The Royal Family and the Media

[TLLK]

Adding my compliments as well miss whirley. I admire your knack of seeing the big picture when it comes to discussing the BRF.

 

[Curryong]

As you all must know, though, with regard to anonymous sources, the Press has to guarantee anonymity to their sources or they wouldn't tell them anything of importance. This happens in many stories, royal, political etc, any story which is likely to be contentious. People who serve with William in Norfolk and who served with him in Anglesey are likely to receive a severe reprimand and a black mark put against their name by the authorities concerned if they complain to the media using their own names.

I don't expect to be believed on this thread, but there was talk way back on the base at Anglesey that William would have others covering his shifts at times when he wasn't undertaking Royal duties but was elsewhere.

 

[Rudolph]

As you all must know, though, with regard to anonymous sources, the Press has to guarantee anonymity to their sources or they wouldn't tell them anything of importance. This happens in many stories, royal, political etc, any story which is likely to be contentious. People who serve with William in Norfolk and who served with him in Anglesey are likely to receive a severe reprimand and a black mark put against their name by the authorities concerned if they complain to the media using their own names.

I don't expect to be believed on this thread, but there was talk way back on the base at Anglesey that William would have others covering his shifts at times when he wasn't undertaking Royal duties but was elsewhere.

There are two kinds of sources. If a reporter says his sources tell him the Queen will abdicate at 12 noon and she abdicates well the public can judge the source is accurate.

If a reporter says Prince Philip likes to dance around his living room in the nude after the staff have retired, well that's just gossip as it can't be proved.

That's all this is about William. A 'source' says William is bored. And? It's just gossip and can't be proved one way or the other.

As for William's RAF service, nice try but his colleagues say nothing but great things about him.

He undertook 156 missions and rescued 149 people.

As for rumours, there was talk way back that Harry failed some of his Apache helicopter tests but his qualifications were pushed through anyway.

Just royal gossip

 

[Skippyboo]

Papers can use unnamed sources just to make crap up. Look at all the stories when Kate was pregnant that Carole was going to be in the delivery room or that she was moving into Amner and her marriage to Mike was falling apart. Oh wait the mail had to retract that last one. Royals are easy target for crap to be made up about because they aren't going to call the papers out for it.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[TLLK]

^^^Very true Skippyboo. They'll just continue to write their false stories in order to sell more ad space.

 

[Curryong]

Yes, but KP also didn't help the situation by bungling the 'he doesn't work enough' argument in the Press by insisting that there were rest requirements by William's employers, only to be contradicted by the statement by the CAA. From this came the revelation of William's work hours being 80 hours a month, leaving lots of time for Royal duties. (I don't know whether the KP Press office was being duplicitous or were simply muddled. They don't seem to be the most efficient operation around.)

Anyway, this has not been a good look all round and proves that the printed press may be dying but even a dying scorpion can have an almighty sting in its tail. The story has spread to Continental publications like Stern now.

 

[Curryong]

I'm certainly treating the CAA's statement as gospel which called Kensington Palace's rebuttal about William's hours as 'muddled'.. The CAA aren't Emily Andrews are they?

Some tabloid reports do contain a germ of truth, some are rubbish and fantasies and some quote sources who do not wish to be named because careers could be harmed.

Emily Andrews had a go on Richatd Palmer's Twitter page with another poster there who inferred her info on William's fellow workers wasn't true. Her riposte was an annoyed 'So you are calling me a liar!'

I realise that Palmer is no favourite of many posters here and EA is like many tabloid journalists in that they get a hare and run with it. Occasionally, though, and I will admit only occasionally, Royal correspondents do have genuine sources that they can't name. There were several times during the War of the Wales's for example, when the media nailed it and it was because of these sources.

 

[Queen Camilla]

In September 2013, it’s rumored that he threatened bloody murder if the pictures of topless Camilla on a yacht were even discussed in the British press.

These are the three that have mentored William and Harry on how to view the press and how to deal with them. And yet it’s William who gets called petulant. Interesting.

I believe your information is inaccurate.

Are you confusing Diana with Camilla.

Diana was the one who went topless.

Camilla has never been topless on a yacht or anywhere in public.

In September 2013, Camilla was photographed for several days while on vacation with her sister in several one piece swimsuits.

The pictures appeared in all the papers, including in the British newspapers.

In September 2014, Camilla again was photographed while on vacation in a one piece swimsuit.

In November 2015, Camilla again was photographed in a one piece swim suit while she and Charles were in Australia. There was also a video.

A Clarence House official said the images of Charles and Camilla 'were taken during a day off whilst Their Royal Highnesses are clearly enjoying private time'.

It does not appear legal action is being considered.

Images of Prince Charles in swimming trunks you WON'T see in any British newspaper | Daily Mail Online
​

In 1989 & 1994 Camilla was photographed in a one piece. I do not think Camilla would be wearing a two piece at 67 years old if she was not wearing them when she was in her 40s.

If Camilla was topless in 2013, then we would have heard about it...the DM would never had let that one go...Richard Kay, Geoff Levy, Christopher Wilson, etc. would still be writing about it today.

As far as William.
William has been treated with kid gloves by the media and now he is receiving the same treatment from the media as the rest of the RF.

The media gave him a pass because he was his mother's son and looked like her.

When he lost his hair and was no longer attractive, the media still gave him a pass because he married Catherine and then had two children.

The media expected him and Catherine to work full time when they were given Apt 1A but that did not happen so some of the rumbling started.

When he move to Anmer Hall, he started to receive more bad press.

The media would have continued to give William and Catherine the kid glove treatment, if William had allowed the media opportunities to photograph George & Charlotte.

William has decided to limit his children's exposure to the press so now the press are treating him like any other member of the BRF.

 

[Rudolph]

Everyone does know it - From 2013

Royal correspondents, like humour columnists, have a licence to embellish, and readers know the deal.

Read more: Royal reporters make it all up - doesn't everyone know that? » The Spectator

 

[Jacknch]

Everyone does know it - From 2013



Read more: Royal reporters make it all up - doesn't everyone know that? » The Spectator

Yes indeed, I think most people realise the press make a lot of things up and embellish the truth.

I don't think people really take many of the stories to heart even if they believe some of the things they read - they take a look, see a picture or read what some anonymous source has said and then move on and forget about it.

The comments section in some of the on-line papers are certainly not representative of how the majority of people feel. And saying that, it is a reminder to the palace that the least they say in reaction to some news articles the better.

 

[Rudolph]

Richard Palmer ‏@RoyalReporter
The Duchess of Cambridge made page 3 of my paper today, thanks to strong pictures and a couple of nice quotes from Judy Murray.

Mark Cuthbert ‏@markacuthbert
@RoyalReporter although a load of reporters with camera phones were accommodated, photographers had to make do with another pic of a coat !

Rookie @royalfocus1
@markacuthbert @RoyalReporter a joke reporters tweeting pics video nothing to do with their jobs increasingly desperate bid to stay relevant

Rookie @royalfocus1
@markacuthbert @RoyalReporter what's even funnier was @byEmilyAndrews doing rota on first job not photographers writing critical articles

Richard Palmer ‏@RoyalReporter
@royalfocus1 We're all facing a battle to stay relevant, Rookie: reporters, photographers, broadcasters, pundits, and the royals themselves.

Rookie ‏@royalfocus1
@RoyalReporter yes but often there is plenty of reporters all tweeting pictures and video when there could be an extra photographer!

--------------------------------------------------------
This morning RP is happy because Catherine provided good 'copy'

Ah but what's this? Photographers are not happy but this time with reporters.

Reporters use their phones to take pics and shoot video (just like W&C do with George and Charlotte) and photographers don't like it one bit.

I thought I'd post this because once again it shows the 'turf wars' that go on even in the press

The next time a photographer or reporter criticises W&C for taking their own pics, remember this exchange.

 

[eya]

Why the institution of the Royal Family must be reworked - Richard Palmer | Richard Palmer | Columnists | Comment | Daily Express

 

[Dman]

I think with The Queen turning 90 and with Prince Philip in his mid 90's, things are on it's way to changing anyway. Good article from Richard though. I agree with everything written.

 

[Rudolph]

As a royal reporter it's understandable he wants the younger royals out front. There is little general interest in the current line up of royals and William, Catherine, Harry, George and Charlotte make for good coverage.

But things aren't going to change dramatically until after the Queen passes or there is a regency

 

[Dman]

Also, this time of the year royal news is slow. Things will start to pick up over the royal tour, birthday celebrations and other royal events to come. Two State Visits to be scheduled.

There may not be a big dramatic change, but with The Queen turning 90 and Prince Philip now in his mid 90's, things will have no other choice but to start changing. I think with William and Catherine now taking part in State events, we are now seeing the changes come into play. That's something a great deal of people thought wouldn't happen for many years to come.

The palace and press do need to rework some relationships, but I think it's been great that the Cambridge's have some breathing room for their family. No one wants another Charles & Diana crises, so William & Catherine have to maintain some privacy. Even when they're The Prince & Princess of Wales and Sovereigns.

It's not just the royal media that's interested in the younger royals, but I think everyone is interested in the younger members of the family. It wouldn't hurt to see them a little more now.

I do take issue with the thoughts on Catherine though. I think she's doing great on the royal job and she has loosen up a bit, but it will take a few more years for her to really inject more of her personality into her speeches and other things she do. Royal duties and royal life isn't an easy path to navigate, but I think she's doing just fine.

 

[cepe]

Maybe we are being unrealistic because we are interested in the royals.

Reporters report news. Anne doing 500 engagements is not news because the public expect it.

The Queen holding audiences isn't news, but it's recorded on the Royal site for historical (?) purposes.

Charles making cheese (in support of organic businesses) or Camilla reading a story to young children, or them reading to her (literacy) makes a good photo opportunity and both print and online can use it.

Charles under pressure because of politics, or William being workshy, or a Royal affair or corruption or anything else controversial is viewed as NEWS!

we don't have to like it but news is immediate, different and of wide general interest. Unfortunately these days only the latter example sells. More of the same (lots of charitable engagements unless photo opportunity) just doesn't.

News is a business and needs to make money.

Just thinking out loud.

 

[Skippyboo]

The genie is out of the bottle with regards to social media. It's a ridiculous idea that the royals should not use it to get information out. The press uses it too. Why read the article about a Royal event if the story doesn't add to stuff we already know? The Daily Mail articles have tons of photos which draws people in. The Express doesn't.

Also I don't blame Kate for taking the Huff post offer. It brought tons of attention to a worthy cause. It's isn't Kate's job to fight for paid journalists V's blogger. Maybe have your paper partner with a charity backed by a Royal and then they will write something for your paper too.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Osipi]

Maybe we are being unrealistic because we are interested in the royals.

Reporters report news. Anne doing 500 engagements is not news because the public expect it.

The Queen holding audiences isn't news, but it's recorded on the Royal site for historical (?) purposes.

Charles making cheese (in support of organic businesses) or Camilla reading a story to young children, or them reading to her (literacy) makes a good photo opportunity and both print and online can use it.

Charles under pressure because of politics, or William being workshy, or a Royal affair or corruption or anything else controversial is viewed as NEWS!

we don't have to like it but news is immediate, different and of wide general interest. Unfortunately these days only the latter example sells. More of the same (lots of charitable engagements unless photo opportunity) just doesn't.

News is a business and needs to make money.

Just thinking out loud.

What I've put in bold letters is basically what Palmer said in the recent article.

"Part of the problem is that interest in the royals’ official working lives is sustained by the glamour and intrigue that supposedly surrounds the rest of their lives. If we don’t see that, it becomes more difficult."

The official public life, to him, needs the juicy tidbits and the "caught in the act" and the burp heard around the world type incident to support their livelihood. In other words, like some have suggested, they should jump through hoops like circus animals for the entertainment of the masses.

Personally, I applaud the Cambridges for doing whatever they can to draw a distinct line between public and private.

 

[Rudolph]

The genie is out of the bottle with regards to social media. It's a ridiculous idea that the royals should not use it to get information out. The press uses it too. Why read the article about a Royal event if the story doesn't add to stuff we already know? The Daily Mail articles have tons of photos which draws people in. The Express doesn't.

Also I don't blame Kate for taking the Huff post offer. It brought tons of attention to a worthy cause. It's isn't Kate's job to fight for paid journalists V's blogger. Maybe have your paper partner with a charity backed by a Royal and then they will write something for your paper too.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

I agree. A lot of times Palmer takes to social media to complain about the royals using social media

RP is under tremendous pressure. He wrote a blog last week complaining about no pay rise in 8 years and Express journalists make go on strike.

He also announced today that his editor told him he won't be going on any of the upcoming royal tours. Just like last year he didn't go to Africa with Harry or Malta with Charles and Camilla and the Queen

 

[cepe]

What I've put in bold letters is basically what Palmer said in the recent article.

"Part of the problem is that interest in the royals’ official working lives is sustained by the glamour and intrigue that supposedly surrounds the rest of their lives. If we don’t see that, it becomes more difficult."

The official public life, to him, needs the juicy tidbits and the "caught in the act" and the burp heard around the world type incident to support their livelihood. In other words, like some have suggested, they should jump through hoops like circus animals for the entertainment of the masses.

Personally, I applaud the Cambridges for doing whatever they can to draw a distinct line between public and private.

The fact that it was Palmer who wrote that is irrelevant - its true. Hardly any UK media mentioned Catherine's charity work this week and the Times only showed some tennis pix (photo-opportunity). Charles is supporting pub is the hub to keep rural communities alive - no mention apart from he fact he offered to buy a round for everyone. Camilla is championing literacy (fantastic) - absolutely no coverage. It isn't considered news by editors. Many of the journalists go on the UK trips, write pieces and they are never published. One sees Twitter comments but nothing in the press.

Its a shame but its a fact. Controversy sells, bad news sells and good news doesn't (unless one has overcome huge adversity).

We are interested but the majority aren't unless its scandal. And therefore in drawing a line, the Cambridges cease to be interesting.

I'm not saying I agree with it because I don't. But that is how here in the UK it is viewed - not by Richard or Camilla or Emily or Rebecca but by their Editors and Owners.

 

[Curryong]

However, if there is too much private life and too little public then then the British public will lose interest. Queen Elizabeth once said, didn't she, that she had to be seen to be believed!

I think it was a very thoughtful article by Richard Palmer. Of course the media wants a touch of drama, of fireworks, but they and their readers also want to regularly see the younger generation of royals performing interesting engagements, interspersed with items from their private lives while they remain youthful, glamorous etc.

The Cambridges just need to realise that Royal children should be seen occasionally in the sort of videos that the Wales family did when William and Harry were small as that was very sweet; that family life with young children is seen as appealing, it connects with the public in a good way.

I think Palmer wishes the BRF well, and is just pointing out, from his perspective, where mistakes have been made over the past year. I don't think he's in any way a republican or enemy of the BRF, just rather worried because the younger royals' image has become rather blah and isn't selling newspapers as it once did.

And after all, much as we deprecate the tabloids at times they are a vital link between the royals and the public. (After all the Daily Fail's photos are superb!) And the relationship between the British media and royals should be a good one and not reliant on the Internet.

 

[Skippyboo]

We just saw pictures of George in January for his first day of school. There has been slightly more photos of Charlotte this past year compared to George's first year. Just like George will probably she more of her after she turns one. Both will probably be on the balcony and polo fields this summer.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Curryong]

You do get a completely different view of children when they are laughing, running, talking and connecting with others though, than you do from a still photograph obviously, however nice the photo is.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

The fact that it was Palmer who wrote that is irrelevant - its true. Hardly any UK media mentioned Catherine's charity work this week and the Times only showed some tennis pix (photo-opportunity). Charles is supporting pub is the hub to keep rural communities alive - no mention apart from he fact he offered to buy a round for everyone. Camilla is championing literacy (fantastic) - absolutely no coverage. It isn't considered news by editors. Many of the journalists go on the UK trips, write pieces and they are never published. One sees Twitter comments but nothing in the press.

Its a shame but its a fact. Controversy sells, bad news sells and good news doesn't (unless one has overcome huge adversity).

We are interested but the majority aren't unless its scandal. And therefore in drawing a line, the Cambridges cease to be interesting.

I'm not saying I agree with it because I don't. But that is how here in the UK it is viewed - not by Richard or Camilla or Emily or Rebecca but by their Editors and Owners.

The question in my mind is that with all of the good they accomplish, and I do think that the Royal Family in Britain DOES a tremendous amount of good, how do they make the public aware just on social media? People who have an active interest (very few, really), will seek it out, but will the masses? If I'm not interested in the BRF, I don't follow any of their doings on Twiter or like or follow their Facebook. How does the average person (who makes up the majority of the public) remember why he/she wants a royal family?

These are honest questions. In this day and age perception is always more important than reality. Camilla can fight illiteracy day and night but unless there is proper coverage she gets no credit. Same with Kate and mental illness, etc, etc.

 

[Queen Claude]

A couple of random thoughts:

I am totally fine with the media reporting an annual tally of engagements and pointing out that the older royals work more than younger royals, I am OK with reporting that royals are transported to some of their engagements in helicopters, I am fine with reporting on a insider tip received about how much William works at EAAA. I think that the royals should have privacy and dignity in that their phones should not be tapped, hidden cameras should not be set up to spy on them nor should phalanxes of photographers be allowed to get in their and their nanny's personal space.

I am very much in the camp that royals should be visible but there is something about Richard Palmer's perspective that seems like a perversion, or maybe it isn't and it's just an inconvenient truth. He is basically saying that the model British Royal Family is one where young ones are expected to be glamorous and scandalous and, as if that is not enough, they need to make their kids available for photo ops, or better yet when some lucky photographer gets pictures of the kids out and about with the nanny, don't object to those pictures being on the front page of all the newspapers. However the young ones and the older ones should have charitable interests so that everyone involved in this scheme can feel good about themselves. To me this is adding up to the Beckhams being the model modern royal family.

 

[cepe]

A couple of random thoughts:

I am totally fine with the media reporting an annual tally of engagements and pointing out that the older royals work more than younger royals, I am OK with reporting that royals are transported to some of their engagements in helicopters, I am fine with reporting on a insider tip received about how much William works at EAAA. I think that the royals should have privacy and dignity in that their phones should not be tapped, hidden cameras should not be set up to spy on them nor should phalanxes of photographers be allowed to get in their and their nanny's personal space.

I am very much in the camp that royals should be visible but there is something about Richard Palmer's perspective that seems like a perversion, or maybe it isn't and it's just an inconvenient truth. He is basically saying that the model British Royal Family is one where young ones are expected to be glamorous and scandalous and, as if that is not enough, they need to make their kids available for photo ops, or better yet when some lucky photographer gets pictures of the kids out and about with the nanny, don't object to those pictures being on the front page of all the newspapers. However the young ones and the older ones should have charitable interests so that everyone involved in this scheme can feel good about themselves. To me this is adding up to the Beckhams being the model royal family.

I think Palmer is given a realistic view of UK press and what sells - that's not his "perversion" as you call it.

What he is saying is that insight into private lives sells. And in the same way it applies to celebrities, it also applies to the BRF. His publishers are in business to make money - it isn't anything else but a business. Look at some of the threads on here - past relationships; lovers; divorce; children outside marriage; fraud in Spain etc etc. People are interested.

He is frankly being incredibly honest about how it works in a business that isn't known for honesty. And ultimately it is about what many of the British public want to know about and its gossip and scandal.

 

[Queen Claude]

I think Palmer is given a realistic view of UK press and what sells - that's not his "perversion" as you call it.
My full sentence was, ""

What he is saying is that insight into private lives sells. And in the same way it applies to celebrities, it also applies to the BRF. His publishers are in business to make money - it isn't anything else but a business. Look at some of the threads on here - past relationships; lovers; divorce; children outside marriage; fraud in Spain etc etc. People are interested.

He is frankly being incredibly honest about how it works in a business that isn't known for honesty. And ultimately it is about what many of the British public want to know about and its gossip and scandal.

My full sentence was, "I am very much in the camp that royals should be visible but there is something about Richard Palmer's perspective that seems like a perversion, or maybe it isn't and it's just an inconvenient truth. "

I agree that he is being incredibly honest but just because Palmer is being honest that doesn't mean that his perspective has to be embraced, or if it is let's recognize it for what it is which is coverage of the royals is a sub-set of celebrity reporting, which you also implied and why I also mentioned that this is adding up to the Beckhams being the model modern royal family.

The question in my mind is that with all of the good they accomplish, and I do think that the Royal Family in Britain DOES a tremendous amount of good, how do they make the public aware just on social media? People who have an active interest (very few, really), will seek it out, but will the masses? If I'm not interested in the BRF, I don't follow any of their doings on Twiter or like or follow their Facebook. How does the average person (who makes up the majority of the public) remember why he/she wants a royal family?

These are honest questions. In this day and age perception is always more important than reality. Camilla can fight illiteracy day and night but unless there is proper coverage she gets no credit. Same with Kate and mental illness, etc, etc.

Do you buy The Sun? the Daily Express? I am guessing no since you are based in the United States. I get my royal news mostly from this site and the Daily Mail Online. While you may not follow social media there are people who do and then post their findings here. I think that the grievance being expressed is that Kensington Palace has their own social media presence and distributes to the masses via social media which cuts out the middleman, aka royal reporters. The question is why are these reporters truly put out, is it because there is something truly wrong with royals using social media, or is it because in doing so it undermines their livelihood, but not in a nefarious way, rather this is the way things are done in the 21st century.

 

[Skippyboo]

The Royal reporters are using social media too. So it seems a bit hypocritical for one to complain about the royals using social media.




Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Curryong]

I'll be interested to see how many Britons interest themselves in the BRF when newspapers are gone and social media rules the roost. As Cepe said unless you're interested in royalty you don't seek it out, and Facebook, Twitter, various Royal sites are going to be the haunt of a small percentage of the population.

At least with newspapers the royals are there sometimes, on Page 3 or wherever, and people can read the article or not, look at the photos or not. Magazines are also dying, so there'll be no comfort there for anyone at KP who would like to plant a human interest story with photos.

The royals will be confined to documentaries on TV, and not so many of them, and sound bites of a few minutes on the news if they do anything of interest. A brave new world indeed, and one in which the royal family may well be almost invisible.

Perhaps that's what some royals want, but a near-invisible royal family could well turn into a 'Well, we never see them anyway so what's the odds if they go' family within a generation.

 

[Rudolph]

Princess Diana would be proud of her progressive Prince William

As a little boy, he would have learnt that his mother threw herself down the stairs when pregnant with him.

That her marriage to his father was so miserable that she developed bulimia and began cutting herself with razor blades.

When most children are dealing with nothing more complex than times tables, he would have been dealing with the fact that both of his parents were having affairs.

He must have known, mustn’t he? Because we all did.
As a teenager, his parents would be involved in an incredibly bitter and public divorce. Both of them would appear on national television admitting to infidelities.

At 15, he would have to walk behind his mother’s coffin in front of two billion people after she was killed in a car crash that many crazy conspiracy theorists would blame on his family.

Like it or not, the Royals are the beating heart of this country – and I’m completely thrilled that they are now represented by a young family comprised of a stay-at-home dad and a mum who goes out and does most of the work. (I mean, come on, the Duchess of Cambridge is *everywhere* at the moment.)

We should be impressed that Prince William is standing his ground and ensuring that Prince George and Princess Charlotte have the kind of childhood he didn’t. He is a king I will one day be proud to have.

Reas more: Princess Diana would be proud of her progressive Prince William - Telegraph