I did notice, though, with my tendency to notice little details, was Prince Harry's face when he threw the confetti on his father following the marriage to Camilla. He didn't look like he was a well-wisher as much as he looked rather angry--almost like he was settling a score or something. Strange.:ermm:

Frankly i couldn't find any anger at all :

From 51:57

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuLiTymr4DA
 
I just finished watching "Reinventing the Royals". I found that there wasn't a whole lot new, which is what others here are saying. What I did notice, though, with my tendency to notice little details, was Prince Harry's face when he threw the confetti on his father following the marriage to Camilla. He didn't look like he was a well-wisher as much as he looked rather angry--almost like he was settling a score or something. Strange.:ermm:
Too me he looked more focused than angry. Making sure to hit :p Seemed more like the playful and cheeky Harry than anything else. I wouldn't read to much into it.
 
@ Iluvbertie - The BBC is certainly left-wing but they are far from being republican.
In fact the republican pressure group in the UK is their biggest critic. Always complaining of the pro-monarchy slant the corporation takes in the news.
I have no idea whether the BBC supports Charles per se but it definitely supports the institution of monarchy.
The CBC in Canada is the same way. Left-wing but pro monarchy
 
Amanda resigned as Camilla's PA as she mentioned the meeting between Camilla and William to her husband and then he told someone else who then went to the Sun with it. She was reinstated by Camilla a few months later and still works for her.

BBC News | UK | Camilla PA resigns

Thank you. I've never heard that MacManus was reinstated. The story is very convoluted.
 
Thank you. I've never heard that MacManus was reinstated. The story is very convoluted.
If she was reinstated it makes even more sense that she was a patsy and when the waters had been calmed she was quietly reinstated, probably with a nice bonus. :p
 
If she was reinstated it makes even more sense that she was a patsy and when the waters had been calmed she was quietly reinstated, probably with a nice bonus. :p
I agree but I still don't understand why Bolland would have leaked the news of the meeting in the first place.
 
Back
Top Bottom