General News for the Cambridge Family 2: January 2015-March 2017

[Curryong]

The print media may be dying but there is absolutely no guarantee that what will replace them in the future is going to be more sympathetic to the royals in general or the Cambridges in particular than the British print media have been. They certainly won't be held to any 'I'll scratch your back, I'll scratch yours' arrangement which the Palace and newspaper editors have had in the past.

Royals, including the Cambridges and KP, might not like dealing with the print press any more but each newspaper has circulations in the millions still (including families that share newspapers) and they are still influential. It's OK to huff and puff and say a particular journalist is deranged, but the press does seem to have smoother relations with BP and Clarence House lately while KP seems central to problems.

The public is fickle and can indeed turn. I'm old enough to remember Andrew coming back from the Falklands to glowing praise from the press, and keep in mind that Charles for all his hard work over decades still hasn't recovered from the mauling he got from the print media in the days of 'the War of the Wales'.

The Press is still an organ that can mould public opinion, and I believe that the Cambridges and their Press office will ignore that at their peril.

 

[Rudolph]

Andrew was indeed a war hero but hanging out with paedophiles torpedoes one's popularity as does having a mistress on the side while you're married to the most popular royal a la Charles.

No such scandals around the Cambridges.

The royals don't ignore the media but at the same time they're not in bed with it either.

We just had a documentary on the BBC called reinventing the royals. With all the details about the strained relations between the press and the royals. Nothing new. Been going on for years but it doesn't impact public opinion.

The royal who are not very popular today like the Yorks or to a lesser extent C&C have only themselves to blame.

 

[HRHHermione]

I think Richard Palmer is melting down because media is changing. Social media is becoming the dominant PR tool for a lot of major corporations and individuals- press releases are usually a bit behind, and it's because we no longer live in a world where something can be sent and embargoed with any degree of success.

I think what Kensington Palace is doing PR wise isn't different than how PR is handled for most prominent public figures.

I just think it's cutting the gossip press out of their stories. And his meltdown all but said "Work with us, or we'll start looking for reasons to write bad stories about you"

Which... yea, not ok.

 

[Curryong]

Rudolph, there is public disquiet in Britain about the Cambridges 'having their cake and eating it too' as Palmer put it. I know you dismiss this, but it's there. The retired life that they are leading with few public duties isn't doing them any good at all IMHO. If the media really go for broke on this issue in the future even if because of discontent over other things, then watch out!

I really do think that the Cambridges should be building all sorts of credit now in their public opinion piggy bank for the time when they aren't young, glamorous, with adorable little children etc.

This has nothing to do with me being a Harry supporter by the way. I just would like a bit more in the way of enthusiastic charity work and royal duties from William and Kate from now on. Charles is admired by the public for his very hard work for his country over decades, even if he isn't popular for other things.

What is the public going to say about the Cambridges in another twenty years (when their popularity might well have receded) if their 'private' and 'normal' existence lasts another decade? Charles's reign isn't likely to be a very long one
and two people can't just go from under a 100 engagements a year each to a packed itinerary as Prince and Princess of Wales and then King and Queen without some strains. I tell you, the future of the BRF worries me.

 

[JessRulz]

A number of posts discussing the mental health of the subject matter have been removed, as it is entirely uncalled for and totally speculative. Further posts on the matter will also be removed.

 

[soapstar]

However, a letter was sent from the Cambridges/ KP Press office stating that if press photographers photograph the Cambridges at private occasions like weddings then their accreditation will be pulled for official royal events. Would that not also be considered a threat, veiled or otherwise?

To be fair, it wasn't sent just for the Cambridge's. According to Richard Palmer, the letter asked photographers to be repspectful and not attend functions "where members of the royal family are present in a private capacity". So it sounds like this was also sent on behalf of Harry. Richard even stated that "Prince Harry is as controlling as William and Kate". He said that at Royal Ascot, Harry tried to stop a photographer from taking pics of him in the parade ring.

 

[Lady Nimue]

William began his job on July 13th.

If he has 4 days off and 4 days on then William was scheduled to work on the 7th, 8th, 9th & 10th.

These stories had him in Scotland before the Braemar games
Which makes sense since his days off would have been the 3rd, 4th, 5th & 6th.

Unless he took a week vacation after only working 8 weeks.

I understand your points.

A bit a go I read that William was going to be at this new job for only two years. That surprised me. Change of plans? Something not panning out with the job? In the end, I think it's best in the long run for William to be a royal doing royal duties. Doing any other work and the obvious inconsistencies in schedule are unavoidable. Seems like it's too much pressure to appear 'normal' when it's anything but that, for obvious reasons. I could see trying to do both that job and royal duties being a strain. Where's the down-time? We all need down-time.

 

[Curryong]

Yes, absolutely. I did say in an earlier post that I felt that ALL royals would do well to keep the media onside. However, Palmer was primarily discussing the KP Press office with regard to the Cambridges. Harry came into the Twitter conversation briefly when his possible love life was discussed.

 

[soapstar]

Yeah, I know that today Richard was primarily talking about the Cambridges. I was just clarifying that the letter (which RP tweeted about last month) wasn't just referring to the Cambridges.

Rudolph, there is public disquiet in Britain about the Cambridges 'having their cake and eating it too' as Palmer put it. I know you dismiss this, but it's there. The retired life that they are leading with few public duties isn't doing them any good at all IMHO. If the media really go for broke on this issue in the future even if because of discontent over other things, then watch out!

I really do think that the Cambridges should be building all sorts of credit now in their public opinion piggy bank for the time when they aren't young, glamorous, with adorable little children etc.

This has nothing to do with me being a Harry supporter by the way. I just would like a bit more in the way of enthusiastic charity work and royal duties from William and Kate from now on. Charles is admired by the public for his very hard work for his country over decades, even if he isn't popular for other things.

What is the public going to say about the Cambridges in another twenty years (when their popularity might well have receded) if their 'private' and 'normal' existence lasts another decade? Charles's reign isn't likely to be a very long one
and two people can't just go from under a 100 engagements a year each to a packed itinerary as Prince and Princess of Wales and then King and Queen without some strains. I tell you, the future of the BRF worries me.

I doubt their part-time status will last another decade. I imagine in the next year or two, we'll see them picking up more engagements. In fact, William has already increased his engagement count. His numbers last year were higher than the previous years.

As for the press going after the Cambridges, it was inevitable. They have been on a media high for the last few years and they were bound to come crashing back down. It's just the natural flow of being famous. The media builds them up and tears them back down again. Charles has experienced, so has Harry and the Queen...and every other member of the BRF. Now it's the Cambridges turn.

In one of his tweets, Richard even stated that the media is looking for a soap opera and the Cambridges aren't giving it to them.

So now it's time to pull out the negative stories.

 

[Curryong]

Yes, I agree the media (especially the British media) builds up its idols and then tears them down again. It happened to both of William's parents. That's why I would like to see the Cambridges become as small a target for criticism as possible from now on by filling that engagement book as much as possible.

 

[Rudolph]

Rudolph, there is public disquiet in Britain about the Cambridges 'having their cake and eating it too' as Palmer put it. I know you dismiss this, but it's there.

Give me one shred of evidence that gives credibility to 'public disquiet in Britain' about the Cambridges?

That's a very broad and general statement to make. It doesn't come from public opinion polls that's for sure. A poll from just three days ago shows William to be the most popular royal, a fact Palmer admitted to in his Twitter rant.

Of course not everyone likes the Cambridges. The same can be said for Harry or the Queen. Republicans want to abolish the monarchy no matter what.

Because Palmer wants to say 'they have their cake an eat it to' doesn't mean the public agree with him. Unless Palmer has his own personal polling data that he doesn't share with anyone I'll continue to take his twitter rants with a grain of salt.

 

[csw]

So, no princess until or if Prince Harry marries and his wife would then become Princess Harry or Henry!

On the birth certificates of their children William noted his wife's occupation as "Princess of the United Kingdom". I don't understand the titles well enough but perhaps Princess William is an acceptable alternate way to reference her. In any event it seems that she can be a princess even if the term is not part of one of her official titles.

 

[Skippyboo]

I understand your points.



A bit a go I read that William was going to be at this new job for only two years. That surprised me. Change of plans? Something not panning out with the job? In the end, I think it's best in the long run for William to be a royal doing royal duties. Doing any other work and the obvious inconsistencies in schedule are unavoidable. Seems like it's too much pressure to appear 'normal' when it's anything but that, for obvious reasons. I could see trying to do both that job and royal duties being a strain. Where's the down-time? We all need down-time.

He signed a two year contract with the air services contract. He can't really sign anything longer because flying a helicopter to pick injured people isn't going to be his job in ten years. But if the Queen is still in good shape in a year, he can do it for 3 years instead of 2.

It's been stated the he will only do 75% of his shifts so he can still do Royal stuff. That's what we are starting to see on the scheduled for mid September.

Is a regular person in the UK, really going to get pissed at William and Kate if they spend their children's young years doing engagements two weeks a month and rest staying with the kids/working helicopter job?

They are not racing cars on the weekends, falling drunk out of nightclubs, living the rich playboy lifestyle. Andrew and Charles got bad press because they did questionable things.

Harry isn't going to do Royal engagements full time either when he returns to the country. So when does the calls for him to step up his game start too?


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Curryong]

Of course I haven't run my own polls! However, I do have many contacts still in Britain and a large circle of extended family and friends as well as keeping my own eyes and ears open on the Internet.

A republic doesn't come into this. I just have to tell you that I have listened to many English people in the past four years and the mood among many has changed from 'what a delightful couple' to 'What DOES Kate do with her time?' and 'Why are they (the Cambridges) always hiding away?' and 'Why aren't they working like the Queen? Why are they so keen to do so little?'

Now, you may dismiss this as of no value, but as I put in a previous post, most of these people are monarchists (that is don't want a republic) and would never have dreamed of saying anything like this three or four years ago.

A regular longtime poster on TRF had a recent trip to London and stated on one of these British Royal threads that he/she had met many people in the capital who regarded Kate and William and Harry as 'wastes of space'.

We'll just have to see if an anti-Cambridge press campaign develops. I hope it doesn't. If it does, however, I don't see the value of using this thread in shooting the messenger, Richard Palmer, who has after all spent his life in the print media and knows many more British journalists and press photographers than either you or I are likely to know in our lifetimes.

 

[Rudolph]

^^^ You are equating negative press with public opinion. Two separate issues.

There has been plenty of negative press around the Cambridges. The public obviously doesn't buy into though because opinion polls show their popularity.

Prince Harry has had loads of negative press in his lifetime and yet still remains very popular.

You give reporters way too much credit and influence.

 

[Skippyboo]

On the birth certificates of their children William noted his wife's occupation as "Princess of the United Kingdom". I don't understand the titles well enough but perhaps Princess William is an acceptable alternate way to reference her. In any event it seems that she can be a princess even if the term is not part of one of her official titles.

Kate is a Princess because she married a Prince. UK common law, wife takes the style and title from her husband. William is still a Prince in addition to the titles he got on his wedding day. So Kate gets the female versions of all his titles. Without the peerage, Kate would have been just Princess William of Wales - the same as Marie Christine who married a Prince without a peerage thus she is just Princess Michael of Kent.

Harry will get a peerage to in time and his wife will use HRH Duchess Wherever instead of Princess Henry.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Rudolph]

^^^ You are equating negative press with public opinion. Two separate issues.

There has been plenty of negative press around the Cambridges. The public obviously doesn't buy into though because opinion polls show their popularity.

Prince Harry has had loads of negative press in his lifetime and yet still remains very popular.

You give reporters way too much credit and influence.

There is no scandal surrounding the Cambridges. The most reporters come up with is to take shots at Kate's family or call them a boring and dull couple.

The negative press surrounding Andrew and Sarah, Charles and Camilla came about because of salacious scandals.

So no not everyone likes W&K but that's life. Most of the public according to polls though are very happy with the Cambridges at the present time.

 

[Curryong]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. I feel that the media, including the print media does both inform and mould public opinion.

 

[Rudolph]

Almost all 'news' surrounding any royal is confined to the diary pages. Without Richard Kay or Sebastian Shakespeare there would be very little reported about the BRF.

The public may read gossip columns but it doesn't have an impact.

Every once in a blue moon we will have a 'real' news story. Andrew and Epstein or Charles and Diana having affairs. Those kinds of stories are damaging but thankfully they are few and far between.

The only other negative news is the yearly financial reports. The Queen takes a hit, Charles takes a hit but it passes in a few days and its business as usual.

 

[Curryong]

And all the 'news' on Internet sites is favourable to the younger royals and not absorbed by British people in their twenties or younger who don't know much royal history or read biographies?

Also, much as I dislike the Daily Fail and its fellow tabloids, their online stories do reach a wide audience. The DM specialises in stories about the younger royals, especially William, Kate, Harry and occasionally Beatrice. It's not all Sebastian or Richard Kay.

 

[MichelleQ2]

Twitter has changed one the key value/roles of the press. Before Twitter (BT) a press office was dependent on the media outlets to inform their audience .. There was a real need for press releases. The press office would send the release to the media, the media would inform their audience. Media no longer 'own' access to that audience. Twitter allows the press office to inform the public en masse direct but this eliminates one of the unique roles of the press. Sending a press release a few minutes before a tweet is just a courtesy sent to the media. All of this makes the royal reporters searching to carve out a new role without feeling as if they are merely puppets reporting what everyone already knows. Their spin or opinion is all they have... So we get more arbitrary 'stirring of the pot' and more extreme lengths to get a story. From the reporters point of view, I am sure they are trying to prove to their editors that they 'add' to the story ... Or the editors could just take the info off the feed themselves and make the dedicated royal reporter redundant. Not good for the royal family either... They want press on their events and causes. It's a new world for both parties. I think it will result in more exclusive access for select press. It will be interesting to see where Richard Palmer falls.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

I think most people don't care.
But most UK media outlets become increasingly unhappy about the Cambridge idea of privacy and of their attitude of threats (open or not open), basically to walk the line or else (no access any longer) while foreign internet outlets make the big money with unauthorized shots.

 

[Skippyboo]

I think most people don't care.
But most UK media outlets become increasingly unhappy about the Cambridge idea of privacy and of their attitude of threats (open or not open), basically to walk the line or else (no access any longer) while foreign internet outlets make the big money with unauthorized shots.

But it's the UK media themselves that made the decision not to print the pap photos and such that the foreign press and websites run with. Richard Palmer even said that he himself it was his editors choice not to use them. The KP letter from Jason Knause even compliments the mainstream UK media for not using the pap George photos.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Dman]

I don't understand the attack on the Cambridge's popularity, they are more popular than ever. It's been a very slow summer on the royal front, and the news and pictures disappeared. That's about to change now. The Cambridge's, and even Harry, is about to burst back on the royal scene. I do understand that attitudes can be irritated when there is a royal drought.

I may not agree with everything he say, but Richard Palmer is one of the main royal reporters that I respect.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

But it's the UK media themselves that made the decision not to print the pap photos and such that the foreign press and websites run with. Richard Palmer even said that he himself it was his editors choice not to use them. The KP letter from Jason Knause even compliments the mainstream UK media for not using the pap George photos.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

The UK media took the decision for one reason only: if they did publish the unauthorized photos, KP would ban them from any authorized shoot and shut them out.

Complimenting them is rather cynical because KP's threat and extortion policy is the reason for the editors not to show the pictures in the first place.

 

[Skippyboo]

Can you site a source for recent threats to ban the press from KP?

I only found one from 2004, from when Arthur Edwards from The Sun was temporarily banned from taking photos of William after The Sun broke the Kate as Will's girlfriend ski photo news.


http://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/apr/02/pressandpublishing.themonarchy

Not really an effective deterrent since since then we had numerous paparazzi photos , phone tapping, naked Harry on the Sun, etc.

The people at KP weren't even hired yet in 2004. William was still under the CH press office.




Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[TLLK]

I don't understand the attack on the Cambridge's popularity, they are more popular than ever. It's been a very slow summer on the royal front, and the news and pictures disappeared. That's about to change now. The Cambridge's, and even Harry, is about to burst back on the royal scene. I do understand that attitudes can be irritated when there is a royal drought.

I may not agree with everything he say, but Richard Palmer is one of the main royal reporters that I respect.

I agree Dman that the press all over the world experience a drop in royal news every summer. Occasionally there is a wedding, birth, anniversary etc..but for the most part July-August is very slow. I'd expect a a change of tune in the coming weeks not only for the Cambridges/Harry but other royals as well.

 

[Tiggersk8]

I think you have confused Richard Kay and Richard Palmer. Kay is the Diana link; Palmer is not. The discussion on here has been about Richard Palmer

I was very tired last night and have changed the last names, but if you don't think Palmer wishes it was like it was back in the day then... As Rudolph said, it's sad he's going out in such a very public manner.


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[Lady Nimue]

He signed a two year contract with the air services contract. He can't really sign anything longer because flying a helicopter to pick injured people isn't going to be his job in ten years. But if the Queen is still in good shape in a year, he can do it for 3 years instead of 2.

It's been stated the he will only do 75% of his shifts so he can still do Royal stuff. That's what we are starting to see on the scheduled for mid September.

Many thanks for the clarification, Skippyboo. All makes sense now.

 

[Dman]

Richard used to produce an article on the royals on a regular bases, and it wasn't trashy, unworthy articles either. Lately, I haven't seen those articles posted.