The Royal Family and the Media

[eya]

Prince William is the jewel in the crown of the Good Ship Monarchy - Kaye Adams - Mirror Online

 

[tommy100]

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

Well it is widely said that the Queen's staff amongst others had to effectively put their foot down in the days after the Death of Diana. When she listened the media coverage turned around. Its been said that since then the Queen has been somewhat more willing to do a bit more of what her staff have suggested.

The fact is W&K's staff are being a lot of money to get an end result, yes of course they need to bear in mind W&Ks wishes but equally this shouldn't stop their staff from giving honest advice.

 

[Rudolph]

Well it is widely said that the Queen's staff amongst others had to effectively put their foot down in the days after the Death of Diana. When she listened the media coverage turned around. Its been said that since then the Queen has been somewhat more willing to do a bit more of what her staff have suggested.

The fact is W&K's staff are being a lot of money to get an end result, yes of course they need to bear in mind W&Ks wishes but equally this shouldn't stop their staff from giving honest advice.

Like I already stated, advisors are there to advise. It's a good boss who makes the decisions.

There is no evidence William doesn't listen to advice. We aren't privy to his conversations. But I like that William is assertive. He is able to take his own council, weigh the options and make a decision.

He stated in an interview that he and Harry were raised by their parents to make their own decisions. If they get it wrong, they learn from it for the next time.

The last thing I want in any leader is someone who is weak willed. I admire William for not being controlled by the men in grey

 

[iisuzieii]

I feel like the nastiness of the press towards the royals stems from the journalists afraid of losing their jobs from tabloids stopping publishing print...that wont be their fault...because all of them who complain are absolutely ridicuolous yes...lets complains that he doesnt shake hands enough....u would rather him do that them help save lives...he has priorities right...these journalist don't....and if they think they have it difficult with will it will be the same when harry gets married and has children...they are deluded to think otherwise.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

That might be true but when you pass a press shop in the UK, good heavens... these screaming headlines setting the couple down as work-shy scroungers. What happened to the respect and reverence for the royal family? Even a president would be treated with more égards.

 

[Dman]

I like that William is head strong when it comes to decisions. I think people give him too much credit in thinking he's making making all these decisions; when I think Catherine also make some decisions, and it's not just about the children.

It's not just about the press getting made over a few things, but I think the young royal couple and their palace officials are contributing to these problems. The fault lies on both sides.

 

[iisuzieii]

The nastiness is because they arent giving them what they want...they need to get over that sense of entitlement...because i would bet any money if those tabloids in the uk weren't around that the royals would still be relevant...

those poor terrible journalists...who will lose their jobs because free internet access to information is something that is not going away anytime soon..maybe they should look into having career changes..because the issue is more than access to royals its the end of print journalism in the uk...and thats the real problem....

lol...as you can see i have no respect at all for tabloid journalists...which is what i consider most uk publications..(just venting...not meant to offend anyone on here...just tired of hearing about these vultures complaining about access to royals and their babies..)

 

[Osipi]

That might be true but when you pass a press shop in the UK, good heavens... these screaming headlines setting the couple down as work-shy scroungers. What happened to the respect and reverence for the royal family? Even a president would be treated with more égards.

One thing I know all of us in this thread realize is that there is a question to ask ourselves when we read things in print concerning the royal family. That question is: "Are they treating the royal family as people or are they using the royal family as a commodity to make money?".

Here in the US, there is the same question to be asked about the president's articles that are published along with snippets about our politicians. For some journalists, covering the issues is the main gist of their reporting. For others, the headlines involve a person cutting the cheese at precisely the wrong time. One quickly learns to separate the wheat from the chaff. Some people actually thrive on the "burp heard around the world" kind of juicy, scandalous gossip and it sells.

When it comes down to the final wire, there is one thing that dominates the media. Green dollars in their pockets.

 

[Lumutqueen]

That might be true but when you pass a press shop in the UK, good heavens... these screaming headlines setting the couple down as work-shy scroungers. What happened to the respect and reverence for the royal family? Even a president would be treated with more égards.

One thing I know all of us in this thread realize is that there is a question to ask ourselves when we read things in print concerning the royal family. That question is: "Are they treating the royal family as people or are they using the royal family as a commodity to make money?".

There's respect for The Queen in the UK simply because of how long she's served and I believe that's all the monarchy have. The press certainly do not respect or revere the royal family because they have no reason to and yes i do believe it was during the Diana years, and after her death when the tide changed. The Press have cottoned on to the idea that they can say practically anything they want, and push the envelope, with no consequences. Do you think we'd have seen the likes of the "Nazi Story" in the early Queen years? Even 20 years ago maybe, for even The Sun to run that there would have been an absolute outcry!

The Royal Family don't need the media, but nowadays the media don't need the royal family. No online or paper versions are selling well, no matter what Catherine wears

The relationship between the royal family and the press needs to improve, they can both work together to promote the royal family, newspaper sales and the UK for the better. I still think the royal family are too closed to help themselves, they just don't see what they can do! Charles has been the best press man in a way, the way he introduced Camilla, his public appearances, the way he speaks, the "spider letters". They need a PR coach, a decent one. Frankly iluvbertie and cepe do more for promoting the RF with their brilliant work on engagement counting than anybody does. You folks need a career change?

Apologies for the long post!

 

[Dman]

Lumutqueen, the royal family do need the media. The media don't need the royal family, but covering the royals do provide jobs for them. The royal family wouldn't still be here if it weren't for good media PR. Their hard work wouldn't be covered if it weren't for the presence of the media. Also, their charities and other organizations wouldn't get the proper spotlight if it weren't for the media.

Things may become testy at times, but the royal family and media must have a respectable and professional working relationship. Technology has changed; so the royals, their official press team and members of the media must figure out ways to continue their professional relationship...and must include some transparency. Right now, there seem to be a bit of a breakdown going on.

 

[Osipi]

The Royal Family don't need the media, but nowadays the media don't need the royal family. No online or paper versions are selling well, no matter what Catherine wears

The relationship between the royal family and the press needs to improve, they can both work together to promote the royal family, newspaper sales and the UK for the better. I still think the royal family are too closed to help themselves, they just don't see what they can do! Charles has been the best press man in a way, the way he introduced Camilla, his public appearances, the way he speaks, the "spider letters". They need a PR coach, a decent one. Frankly iluvbertie and cepe do more for promoting the RF with their brilliant work on engagement counting than anybody does. You folks need a career change?

With all the switching around with the PR staffs and such, I think they've entered into a trial and error period where theres really been more errors than there has been a system that would be a keeper. You've hit the nail on the head where it comes to Charles. He is going to be a fantastic king in my opinion and hopefully by then, the PR people will get their act together and work with the press rather than against it. The press is also going through a drastic reduction in sales and jobs are on the line. You're right in the belief that the press and the RF could work together better to make each other more relevant to the public. The fact that here at TRF we have the best data collecting of royal engagements, what kind they are, when they happen and a very detailed accounting of just about any aspect of the court circular, this is one area where the press could stand a whole lot of improvement.

Apologies for the long post!

I'm glad to see you posting a good, long, informative post again. I've missed them.

 

[tommy100]

Like I already stated, advisors are there to advise. It's a good boss who makes the decisions.

There is no evidence William doesn't listen to advice. We aren't privy to his conversations. But I like that William is assertive. He is able to take his own council, weigh the options and make a decision.

He stated in an interview that he and Harry were raised by their parents to make their own decisions. If they get it wrong, they learn from it for the next time.

The last thing I want in any leader is someone who is weak willed. I admire William for not being controlled by the men in grey

Good leaders listen to those around them. Yes nobody wants a future King who relies on a few advisors (we've seen plenty of examples of that going wrong) but the fact is William & Kate are getting bad press, so either they are getting bad advice or William is calling bad shots and ignoring good advice.

 

[Rudolph]

Good leaders listen to those around them. Yes nobody wants a future King who relies on a few advisors (we've seen plenty of examples of that going wrong) but the fact is William & Kate are getting bad press, so either they are getting bad advice or William is calling bad shots and ignoring good advice.

I'm not so sure. Not a week goes by without a negative article being written about Charles.

Charles is regarded by some on here as being a PR genius and yet his press since the divorce from Diana has been dreadful

He spent millions on PR with operation Camilla Parker-Bowles and that now seems as a waste of money. No more people want her as Queen now than they did when they got married.

Royals in Britain get bad press from time to time. It's the cycle

 

[Lumutqueen]

More people would probably want William as King than Charles, despite being "work-shy". That's got nothing to do with PR, that's got everything to do with age.

 

[soapstar]

I've deleted and edited a few off-topic posts. Please remember that this thread is for discussions about the relationship between the BRF and the media. If you wish to discuss your respect (or lack of respect) for particular members of the BRF, please do so in their individual threads.

 

[Osipi]

I'm not so sure. Not a week goes by without a negative article being written about Charles.

Charles is regarded by some on here as being a PR genius and yet his press since the divorce from Diana has been dreadful

He spent millions on PR with operation Camilla Parker-Bowles and that now seems as a waste of money. No more people want her as Queen now than they did when they got married.

Royals in Britain get bad press from time to time. It's the cycle

To my recollection, Charles is the only one I've seen in a very long time that has actually had about 95% positive comments in the Daily Fail. It was when his "spider letters" were made available to the public. I almost fell off my chair realizing how positively toward Charles the commentators were in this regard.

It was nothing short of a miracle seeing it was the Daily Fail.

 

[eya]

The Media Column: If the Royal Family continues to push out the press, it will put its own future at risk | Voices | The Independent

 

[Rudolph]

The royal family isn't pushing the press out. It's 2016 and that means people communicate in a variety of different ways and newspapers haven't been able to cope.

The royals have a good relationship with television and we'll have an ITV documentary coming up about the Queen where The Duchess of Cambridge is interviewed along with others.

Over half of Britons access their news online, add in tv and you can see why newspapers are fighting for survival.

Social media has also caused grief to fleet street. No longer does one need a printing press in order to get the message out to the masses.

We only have to look around the world to see the influence of Twitter and Facebook on various movements and causes.

So for me, it's not a case of newspapers being pushed out as much as it's just a sign of the times as to how people consume their information

 

[cepe]

thank you Lumutqueen for yr kind words. I'm very happy as I am but if I had the opportunity I would try and get HMQ to talk to William about

1. The difference between the paparazzi/overseas media vs the British press. the Independent article (link #257) is correct when it says that the press at home have been very protective of the Cambridges. Yes, one paper printed a blurred picture of Harry playing naughty pool but that's it! its the foreign press that have caused real problems

2. You need friends to pass on the messages. And those "friends" need readers. Whats wrong with helping each other out? It isn't necessary to do what Diana did - and I'm assuming William knows the reality about her relationship with the press. Use all available media, but include the press. The way its going, it wont be for long.

3. Explain that the press will help unless they themselves are under threat. When Diana died, the immediate response was a massive backlash against the press - in the UK it was huge. So the worm turned and 1stly it was the flags not flying at half mast and then it was an attack on the Queen. I think that everyone now accepts HMQ was correct but not then. The papers think that royal support will help them (at least the editors do, if not the journalists) - use that.

4. Advise him strongly that, in her own words, one needs to be seen to be believed. If the story in the DM is true that she has agreed to his current royal role, then she needs to up the ante. Maybe not full time but they need to be seen (at least one of them) once/twice a week.

5. Ironically, the more they are seen, the less pressure the media will put on them.

 

[Skippyboo]

Let's compare newspaper sales in a preinternet age where the Prince and Princess of Wales were airing their dirty laundry in public to Kate today with instant global access. I wonder which era had higher sales? Kate and Wills meeting anyone during an engagement is not going ever top nude Kim K selfies.

Parliament is hated several times more than the most hated Royal. Are they really going to totally get rid of a 1000 yr old monarchy based on the headlines of a dying industry.

When the Queen dies, there will be something that most people haven't seen. A new British monarch, a coronation ceremony. That's new interest. William and Kate will be full time royals and there goes the lazy argument.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[royal rob]

I don't understand the media need the royal family view. What about the rest of the world that don't have a royal family seem to be getting along ok. I really do think it's the royal family that need the media.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Rudolph]

Both my children along with my nieces and nephews are royalists. They follow everything abut the royals but they do it on Instagram, Twitter and the internet. None of them buy newspapers.

If people aren't buying newspapers and not getting news and views from other sources, we'd have to ask questions about the way the population was headed, but they have simply migrated to internet and social media.

The sooner newspapers realise they aren't owed anything by the royals, the sooner the royals maybe willing to work with the press.

 

[Dman]

I don't understand the media need the royal family view. What about the rest of the world that don't have a royal family seem to be getting along ok. I really do think it's the royal family that need the media.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

The royal family do need the media, but the media don't need to the royal family. Covering the royals do provide jobs for the media though.

Like I said before, technology has changed, so the royals and media must improve their professional working relationship.

 

[Curryong]

One could make an argument for welcoming the end of newspapers, especially the tabloids, as far as the royals are concerned. However, the Internet, 'news' sites, forums, blogs etc., aren't exactly glowing in their coverage of the royals either. And, unlike newspapers they aren't bound by any libel laws or editorial decisions. On the Internet people can and often do say exactly what they think and facts go out the window in a way even the tabloids don't attempt.

I give you, for example, the horrendous and totally disgusting speculation about surrogacy and Kate's pregnancies which goes on unchecked in another forum day after day. God help any naive young person who knows little of the royals reading that tripe.

People reading newspapers can at least see photos of the royals going about their business on various occasions even if they can't be bothered to read the story. With papers gone what proportion of the British people are going to look up various royals on the Internet if they aren't particularly interested?

Most will then only see the royals occasionally on the TV news or on documentaries many won't bother to watch. (Free to air TV is dying as well.) From there it's only a tiny jump to "Well, we hardly see them anyway, so what use are they?"

When newspapers go I shall be sad for all sorts of reasons. However, I don't think anyone should fool themselves that this is going to herald some bright new dawn for the BRF.

 

[Curryong]

The Independent's view.

The Media Column: If the Royal Family continues to push out the press, it will put its own future at risk | Voices | The Independent

 

[royal rob]

Excellent post curryong

 

[Rudolph]

The Media Column: If the Royal Family continues to push out the press, it will put its own future at risk | Voices | The Independent

The Independent is a good example. It ceased print production last month because of costs and falling sales and is now available only by digital edition.

 

[Queen Camilla]

Why is it when William receives bad press it is always someone else's fault?

Why is it when Charles or Camilla receives bad press it is because of something they did?

Why is it when William receives positive press it is because of something he did?

Why is it when Camilla receives positive press it is because of a PR campaign?

William’s bad press is blamed on the media being childish, testy, petulant, fighting for their existence, etc.
Or William’s bad press is blamed on his press office being incompetent.
Or William’s bad press is the fault of the Palace.
Or the Queen is at fault for William’s bad press.
Or it is the fault of Prince Charles.
Everyone is blamed for William’s bad press except William.

The same for William’s mother, when she received positive press it was because of something she did but if she received negative press it was because the press was petulant, nasty, greedy or Prince Charles put them up to it, etc.

Diana received positive press because she gave them what they wanted. She and her mother were ‘in bed’ with press before she married Charles. (Check out Colin Campbell’s 1991 book and James Whitaker's 1981 book.

Diana created a relationship with James Whitaker before she married Charles.
He created the ‘shy Di’ myth because she slouched and walked with her head down. Other media picked up on it and the myth was born. A media/press creation that so many believe is true even though Diana, herself said it was not true.

When photographs of her with other men in less than ideal positions were sent to the media, the media refused to published.

When her intimate conversation with James Gilbey was recorded the press sat on it for a long time and only published a highly edited version of the conversation to protect Diana’s image.

Yet this same media treated Prince Charles completely different.

The difference is the press and the press willingness to overlook all of Diana’s faults & indiscretions because she ‘played ball’ with them. Her image sold more than Charles so they had to protect their bottom line and so they protected her and her image.

The media created the positive image of Diana that so many believe is true.
The media created the negative image of Charles that so many believe is true.
The media created the negative image of Camilla that so many believe is true.

The media can create the negative image of William.

The media created Princess Anne's surly image. Princess Anne was at a 3 day equestrian event and the media had plenty of time to photograph her.

A group of photographs chased her while she was riding (extremely dangerous). The clicking noise from the cameras and flashbulbs near the horse could have caused an accident. She said 'naff off'.

Now a large majority of the 'public' believes she is surly.

A few years before this incidence, Princess Anne had fallen off a horse and had been unconscious. She had a concussion and could not even remember if she had started the race.

Yet a large percentage of the 'public' believes she is surly because the media created the image.

There are 54 pages in the Camilla and Public (press image) thread.

 

[MARG]

Excellent post. The "naff off" incident came after she came off her horse before the jump after her horse was spooked by a camera flash. I personally thought "naff off" was pretty mild considering they could have killed her. Instead, they portrayed her as abrasive and abusive in a classic case of blame the victim. Our Princess isn't very feminine has been a handle she carried from there on out.

As to William. I have a problem with a man in his 30's behaving like a sulky child and pouting in public. Regardless of how annoyed he is, he needs to display a little grace and tolerance. I do not mean to be callous but I think the "they killed his mother" excuse is a total crock. There are royals and celebrities throughout Europe who are followed, if not hounded, far more than William. They just don't sell most of those photos in the US.

 

[Dman]

William do display a great of grace and dignity when performing public engagements. Although, I don't think William and Catherine wave enough to the crowds, but whatever.

I also notice, the young royals do very little walkabouts than they used to. Anyone else notice that? That always provided the media with lots of great pictures, and with more writing material.