The Royal Family and the Media


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
From the article, I think this section has impressed me the most.

"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.)"

Ok. So many people can read this and shout "workshy!" "doesn't want his royal responsibilities!" and lets Kate go running wild around the country doing her thing. This is not what I see. What I see is teamwork. This is a family that rightly puts the home and children first and William isn't above staying home with the kids when Kate is needed to bring attention to the issues she's involved in.

What better example of promoting mental health for children than practicing what they preach and ensuring that a parent is never away for long from their children? How many young parents are going to look to W&K and see what works for their family and strive to do likewise? Sure, there will be times when both parents are needed and away (the India trip for example) but I am sure both George and Charlotte will "see" their parents daily by the wonders of Skype or other means.

This couple have a very active life but to me, they're doing a pretty good job of balancing home life, professional life and royal life. That's quite a juggle in my book. We really don't see 85% of it and base our diatribes against this couple on the small percentage of what is known in the public venue and by the rantings of the media.
 
Yes, I rather like the expression of a 'stay at home dad'. Why shouldn't he be a parttime parent together with his wife, they can afford it. My husband lamments the fact that he can't spend more time with his children because he has to work to pay the bills.
 
Rudolph said:
Reas more: Princess Diana would be proud of her progressive Prince William - Telegraph
Click to expand...

More from this article:

According to reports, he puts in a paltry 20-hour week as a pilot with the East Anglian Air Ambulance service. To make matters worse, last year he carried out just 122 engagements, compared to his grandmother’s 341 and his father’s impressive 527.

Kensington Palace sources blamed this on Civil Aviation Authority rules, which dictate that pilots need a certain amount of rest days – but the CAA quickly rubbished this, by saying that pilots are free to do whatever they want on these days as long as it doesn’t involve flying.

Even so, he snubbed this month’s glittering Bafta show, despite being president of the organisation. “A lot of people, particularly the Americans, couldn’t believe he wasn’t there,” a guest at a Kensington Palace nominees party told Vanity Fair. “I heard Angela Bassett say, ‘Where’s William? This is his house. Isn’t he coming?’ She was pretty disappointed. Most of the guests I spoke with thought William would at least pop in.” Poor Angela!

Call me a giant softie, but if the worst the Duke does in life is stick two fingers up at a bunch of pampered primadonnas so he can stay at home with his wife and young children, then, frankly, fair play to him.

Because if I had even a smidgeon of his experiences as a child, I can tell you now that I would be riddled with fear and self-loathing – with several thousand spells in rehab under my belt.

I certainly wouldn’t have settled down with a nice woman who works tirelessly to champion children’s mental health charities, and nor would I have produced two sweet, smiling kids. I would have locked myself away in a room full of money, cocaine and prostitutes before shrieking: “To hell with this cruel, dark world – there’s no way I’m bringing children into it!”

This is why I will forgive Prince William and his brother Harry almost anything. I will forgive the Nazi fancy dress costume, and the nights of partying in Las Vegas. I will forgive William’s alleged hatred of the press because… well, I think I would hate the press, too, in his shoes.

And it is why I wince when I hear commentators say that they both need to grow up and move on from their mother’s death, because why on earth should they?

She was their mother, their actual living, breathing mother who they only got to reach out and touch for an astonishingly short period of time, all things considered. (William is now really not that far off the age that Diana, Princess of Wales was when she died.)

To them, she wasn’t just a mad old royal they read about in Hello! magazine. She was mum.

As the Queen’s 90th birthday approaches, I fear that criticisms of the young royals will only increase. But it is important to remember that, as brilliant as our monarch is, she has had to make huge personal sacrifices along the way.

When Prince Charles was a boy, Her Majesty was absent so often that he is said to have not recognised her when she returned from one particularly lengthy trip. Can you really blame William if he doesn’t want that for his own children?
Click to expand...
 
ROYAL NORWAY said:
More from this article:
Click to expand...

Excellent article...(eta not sure why it didn't quote)....and to put it further if he was gone all the time working both jobs people would be criticizing him for abandoning his family! Just like they did Charles. You can't make everyone happy..I'd tell them all to Naff Off and do as I liked.


LaRae
 
Last edited:
Pranter said:
Excellent article...(eta not sure why it didn't quote)....and to put it further if he was gone all the time working both jobs people would be criticizing him for abandoning his family! Just like they did Charles. You can't make everyone happy..I'd tell them all to Naff Off and do as I liked.


LaRae
Click to expand...

Basically, that's what I see them doing. Going about their lives and doing what follows their plan and paying very little attention (if any) to the constant barrage of media articles about every aspect of their lives. The only input they take into serious consideration comes from the higher powers that be in the Firm. As William once said “As I learned from growing up, you don't mess with your grandmother."
 
^^^Good post Osipi. IMHO the Cambridges and Harry have known that like the brothers' parents, grandparents and other relatives, they would one day be on the receiving end of less than pleasant press coverage. Royal reporters have been grumbling for several months now so I believe they knew if was coming, though I do believe that the tabloid's insistence that William's Foreign Office signaled support for the EU took them by surprise. (Especially since the text of his speech revealed that he never mentioned Europe.)
 
TLLK said:
^^^Good post Osipi. IMHO the Cambridges and Harry have known that like the brothers' parents, grandparents and other relatives, they would one day be on the receiving end of less than pleasant press coverage. Royal reporters have been grumbling for several months now so I believe they knew if was coming, though I do believe that the tabloid's insistence that William's Foreign Office signaled support for the EU took them by surprise. (Especially since the text of his speech revealed that he never mentioned Europe.)
Click to expand...

Even if he had mentioned Europe explicitly, he would not have been the first royal to take a pro-EU position. Both Queen Beatrix and King Albert II are known for example for having come strongly in favor of European integration and against local right-wing isolationist parties in their televised, end-of-year messages.
 
However their countries aren't about to hold a referendum on staying in or leaving the EU. That is the problem with this speech as it was interpreted as supporting one side in a major political debate in the UK at the moment - something that is a definite no-no for a future monarch. The fact that he didn't directly refer to the EU has escaped many people but even so it was ill-advised at this point in time in the UK as one side is able to use even the reference to closer union with the world as meaning closer union with the UK at a time when many people there are getting ready to vote to leave that organisation.
 
How many of the people who are upset actually read what he said? Not many I would guess. Probably just saw a headline on an article. I read his speech. He told diplomats that the UK has been an outward looking nation and that it had to continue to work with other countries. He cited the cooperation with the Japanese after the earthquake as a example. He mentioned NATO. He is right.

No country can go it alone anymore. You need help from your neighbors and allies to share information about security threats and intelligence, recovery from unexpected events, sharing the defense costs. Not to mention the global economy.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
To be honest, I'm a little bit stumped about what else he could have said to a room full of Foreign Office diplomats. International co-operation is kind of their thing.

You don't accept an invitation to someone's house and then studiously avoid talking about the travel slides they're showing you, or tell them that they shouldn't have taken them. It's rude. You go, you watch the slides, and you say "those are great slides, you look like you had a great time".

Similarly, you don't accept an invitation to the Foreign Office and then avoid discussing their work. You listen to what they're showing you about the new training program, and then praise the work they're doing. That's the point of going.

Do people think he should have cancelled because of Brexit? Or, if not, what do people who disagree with what he said think his speech should have contained instead?
 
Good post hal. Great to get your common sense views on this topic. Also I would believe that any of these types of speeches would have been screened by the government before being delivered.
 
Skippyboo said:
How many of the people who are upset actually read what he said? Not many I would guess. Probably just saw a headline on an article. I read his speech. He told diplomats that the UK has been an outward looking nation and that it had to continue to work with other countries. He cited the cooperation with the Japanese after the earthquake as a example. He mentioned NATO. He is right.

No country can go it alone anymore. You need help from your neighbors and allies to share information about security threats and intelligence, recovery from unexpected events, sharing the defense costs. Not to mention the global economy.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Click to expand...
I agree with everything you've stated Skippyboo.
 
TLLK said:
Good post hal. Great to get your common sense views on this topic. Also I would believe that any of these types of speeches would have been screened by the government before being delivered.
Click to expand...

LOL - the government is officially on the side of "remain", so I'm sure they had NO problem whatsoever with his remarks as given.
 
Katie Nicholl's story is interesting and I have no doubt that William does like to have his own way and that his staff won't say no to him.

But the piece ignores the huge gaping hole that is the press's collective decision that William needed to be taken down a peg or two, and that the narrative has been crafted quite deliberately to do just that.

William's 2015 event total, and its relationship to HM & PP's, went public in the first week of January. It didn't become a major issue until February, though that's not the way that Nicholl's story is written; if you read her story, you'd be excused for thinking that the details "emerged" after Kate's stint editing the Huffington Post. If you read her story, you'd think that he made a gaffe at the FO and *then* Kate pissed off the press with the HuffPo piece. But they were already pissed off about HuffPo by the time the speech happened, and I'm convinced that it informed their decision to spin it as a gaffe.

And, ultimately, I think that the HuffPo piece is the lynchpin to the narrative. The british press pack were so incredibly offended by it that they've spun everything since as negatively as possible. They decided his speech at the FO was ripe for a negative spin and gave it one. They brought up, again, the 2015 totals (which had already been reported on at the beginning of January) and then dug up someone at EAAA willing to complain. They blew their tops at the ski trip and dug up every bit of mud they could to fling about it.

Now, the KP office has made some huge blunders, no doubt. The CAA reproving them was flatly embarrassing. But as long as the press continues to pretend that they don't spin just as much as Jason Knauf does, and admit that they bear responsibility for at least part of the continuing decline in the situation, it's going to keep spiraling down.

The press keep trying to get William to fall in line by pissing him off, and it's never going to work (again "behaviour such as this is unlikely to induce me to be explicit"). As much as William needs the press, he has all the time in the world to turn the narrative around -- and if you don't think he can do that, look at Anne in 1980 vs Anne in 1990, or even 1985. I'm not convinced that the press pack has the same job security.
 
At the end of the day, advisors are there to advise, not make the final decision.

I'd like to know the name of any courtier who has put their 'foot down' with the Queen or Prince Charles

William, Kate and Harry all have their own private secretaries and unless Katie Nicholl is privy to their conversations, she has no way of knowing what the advice is that William is supposedly not listening to

There was a unified press office in 2014 run by Charles that was a disaster by all accounts and it went back to individual offices

And after the disastrous years of Mark Bolland working for Charles and Camilla, the Queen had enough and stepped in and appointed her own courtier, Sir Michael Peat to oversee the Prince of Wales' household.

Since this isn't happening with the Cambridges and Harry, I will assume everything is okay
 
:previous:
hel said:
Katie Nicholl's story is interesting and I have no doubt that William does like to have his own way and that his staff won't say no to him.

But the piece ignores the huge gaping hole that is the press's collective decision that William needed to be taken down a peg or two, and that the narrative has been crafted quite deliberately to do just that.

William's 2015 event total, and its relationship to HM & PP's, went public in the first week of January. It didn't become a major issue until February, though that's not the way that Nicholl's story is written; if you read her story, you'd be excused for thinking that the details "emerged" after Kate's stint editing the Huffington Post. If you read her story, you'd think that he made a gaffe at the FO and *then* Kate pissed off the press with the HuffPo piece. But they were already pissed off about HuffPo by the time the speech happened, and I'm convinced that it informed their decision to spin it as a gaffe.

And, ultimately, I think that the HuffPo piece is the lynchpin to the narrative. The british press pack were so incredibly offended by it that they've spun everything since as negatively as possible. They decided his speech at the FO was ripe for a negative spin and gave it one. They brought up, again, the 2015 totals (which had already been reported on at the beginning of January) and then dug up someone at EAAA willing to complain. They blew their tops at the ski trip and dug up every bit of mud they could to fling about it.

Now, the KP office has made some huge blunders, no doubt. The CAA reproving them was flatly embarrassing. But as long as the press continues to pretend that they don't spin just as much as Jason Knauf does, and admit that they bear responsibility for at least part of the continuing decline in the situation, it's going to keep spiraling down.

The press keep trying to get William to fall in line by pissing him off, and it's never going to work (again "behaviour such as this is unlikely to induce me to be explicit"). As much as William needs the press, he has all the time in the world to turn the narrative around -- and if you don't think he can do that, look at Anne in 1980 vs Anne in 1990, or even 1985. I'm not convinced that the press pack has the same job security.
Click to expand...
:previous: Excellent summary of the situation hel. I agree that the desperation is coming from the press and they know their days are numbered.
 
Post #231 by hel is a really good summary of the real situation.

I am continually surprised that anyone believes what the DM says. Katie Nicholls and Richard Kay have been caught out too many times to be believed. In the last 5 days Richard Kay has even contradicted himself, and Katie Nicholls would need a compass to get back on track.

The current situation is more about press survival than Royal survival
. Not one paper in the UK is making money, and neither are the online alternatives. Last time we saw this sort of fight back (albeit more serious event) was when Diana died. The immediate response of the British people was to turn on the press. So what did the press do? Turn it round and blame HMQ. With hindsight we know what HMQ did in looking after her grandchildren was the right thing. But the press fooled the public and we shouldn't ever let it happen again.

And this time the press are fighting to survive
 
hel said:
As much as William needs the press, he has all the time in the world to turn the narrative around -- and if you don't think he can do that, look at Anne in 1980 vs Anne in 1990, or even 1985. I'm not convinced that the press pack has the same job security.
Click to expand...

There is a big difference between Princess Anne and William.

Princess Anne always received great press. By the mid 1980s, she was mostly only covered by the local press and they gave her great reviews.

Her recent visit, there was over 90 photographs. The national press judged her by her appearance and have rarely followed Anne since 1981 when the press had someone younger who almost always wore a different outfit for each outing vs Princess Anne who continually rewore the same outfit.

William on the other hand rarely does local events so is not followed by the local press but the national press.

Anne has been respected for her work since 1970.

Princess Anne comments about the press in this 1981 documentary where they followed her around for a year. 4 parts. She also comments about Australia republic ambitions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2H_9lLoK0Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnideFyRSWA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4QMbrLs9K0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfuuFab_RRc

The press always respected Anne for her hard work. Princess Anne did did not cancel her trip to Fiji in 1980 even though she was pregnant.
The four part documentary was shot when she was 6 and 7 months pregnant.

Princess Anne did several interviews in the early 1980s and she talked about the press and why she has her 'reputation.

There was never any accusation that Anne was workshy or lazy.
 
Last edited:
The press needs work, of course, but I think I the Cambridge's advisors, press team and the couple themselves have to make a few adjustments. Perhaps, things will smooth out by the time of the royal tour and birthday celebrations. Things have been way too testy lately.
 
Queen Camilla said:
There is a big difference between Princess Anne and William.

Princess Anne always received great press. By the mid 1980s, she was mostly only covered by the local press and they gave her great reviews.

Her recent visit, there was over 90 photographs. The national press judged her by her appearance and have rarely followed Anne since 1981 when the press had someone younger who almost always wore a different outfit for each outing vs Princess Anne who continually rewore the same outfit.

William on the other hand rarely does local events so is not followed by the local press but the national press.

Anne has been respected for her work since 1970.

Princess Anne comments about the press in this 1981 documentary where they followed her around for a year. 4 parts. She also comments about Australia republic ambitions.

The press always respected Anne for her hard work. Princess Anne did did not cancel her trip to Fiji in 1980 even though she was pregnant.
The four part documentary was shot when she was 6 and 7 months pregnant.

Princess Anne did several interviews in the early 1980s and she talked about the press and why she has her 'reputation.

There was never any accusation that Anne was workshy or lazy.
Click to expand...

She hasn't always received great press. Here's an article from 1985 that talks about some of the negative press she received.

Hardwork brings Anne in from the cold
 
Princess Anne had her testy moments with the media. Now days, they pretty much have a great deal of respect for her. They don't cover her much, to her relief, but her hard work and dedication to the "Firm" has earned her a spot on the "its all good" list.
 
soapstar said:
She hasn't always received great press. Here's an article from 1985 that talks about some of the negative press she received.

Hardwork brings Anne in from the cold
Click to expand...

That is just one person's view. I suggest you look at the videos from 1970 onward. It is just some in the press who created the image.

Princess Anne discusses her 'reputation' in several of these interviews. In one, not sure if uploaded, she said the national press write stories about her even though they were not in attendance.

How can someone write that Anne was surly if they were never there?

The local press always praises Princess Anne.

I can upload even more of Princess Anne interviews from the 1980s as she did several and she discussed how & why she received her 'reputation' and from whom.

Seeing her interviews and hearing how her 'reputation' can into being is more accurate than one person's opinion.

His opinion is also very inaccurate as she was never labeled as lazy.

When the press followed her in 1970/1 for her first visit to Africa for Save the Children she was praised as hard working.

In 1980/81, she was praised as hard working.
The person following her could not keep up with her and said to her that maybe she should take it easy.

In 1984, interview she was praised as hard working both in the Australian interview and the BBC interviews.

In 1987 she was also praised a hard working.

They praised her for her commitment to her royals duties and her
equestrian career.
 
Last edited:
That I open the DM on my daily round of British newspapers (The Guardian, The Independent, The Telegraph and The Times) and then not once but really for days see "Work-Shy" as adjective to the Duke of Duchess of Cambridge, in connection with their winter-break. This is so low, so under the belt. I know DM is one of the worst but they still are one of the biggest too. This sort of wham! right in da' face insults is unseen in regular media on the Continent. Even the feared Bild Zeitung in republican Germany has a more appreciative tone for the Cambridges than the own British newspapers. Good heavens!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Somebody
British Royal Family and the Media
Replies
0
Views
329
Somebody
Somebody
Blog Real
St. George′s Church and the Mausoleum of Royal Family
Replies
2
Views
551
Blog Real
Blog Real
P
Royal Teenagers and social media
Replies
4
Views
2K
Queen Claude
Queen Claude
Blog Real
Curtea de Argeș Cathedral (burial place of the Romanian Royal Family)
Replies
1
Views
420
Blog Real
Blog Real
Marengo
  • Sticky
United Kingdom: Birthday and Anniversary Wishes 2024
2
Replies
57
Views
3K
Biri
B

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom