The Royal Family and the Media

[miss whirley]

A relationship has to work both ways. The royals are public servants, they don't serve the whims of tabloids. Not a week goes by without some paper writing a negative story about a royal.

Either it's the York girls, Charles with his 'meddling' or the younger generation not pulling their weight. It just goes with being royal

When William took up this job last April, YouGov conducted a poll and only 10 percent of people thought William should focus solely on royal duties.

76 percent thought he should fly an air ambulance in addition to royal duties. So its clear there isn't any revolt.

In fact just last October, Sky News and Ipsos Mori did a poll on the monarchy and it was as popular as ever.

As I said, a relationship works both ways. It's not the job of the royals to jump ever time a tabloid writer says so.

It's funny to imagine an alternate universe where the BRF did everything the tabloids told them to do.

The Queen would have abdicated. William would have dumped Catherine and romantically pursued Princess Madeleine or a daughter of a Duke. Harry would have proposed to Cressida in 2014. Charles would have never married Camilla. Harry would have never quit the army. Andrew would have been disowned from the royal family. Anne would have divorced Tim and taken up with Andrew Parker-Bowles. Anne also would be the next monarch instead of Charles. Charles would have given Harry a public paternity test and announced the results at a press conference. Beatrice would have been forbidden from ever traveling again. Eugenie would have been forced to lose weight. Prince Edward would be living life as a gay man. William and Madeleine's children would be having weekly photocalls. And the Kents and Gloucesters would be put in some seaside retirement home.

 

[DanyT]

Considering the sexist, racist, homophobic comments I frequently see in comment sections (especially the Daily Mail) I hope those are not reflective of the British public.

 

[Curryong]

It's very difficult to explain the influence of the national tabloids on British public opinion to those who do not live in Britain. However it is real, and the Cambridges (especially William) are going to have to make some concessions in the future or the relationship will remain fractious, with what results we will have to wait and see.

 

[Rudolph]

I've said it a hundreds times, if the comment sections of tabloids represented the real world, it would be a dismal place indeed.

As an experiment, click on any article in the DM other than royal related. The comments are the same. Just bitter and twisted people spewing bile from behind their keyboards.

I don't know a single person who comments on Mail Online

 

[cepe]

The current anti-William campaign has nothing to do with public opinion and everything to do with his relationship with the press.

If you asked the public if they think that William is doing a good job being an air ambulance pilot, the majority would say yes.

If you asked them is it better for him to be an AA pilot or attend a celebrity bash (ie BAFTA) there is no competition - pilot.

this is press royal journos fighting for survival, not the monarchy

 

[miss whirley]

The current anti-William campaign has nothing to do with public opinion and everything to do with his relationship with the press.

If you asked the public if they think that William is doing a good job being an air ambulance pilot, the majority would say yes.

If you asked them is it better for him to be an AA pilot or attend a celebrity bash (ie BAFTA) there is no competition - pilot.

this is press royal journos fighting for survival, not the monarchy

I hope they signed a DNR.

 

[Rudolph]

It's very difficult to explain the influence of the national tabloids on British public opinion to those who do not live in Britain. However it is real, and the Cambridges (especially William) are going to have to make some concessions in the future or the relationship will remain fractious, with what result we will have to see.

I lived and worked in the UK for 15 years. My wife is English and my children were born there.

There is no denying the fact, newspaper are in decline. Just last week the Independent ceased print operations. The Guardian is streamlining to cut costs and the Express may be sold.

On another thread you mention the Sun has 1.9 million subscribers. Seems like a lot.

In 2011, the year William and Catherine were married, the Sun had 3.1 million subscribers. A huge drop

In fact, in 2011, the Sun, Mirror and DM all had at least 2 million subscribers. Today not a single national daily newspaper has 2 million.

If people aren't buying what the tabloids are selling, its difficult to 'shape' public opinion, if indeed they ever did.

Regardless though, the royals aren't politicians. They don't pander for votes or give glib interviews.

When W&C celebrate their 5th anniversary in April or when Charlotte turns one in May, the papers will cover it wall to wall. No worries

 

[Curryong]

I'm not saying the British monarchy is fighting for survival nor denying that print media as a whole is in decline. I'm saying that William's relationship with national newspapers that are more popular with the public than broadsheets is fractured and is going to have to be mended; for the sake of him and the BRF as well as the tabs there should be a bit of give and take on BOTH sides.

As for the media covering anniversaries and the children's birthdays wall to wall, it depends on how much of the celebrations the press etc is allowed to see. Is there going to be a photo opportunity at these important markers, are official photographs by a professional photographer going to be taken and released, an interview on the wedding anniversary etc? It will be difficult to cover anything if it's all going to be behind closed doors.

 

[miss whirley]

As for the media covering anniversaries and the children's birthdays wall to wall, it depends on how much of the celebrations the press etc is allowed to see. Is there going to be a photo opportunity at these important markers, are official photographs by a professional photographer going to be taken and released, an interview on the wedding anniversary etc? It will be difficult to cover anything if it's all going to be behind closed doors.

I know it's not intentional but it sounds like you're making a pornographic suggestion.

 

[Rudolph]

Charlotte is going to be on the front pages when she turns one. It doesn't matter who takes the photos. I can take the pictures and the papers will still buy them

Maybe it's just me but I don't know anyone who says "well I'm not looking at Charlotte's photo unless if it's taken by a press photographer"

When Catherine was at the Gallipoli service, a veteran said to her how much he liked George's school picture. He didn't care if Kate took the photo

 

[Curryong]

I know it's not intentional but it sounds like you're making a pornographic suggestion.

I don't want to see or hear anything of the Cambridges' intimate lives thanks. I wondered whether they'd do an interview for the anniversary, didn't suggest they would be doing anything else. Not interested.

As for the Cambridge children, Rudolph, I know Kate fancies herself as a photographer. However, the vast majority of their photographs have been taken by her, another move away from tradition. I think a set of both children by a professional photographer would make a nice change.

 

[miss whirley]

I don't want to see or hear anything of the Cambridges' intimate lives thanks. I wondered whether they'd do an interview for the anniversary, didn't suggest they would be doing anything else. Not interested.

As for the Cambridge children, Rudolph, I know Kate fancies herself as a photographer. However, the vast majority of their photographs have been taken by her, another move away from tradition. I think a set of both children by a professional photographer would make a nice change.

Hence, me saying, not intentional .

What's wrong with Catherine taking photos herself? Does it upset you that Princess Mary of Denmark often takes her own photos of her children? Did it bother you that Princess Margaret's husband took a lot of the royal family photos?
Does it bother you that Prince Andrew is a keen photographer? Last year he took a photo of The Queen, Edward and Sophie; and then distributed it on social media, just like Catherine's blueprint. So I'm not sure what tradition you're speaking about.

Also Catherine photos have generally been much better than the professional ones the Cambridges have had commissioned. I'll vote on the side of quality.

 

[Curryong]

I'm well aware that many royals, foreign and British, past and present, have been keen amateur photographers, since the 19th century, in fact.

However, most photographs taken for birthdays etc in the BRF have been ones posed for professional photographers who, by and large, have done a good job over generations. Lord Snowden was an excellent professional photographer as well as a relative. I agree that the ones taken for Charlotte's christening were photo shopped to bits. It should be possible though to find a photographer in London who is acclaimed, professional and doesn't photoshop to the max.

 

[miss whirley]

I'm well aware that many royals, foreign and British, past and present, have been keen amateur photographers, since the 19th century, in fact.

However, most photographs taken for birthdays etc in the BRF have been ones posed for professional photographers who, by and large, have done a good job over generations. Lord Snowden was an excellent professional photographer as well as a relative. I agree that the ones taken for Charlotte's christening were photo shopped to bits. It should be possible though to find a photographer in London who is acclaimed, professional and doesn't photoshop to the max.

I think you should read this link-
Marilyn's Royal Blog: Royal Book Challenge: Photographs by HRH The Prince Andrew

The key part-"Prince Andrew, now Duke of York, has taken some notable photographs of his family. He took the 60th birthday photograph of the Queen and a series photographs for the 2002 Golden Jubilee portfolio. He also took the photos to mark Prince Harry's first birthday aboard the Royal Yacht Britannia and the first official photographs of Lady Louise Windsor with her parents. He is also the only Royal to receive a freelance cheque from the Toronto Star for his services."

You were saying?

 

[Curryong]

I have said that I am aware that many royals have been enthusiastic amateur photographers. I wasn't aware that Andrew had become a photographer by profession. That's good, it might keep him out of trouble.

It's Kate's photography that we were discussing and I have stated that I would prefer a professional photographer to take some sets of her children for a change.

This is an opinion forum and that's my opinion. Andrew doesn't come into it. The vast majority of official Royal photographs taken of members of the BRF in the Queen's lifetime and released publicly have been by professional photographers, and that's a fact!

 

[cepe]

The last photograph released by the Cambridges was by a professional photographer. just saying

 

[annette2002]

Why do they need to shop for a professional photographer ? Catherine does an excellent job. It seem whatever the Cambridge's do is subject to this very biased criticism. I think it is curious that Harry does not have a full time job , no babies at home to take care of, and has not been seen or done any royal duties per se yet he is not called workshy. Will and Kate are doing fine and they are handling things beautifully. William works full time ,(donates his salary to charity) does royal duties part time, have a young family at home . Trust me , a rational mind will look at that with admiration.

 

[miss whirley]

I have said that I am aware that many royals have been enthusiastic amateur photographers. I wasn't aware that Andrew had become a photographer by profession. That's good, it might keep him out of trouble.

It's Kate's photography that we were discussing and I have stated that I would prefer a professional photographer to take some sets of her children for a change.

This is an opinion forum and that's my opinion. Andrew doesn't come into it. The vast majority of official Royal photographs taken of members of the BRF in the Queen's lifetime and released publicly have been by professional photographers, and that's a fact!

Quite a bit a of backtracking here.

First you said that Catherine was breaking family traditions by taking photos of her family. Then you were provided with evidence to the contrary.

Then you said royals didn't photograph each other's birthday photos. Then you were shown that Andrew has taken The Queen's and Harry's birthday photos.

I love how then suddenly all the other royals have "nothing to do with it". When originally it was all about naughty Catherine not following their lead.

 

[Curryong]

The last photograph released by the Cambridges was by a professional photographer. just saying

Yes, cepe, and as I said in my previous posts, not an admirer of the Charlotte photos as everything was photoshopped. However, as I did say before it would be possible to find a well known and talented professional photographer in London who doesn't photoshop to the ends of the earth.

 

[Skippyboo]

The last photograph released by the Cambridges was by a professional photographer. just saying

Wasn't the last photos George going to school? That was Kate's photos I believe. It's pretty hard to take a family photo with little kids yourself. So of course the picture released with all 4 of them was a professional photographer.

However, you don't need the press to release a photo. You can just do it online. Also you can release your own videos and speeches and other content on the web.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Curryong]

I have said in my previous posts that MOST photographs taken for birthdays etc in the BRF were taken by professional photographers. They were and are. Look at my original post on this subject. No backtracking .

The first photos of William, Charles, Anne, Andrew, the Queen etc that were released publicly were by professional photographers. Kate did break Royal tradition by having her first baby photographed by her father and then she photographed her children herself. Is this not a break in tradition? If Prince Philip or the Queen had photographed Charles and later William when new babies and then released them there might have been a tradition in the BRF but they didn't and there wasn't.

You were the one who first brought Andrew into the conversation, Miss Whirley!

 

[annette2002]

Yes, cepe, and as I said in my previous posts, not an admirer as everything was photoshopped. However, as I did say before it would be possible to find a well known and talented professional photographer in London who doesn't photoshop to the ends of the earth.

In my opinion Catherine is a well known and talented photographer. Plus,look how much money is saved with her doing it herself. That should satisfy some people who complain that they spend too much tax payers money.

 

[miss whirley]

I have said in my previous posts that MOST photographs taken for birthdays etc in the BRF were taken by professional photographers. They were and are. Look at my original post on this subject. No backtracking .

The first photos of William, Charles, Anne, Andrew, the Queen etc that were released publicly were by professional photographers. Kate did break Royal tradition by having her first baby photographed by her father and then she photographed her children herself. Is this not a break in tradition? If Prince Philip or the Queen had photographed Charles and later William when new babies and then released them there might have been a tradition in the BRF but they didn't and there wasn't.

You were the one who first brought Andrew into the conversation, Miss Whirley!

I brought Andrew in because he's relevant to the conversation.This started because you moaned that it would be inappropriate and breaking with tradition for Catherine to photograph Charlotte for her 1st birthday. That they needed to go to an outside the BRF source, "someone in London". You were responding to Rudolph talking about Charlotte's 1st birthday. Charlotte is the second child of a future King, so is Harry. Now who was the person who photographed Harry's 1st birthday? I'll give you a clue, his name starts with an 'A'.

 

[Queen Claude]

I break down the recent articles about William in three categories and have different reactions to the three categories:

1. Anmer Hall being his main residence/preferring country life.

2. Prince William's relationship with the media

3. Prince William's work ethic, or lack thereof, when it comes to royal and non-royal work.


1. Anmer Hall being his main residence/preferring country life.
William preferring to live in Norfolk and enjoying country life should not be a blemish on his character. Furthermore, my understanding is that he is not the only royal whose main residence is not in London. However it is bad optics to have spent millions getting Kensington Palace up to snuff and to the Cambridges liking only for them to move to Anmer and spend millions getting Anmer up to snuff and to their liking. I know that not all of the money spent was tax payer money but it is still bad optics.

2. Prince Williams relationship with the media (random thoughts)

• This intrigues me because I actually think that William is getting a bad rap based on the fact that it is well known that he does not like and is suspicious of the media. I don't think that William is above reproach in this area but William has given the media access to himself and his family and he's also done interviews. In the past year I don't think that there is a member of the royal family who has interacted, in terms of interviews, with the media more than William, perhaps Harry who supposedly shares William's disdain, but suffice it to say that William has given the media access.

• It's been a standing criticism of the British Royal Family that they want media coverage of them doing royal work but other than that they have no use for the media and grant very little access. The access that the media had to certain royals and/or their spokespeople in the 1990s and early 2000s was an aberration and they were no longer needed after the War of the Wales came to its tragic end and the mission to make Camilla palatable was accomplished.

• A few months ago a document was leaked for an event Charles was participating in. Any media outlet that wanted access to Charles had to jump through numerous hoops, so William is not the only member of the BRF trying exert control over the media.

• When it comes to his children, is William really exposing his children less than his parents did? It was decades ago, but I don't recall frequent releases of photos of William and Harry. Fast forward to today in comparison to other royal houses, my rough guess is that George and Charlotte fall in the middle when it comes to visibility and exposure to the public. I think the Swedish and Danish royal children are the most visible, the British, Norwegian and Mongasque are in the middle, and the Spanish, Dutch, Belgian and Japanese are the least visible - again this is a rough guess.

• The main reason that William is not more visible with the media is not because he is not granting access but because he is not a full-time royal.

3. Prince William's work ethic or lack thereof when it comes to his royal and non-royal work.
This is really the issue IMO. To me if William, Harry and/or Kate wanted to be full-time royals then that's what they would be. I know that there have been discussions in other threads about how the royals are funded and things may be stretched a bit thin at the moment but I really doubt if the Queen and Charles would allow three of their biggest stars to sit on the bench if they actually wanted to be in the game full throttle.

My take is that William is good at royal work, and he may like it in smaller doses, but I suspect he doesn't want to carry out 300+ engagements a year.

I was skeptical when it was announced that William planned to become an air ambulance pilot, but he saw it through and started working. He did an impressive job this past fall where he undertook several royal engagements and was also spotted doing his EAAA job. I thought William had found his groove but if the quote from "a colleague" that William is “hardly ever on shift” is true, then it is very damning and disappointing that he has become "work-shy" with his EAAA job. To me it is not just disappointing, but it makes me recall those murmurings about William being sneaky and consequently wonder if William has been duping the public all along. I don't have firm feelings on whether William has been duplicitous but I am back to being a skeptic where William is concerned.

 

[Curryong]

Take a look at my first post on this subject. I didn't mention Charlotte. I said the children, plural and suggested a nice set by a professional photographer would make a change. I later said I thought Charlotte's photographs had been spoiled by the photographer Photoshopping.

I don't want to see or hear anything of the Cambridges' intimate lives thanks. I wondered whether they'd do an interview for the anniversary, didn't suggest they would be doing anything else. Not interested.

As for the Cambridge children, Rudolph, I know Kate fancies herself as a photographer. However, the vast majority of their photographs have been taken by her, another move away from tradition. I think a set of both children by a professional photographer would make a nice change.

This is my original post on the subject. No mention of Charlotte, Charlotte's first birthday etc.

 

[miss whirley]

Take a look at my first post on this subject. I didn't mention Charlotte. I said the children, plural and suggested a nice set by a professional photographer would make a change. I later said I thought Charlotte's photographs had been spoiled by the photographer Photoshopping.

You said that in responding to Rudolph who was talking about Charlotte's first birthday in May. A->B->C.

Catherine would not be breaking longstanding traditions of Professionals, by photographing Charlotte's birthday or her children at any other point. I think some of us just had a problem with you misrepresenting the facts, and portraying Catherine as some lone wolf with a camera. When the BRF has a long tradition of taking their own photos, both in casual settings and for official ones.

You don't like Catherine. And you don't like her photography. That's fine. But that's what you need to say. Don't try to justify your preference by claiming Catherine is rebelling.

 

[Curryong]

I haven't represented Kate as a lone wolf with a camera at all. I have stated that I think it would be nice for a professional photographer to take photos of both children, which I do!

Nor does the BRF have a 'long tradition' of releasing official photos taken by themselves at all. If they did there would be official photos taken by Queen Alexandra, Edward VIII, George VI and the Queen and Princess Margaret not Cecil Beaton, Baron, Snowden, Lichfield etc.

And are you the representative for others on this Forum?

 

[miss whirley]

I haven't represented Kate as a lone wolf with a camera at all. I have stated that I think it would be nice for a professional photographer to take photos of both children, which I do! And are you the representative for others on this Forum?

I'm no one's representative but my own. Nor was I the only person to challenge your posts on the subject. Those were the "some of us" I mentioned.

You also don't represent anyone but yourself. You definitely don't represent the BRF to say Catherine is breaking traditions by photographing her family. All while Prince Andrew, Earl Snowdon, and Lord Litchfield( The Queen's cousin who took a majority of the royal family's group photos, including Charles and Diana's wedding) are running around photographing their family of royals left and right, without grievance. I don't like blatant double standards. Especially ones that seem to be rooted in classism and sexism.

But I think we can both agree to move on from the subject.

To the original discussion of William vs. Media.I suggest everyone read this article.

Interview - Ken Lennox | Princess And The Press | FRONTLINE | PBS

It’s an interview with a former royal press photographer, and it discusses the royals behind the scene relationship with the press going back to The Queen when she was young until modern day. You’ll see William is no different in his relationship with them, in fact The Queen is even more restrictive with the media. Here’s an excerpt about The Queen.

q: Can you describe what happened when you photographed the Queen coming off the plane?

a: Yes I'd gone to Dyce Airport for The Express and the Queen was flying in to start her holiday in Balmoral and, as the Queen stepped from the Royal Andover aircraft, a gust of wind blew her dress up. I took her photograph and the Queen straightened her dress, got to the bottom of the steps, shook hands with the airport manager and glanced at me and let me take a close-up photograph, got into the car, sat by the window and waved to the airport manager as she left and off she drove to Balmoral.

I drove back to the office and, when I got to the office in Aberdeen, the secretary said Sir Max Aitken's secretary has been on the phone for you. She will phone back. And within five minutes she phoned up and she said: "Mr. Lennox, I believe you were out photographing the Queen arriving at Dyce Airport." And I said, "Yes, I was." "And I believe there was a bit of an incident at the airport." I said, "Yes, there was." "Could you describe the incident?" I said, "The Queen's dress blew up." And she said, "Well, Sir Max would like you to send the film undeveloped down to London and we will collect it." I said, "Well unfortunately the film's in the developer already." And she said, "Well, I take it Sir Max can trust you not to print any photographs, that you will take them straight to Dyce Airport and inform me which plane they're going to be coming down to London on" -- which I did.

q: What did that tell us about the period?

a: I think that was of the period. I don't think the Express would have published a photograph of the Queen's underwear. It just wouldn't have happened. I mean I took it as a reflex. I didn't think about it too much. I was going to pass that problem onto someone else. I was a very junior photographer in those days but it was in keeping with the times.

q: In terms of publicity, did the Royals hold more of their own cards in those days?

a: They held all of the cards. They didn't even tell us which game they were playing with the cards. We just watched them as head of a table. We were not invited in at all. We were allowed to take photographs of the Queen opening fetes and going behind a counter selling jam once a year, but that was it.

 

[Osipi]

The main gist that I get is that the press isn't overly happy with the way that photographs have been released no matter who took them. With Kate as the photographer and releasing them on social media, it totally eliminates the in between guys known as the media. Perhaps this is due to having an embargo on the photos in place that hasn't been honored? I don't know.

I've also come to realize that a lot of the negative press regarding the Cambridges (such as work-shy, remote, not enough royal duties etc) is because the fact is, with a lack of public exposure, there is a lack of things to write about unless they were to do straight up journalism and focus on the work the Cambridges are doing. Just in the past couple of days, the reports have been coming in at how amazing the focus the Cambridges are putting on mental health for children in the UK has been. Mental Health Week was a huge success. It seems like when they do make a difference somehow, that gets put by the wayside and the moans and groans and demands by the tabloids that they're being cut out of things get even crazier.

To me, its obvious that its not the public lives of the Cambridge family that they're interested in at all. Its their private lives, the "scoops" that fill their pockets with green dollars. Will & Kate and their family are deserving of as much of a right to keeping their private lives private as does everyone else on the planet. Sure, they are part and parcel of the royal family and there is plenty that happens where they can and do their part. If the "boss", at any time, was unhappy with the way things are, do you really think she'd just let it slide? As far as photography, the ideal opportunity, I think, that would be a tabloid's dream is to catch Kate in the garden with a smudge of dirt on her cheek and perhaps a shot of a butt crack as she bends over to plant a seed. Hence, why they're "hiding" in "remote" Norfolk and playing "gentleman farmer". Its what they see when they can't have access to the things that they want.

I do see a lot of this as trying to put the tabloid reporting back into the box where it was before everything was fair game in the 80s and the 90s. The access to royals is never again going to be that way again but its been a hard road to go to get the media to accept this as fact. With the internet and social media, the printed newspapers and magazines are going into a slump much like the new and instantaneous marvel such as email has somewhat made the postal systems see a drastic reduction in the mail that passes through their post offices.

In reality, the things that William and Kate do reach the public even sooner and even better than ever before and they're just as popular as ever. Its just that the methods of how the information is getting out that is causing an uproar.

 

[Curryong]

Lichfield and Snowdon were professional photographers, wouldn't have mattered which sex they were.

The 1950's was certainly a different very deferential time. The public would have protested loudly about disrespect to the Queen in showing any underwear. I believe Tony Benn (politician) once complained about the Queen's high pitched voice in the 1960s and a man slapped his face in the street for his pains. Whenever the Queen appeared at functions there was inevitably curtseying and bowing from many.

Things change. Some say it began to change with the 1960's documentary on the royal family, letting a little 'daylight in on the magic' of royalty. The huge schism in Fleet St's attitude to the royals came IMO with 'the Dirty Digger' Rupert Murdoch, new young editors at papers like the Sun and the News of the World, who made a virtue out of being non deferential and using dirty tactics.
The War of the Wales's really blew a rent in the relationship between royals, people and the Press too. It damaged it quite a bit.