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.
We only have to look back to the 90s to see how the preparations and the practices for royal funerals is a very good thing. When Diana died in Paris so unexpectedly, they had the Tay Bridge plan to fall back on as that was the funeral procession practiced for when the Queen Mother passed away and they were able to use that model for Diana's funeral.

If anything, the British Royal Family is well prepared for most anything to come their way.
 
Dman said:
Yeah, I know. I like that they're preparing though, because those days will come. The networks have to be ready.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I would do that if I were them anyway, as it must also be a practical matter as well as a big event, however sad it may be.
 
I would imagine the BBC is keen to avoid a repeat of the grey suit/burgundy tie "scandal" of '02 ;)

Everything will be ready to go almost immediately once the news of a death is relayed to the BBC by the Palace - the exact wording of the obituary might be written on the spot, but outfits, pre-recorded film reels, etc will all be brought out of their boxes.

No room for error these days.
 
I'm sure I remember reading that the BBC (or perhaps it was another channel) has different grades of coverage depending on who dies in the royal family. They used to have a few categories which certain members and other celebrities were in.

Edit:

I found the article. Five of the Royal Family demoted as BBC changes its protocol on broadcast death list

I am surprised Harry is in the same list as his uncles and aunts.

Category 1: Queen, Philip, Charles and William (and I now imagine George)

The others belonged to "Category 2" which was abolished in 2010. They are now just in "Other Notables".

Old Category 2: Camilla, Harry, Andrew, Edward and Sophie. I imagine Kate and Charlotte are now in this group.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Molly2101 said:
I'm sure I remember reading that the BBC (or perhaps it was another channel) has different grades of coverage depending on who dies in the royal family. They used to have a few categories which certain members and other celebrities were in.

Edit:

I found the article. Five of the Royal Family demoted as BBC changes its protocol on broadcast death list

I am surprised Harry is in the same list as his uncles and aunts.

Category 1: Queen, Philip, Charles and William (and I now imagine George)

The others belonged to "Category 2" which was abolished in 2010. They are now just in "Other Notables".

Old Category 2: Camilla, Harry, Andrew, Edward and Sophie. I imagine Kate and Charlotte are now in this group.
Click to expand...


I would think a lot of this would depend on the circumstances. Andrew dying from a heart attack in his sleep probably gets a scroll across the bottom of the screen. If Harry died in some sort of accident, it going to get a lot of breaking coverage. The BBC would have to break into programming if the US President or the Pope was assassinated.

That article is also several years old and now with social media a high profile death is going to spread rapidly across the internet.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Rudolph said:
The Sun wrote this and Harry rightly denied it. Everyone knows 99 percent of what's printed about the royals is rubbish but in this case it would have Harry taking a position different from that of the government.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19888...sh-soldiers-for-trumped-up-war-crimes-a-joke/

Kensington Palace @KensingtonRoyal
Kensington Palace has made the following statement regarding
today's front page story in The Sun:
https://twitter.com/KensingtonRoyal/status/787954763774226432
Click to expand...

Well why let the facts get in the way of a sensational headline or "story?" :whistling:Yes Harry was right to issue a statement through KP.
 
Skippyboo said:
I would think a lot of this would depend on the circumstances. Andrew dying from a heart attack in his sleep probably gets a scroll across the bottom of the screen. If Harry died in some sort of accident, it going to get a lot of breaking coverage. The BBC would have to break into programming if the US President or the Pope was assassinated.

That article is also several years old and now with social media a high profile death is going to spread rapidly across the internet.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Click to expand...

It makes perfect sense IMO, under the new system the Queen, Philip Charles and William get full blanket coverage of their death, this is IMO what the public (or the majority) would expect, especially for HM, Charles and William as it would change the course of British history. For the other royals its not saying they are not important, IMO is simply recognize that over time their position in public life changes. Even now, as much as people like her, the death of the Countess of Wessex would not grind the nation to a halt.
Likewise much would depend on how and when one of the other royal dies, Harry being involved in a terrible accident would make headlines 'on merit' (to quote the new bbc procedures) where as an older member of the RF slipping away in their sleep would not really be that shocking.
 
If Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall or Kate died prematurely (praying not) they aren't going to change the course of history either, but I would imagine their deaths would get a great deal of coverage, as would Harry dying at 35 (again pray not) rather than 95.

Incidentally, I think a lot of people, especially those under 30 years of age, get their news from the Internet news sites nowadays, rather than the BBC!
 
Last edited:
Molly2101 said:
I'm sure I remember reading that the BBC (or perhaps it was another channel) has different grades of coverage depending on who dies in the royal family. They used to have a few categories which certain members and other celebrities were in.

Edit:

I found the article. Five of the Royal Family demoted as BBC changes its protocol on broadcast death list

I am surprised Harry is in the same list as his uncles and aunts.

Category 1: Queen, Philip, Charles and William (and I now imagine George)

The others belonged to "Category 2" which was abolished in 2010. They are now just in "Other Notables".

Old Category 2: Camilla, Harry, Andrew, Edward and Sophie. I imagine Kate and Charlotte are now in this group.
Click to expand...

I would say hors categorie are:
- Queen Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh
- The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall
- The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge

But this says little. The late Diana had left the royal family but her death was the biggest news event ever.
 
Diana's death the biggest news story ever? Over the Kennedy assassination, men landing on the moon, 9/11, etc .... The death of the ex wife of the Prince of Wales is not above several events of the last 50 years.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Skippyboo said:
Diana's death the biggest news story ever? Over the Kennedy assassination, men landing on the moon, 9/11, etc .... The death of the ex wife of the Prince of Wales is not above several events of the last 50 years.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Click to expand...

Diana's death is in those same categories you just listed. Doesn't matter about her being an ex of a Prince of Wales.
 
We are just going to have to agree to disagree. The events I listed changed history, wars were started, things invented . How much history was changed with Diana's death? The Queen is still on the throne, Charles is next in line. The monarchy didn't fall. Countries weren't invaded as a direct response.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Skippyboo said:
Diana's death the biggest news story ever? Over the Kennedy assassination, men landing on the moon, 9/11, etc .... The death of the ex wife of the Prince of Wales is not above several events of the last 50 years.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Click to expand...

Kennedy's death was in 1963. The accessibility to media with 24 hours coverage and direct broadcast was incomparable to the gigantic media-"event" which was the death of Diana.

This thread is about media, not about history-changing events. The other examples (Kennedy, Twin Towers, Landing on the Moon) have nothing to do with royals and media.
 
Skippyboo said:
We are just going to have to agree to disagree. The events I listed changed history, wars were started, things invented . How much history was changed with Diana's death? The Queen is still on the throne, Charles is next in line. The monarchy didn't fall. Countries weren't invaded as a direct response.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Click to expand...

Her death had a major impact on the royal family and media, especially with their relationship with each other.

You can't reflect on the year of 1997 without going over the major world event of Diana's death.
 
I think you have to admit that the death of those on or directly in line to the throne would change history. The death of a much beloved royal may be an important, even historically important event but there is no way to plan for this in terms of forward planning the type of broadcast the BBC would put on as it all depends on circumstance, how popular the royal in question is at the time. Clearly if a young member of the RF were to die in a horrendous accident that would get more reporting on and more coverage as events unfolded than an older, less known member of the RF slipping away at the end of a good life.

Personally I don't think Diana's death changed the course of history (in the way I agree the Kennedy assassination, 9/11 were) but I do think even decades from now it will be seen as a historically important moment.
 
Last edited:
Dman said:
Diana's death is in those same categories you just listed. Doesn't matter about her being an ex of a Prince of Wales.
Click to expand...

We have to figure in the unexpectedness and the shock factor that most felt upon hearing of Diana's death. That played a big role too in the assassination of JFK in Dallas or as the horrible deaths of thousands on 9/11 did. Time heals all and as time passed, all deaths are remembered but in a more reflective manner.

JFK and 9/11 impacted much more than the grieving people as time went on. Diana's death was a tragedy but the world continued on with no after effects really from her death unless you count in the impact she's had on her sons and how they present themselves on the world stage today.

Again, its all in personal perspectives and the media's prime directive is to reach their readers. When we really think about it, each life is priceless.
 
Osipi said:
We have to figure in the unexpectedness and the shock factor that most felt upon hearing of Diana's death. That played a big role too in the assassination of JFK in Dallas or as the horrible deaths of thousands on 9/11 did. Time heals all and as time passed, all deaths are remembered but in a more reflective manner.

JFK and 9/11 impacted much more than the grieving people as time went on. Diana's death was a tragedy but the world continued on with no after effects really from her death unless you count in the impact she's had on her sons and how they present themselves on the world stage today.

Again, its all in personal perspectives and the media's prime directive is to reach their readers. When we really think about it, each life is priceless.
Click to expand...

Well, the world carries on no matter who dies. The world stops for no one.

Diana's death did have major after effects. The royal family's working and professional relationship with the mainstream media changed forever. Some for good and some for bad.

Also Diana's death brought on changes on the paparazzi interest in the royal family. Also, her passing also changed people's perception of the British royal family and being royal period.

August 1997 is a year the royal family and media were hit very hard.
 
Imo Diana's death was not earth-moving, but if it affected one thing it was the way the BRF dealt with the media and (imo driven through guilt at how they treated Diana) the way some parts of the media dealt with the BRF.
So if in any thread on these forums Diana's death is of influence it imo is this one :flowers:
 
Rudolph said:
Good for Beatrice. I love when the royals protect their privacy



David Bond ‏@DJBond6873

IPSO upholds complaint against Mail Online from Princess Beatrice over holiday pics. Royals on the march v the press



https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=04455-16





IPSO adjudication upheld: Princess Beatrice | Daily Mail Online
Click to expand...


I've just deleted the Daily Mail App. Their Royal reporting has really been scraping the barrel lately and they breach privacy on an almost daily basis.


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community
 
Last edited:
David Baddiel's radio show Don't Make Me Laugh, which broadcast jokes about the Queen on her 90th birthday, has been found in breach of Ofcom rules.

The media watchdog received 12 complaints about the episode, which went out on 21 April on BBC Radio 4.

The BBC had already said it considered the jokes - about the Queen having sex - to be a serious breach of its editorial guidelines.

Ofcom said the comments had a "mocking and demeaning tone".

The watchdog added that "the potential for offence was increased by the fact that these remarks were broadcast on the Queen's 90th birthday".

It found the jokes were not justified by the context.
Click to expand...
Read more: Queen radio show joke breached Ofcom rules - BBC News
 
It sounds like Don't Make Me Laugh was subsequently dropped due to it having few listeners. Good!
 
Whether it was world-changing or not, Diana's death was greeted with intense media coverage, including the suspension of regular programming on some networks.

But whether that happens does not simply depend on the status of the individual who dies or the likelihood of their death being a pivot point of serious change. It also depends on the nature of the death (does it follow a long illness? was it a shocking accident?) as well as what else is going on in the world at that moment.

If the news has been relatively quiet for a while, the death of a famous figure, whether celebrity or royal, is going to become a major focus for the media. Networks may not suspend regular programming, but it can still feel as if they had when news program after news program choose that death as their focus. If it happens at the same time as a big election, a natural disaster, a jumbo jet crash, etc., then it won't feel as if the death gets that much attention because there will be plenty of other "news of the day" sharing the media's focus.

Diana's death was a "perfect storm:" she was a major international celebrity, her death was unexpected and shocking, and a quick check back at what was going on shows one ongoing story that news folks should cover but hate covering (massacres in Algeria), a plane crash that had happened earlier in the month and reached the point of little new development, and not much else, so they were hungry for "new news."
 
Since she allegedly had a habit of reading everything about herself, I believe she'd have had a difficult time with the negative comments about herself,sons, daughter-in-law and grandchildren that invariably come with social media. :sad:
I believe that most royals cope with that side social media by ignoring the negative as much as possible.
 
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