"Reinventing The Royals" (2015) - BBC Two Documentary on the Windsors

[hernameispekka]

I don't think the media is all evil. But things like this tend to take on a life of it's own. All sides got hurt and everyone just wanted to get the best out of the situation. It's easy for us to sit on the sideline and judge all sides. Not so easy living it, I presume.

Edit to avoid double post:
To me, regarding the William/Camilla meet there are several version that could be true, some that hasn't even been considered. The main one is:

-Charles threw his son under the bus to heighten the image of his girlfriend.

Others also mentioned:

- He briefed his PR person on how it went, that person used it to heighten the image of his employers girlfriend.
- It is all fake. It's a possibility, or that parts of it is. Like the drug rehab story.

An other that people haven't mentioned:

- William was in on it from the beginning or was consulted before the story went out. Those comments that he was angry can just as well be fake. He could have been in on telling the story, to make his dad happy.

And probably a 1000 other versions is possible. We will never know. I myself tend to think the best of people so forgive me for not yelling "Charles is a horrible father that trows his sons under the bus" based on hints, speculations and such....

 

[Rudolph]

Penny Junor, who wrote the book “Charles: Victim or Villain,” says in the documentary that Bolland assisted her in a take-down of Diana.

The book claims Diana was the first to have an affair and threatened to have Camilla killed.

This I didn't know. Makes me wonder just how accurate the book really is. Probably all spin and PR

 

[Dman]

Charles, Diana, Camilla and their camps could have done things differently. They are the ones that fed the media, the media ate everything up and everything went to hell in a handbasket. Mark Bolland had to come in and work some miracles. It wasn't a good thing, but it got the job done. Camilla went from the longtime mistress, to an HRH and future Princess Consort/Queen.
Charles is more respected today than he was in the 90's.

Penny Junor is a rather bitter person, IMO.

 

[Rudolph]

I'm not one who believes the end justifies the means. Camilla maybe Charles's wife but I fear it has come with a cost

 

[hernameispekka]

I'm not one who believes the end justifies the means. Camilla maybe Charles's wife but I fear it has come with a cost

I agree. This was badly done. But I don't think it was mean or evil from Charles standpoint. When you're in a position like they are they need good PR and people around them. My guess is that all Charles is guilty of is being gullible and having bad people persuade him things. We have seen this time and time again with people in positions like this. They are reliant on having good people around them.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

First off, I'd like to state that I have not seen the program and can only give an opinion on what I'm reading here.

I'm taking it that the spin being talked about was the first meeting between W&H and Camilla. I'd like to suggest that it was the first public meeting and being seen together of the three and maybe (or even most likely) set up with the agreement of all that were involved. I find it very hard to believe that as close as Charles and Camilla were leading up to their engagement and subsequent marriage, that Charles' sons had never met her or spent any time with her. As a divorced man, there was really no reason whatsoever for C&C to have to sneak around and I do believe Charles has always had a close and open relationship with his sons. I do think though that the meeting in public would have been considered a sensitive issue but I don't for a minute believe that Charles would even consider "using" his sons for his own personal agenda and image.

I haven't seen the documentary either but I agree. Moreover, there was absolutely no reason for Charles to leak the story that William met Camilla at that point.

What great PR did they gain? Nothing. They got a headline that William met Camilla. As you point out, that was going to happen anyway. What was the great advantage of having that headline on that particular day.

If they wanted a PR victory, it would have been a public meeting of William, Harry and Camilla. Many TV talking heads were advising Charles that all he needed was a photo of William and Harry looking happy in Camilla's, but that didn't happen until after Charles and Camilla were engaged.

On the other hand, the PR downside of leaking that story was that it would give William and Harry reason to distrust Camilla. Plus there was a risk that William and Harry would become angry with Charles. Why would Charles risk that if the story would have happened on its own anyway?

It just wasn't worth it. The only story that makes sense is the one that came out shortly after the event: one of Camilla's trusted aids accidently leaked the story and was fired.

I post this as someone who believes that there was a PR campaign to get the public to accept Camilla. I also agree that she is accepted, but not necessarily popular. I also don't buy that William and Harry are "close" to Camilla. I think they like her and don't blame her for Diana's unhappiness, but I don't think they choose to spend a lot of time with her.

But this story just doesn't make any sense.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

The daily fail has a article about the documentary.

Prince Charles' PR man angered William and Harry claims BBC documentary | Daily Mail Online

Those of you who criticize Charles constantly should know the facts. I'm not saying that Charles is flawless, but he has been a wonderful father to Willian and Harry and they have a close relationship. This has been confirmed by people close to the family, also by journalists. William and Harry have repeatedly defended Charles in interviews / documentaries through the 2000s.

And to those of you who complain / not like Camilla should learn more about her. She is a warm and good person. And most of the people who have met her, they like her.

 

[Rudolph]

The Sun's royal correspondent from 1995 to 2002 Charles Rae told the documentary that details of the meeting between Camilla and William had been revealed by Mr Bolland and not by Camilla's secretary

 

[Dman]

I haven't seen the documentary either but I agree. Moreover, there was absolutely no reason for Charles to leak the story that William met Camilla at that point.

What great PR did they gain? Nothing. They got a headline that William met Camilla. As you point out, that was going to happen anyway. What was the great advantage of having that headline on that particular day.

If they wanted a PR victory, it would have been a public meeting of William, Harry and Camilla. Many TV talking heads were advising Charles that all he needed was a photo of William and Harry looking happy in Camilla's, but that didn't happen until after Charles and Camilla were engaged.

On the other hand, the PR downside of leaking that story was that it would give William and Harry reason to distrust Camilla. Plus there was a risk that William and Harry would become angry with Charles. Why would Charles risk that if the story would have happened on its own anyway?

It just wasn't worth it. The only story that makes sense is the one that came out shortly after the event: one of Camilla's trusted aids accidently leaked the story and was fired.

I post this as someone who believes that there was a PR campaign to get the public to accept Camilla. I also agree that she is accepted, but not necessarily popular. I also don't buy that William and Harry are "close" to Camilla. I think they like her and don't blame her for Diana's unhappiness, but I don't think they choose to spend a lot of time with her.

But this story just doesn't make any sense.

Putting William and Camilla in the same setting had to be very carefully done. They couldn't arrange an open public event with Princes William and Harry with Camilla and everyone looking happy at the time. It would have looked forced, there would have been a backlash and I'm not sure William or even Harry would have gone through with it anyway. Just having Camilla show up an event where William is attending, but no picture of them taken together, pretty much did the trick. The same thing happened when William accompanied his father to a (his first and last) Royal Garden Party at Holyrood House in Scotland. Camilla also attended the Garden Party, but he wasn't seen with Camilla. The early idea was to make it look like William was welcoming Camilla into the family and accepting the reality.

 

[Princess of Durham]

Penny Junor, who wrote the book “Charles: Victim or Villain,” says in the documentary that Bolland assisted her in a take-down of Diana.

The book claims Diana was the first to have an affair and threatened to have Camilla killed.

This I didn't know. Makes me wonder just how accurate the book really is. Probably all spin and PR

Penny Junor deserves a parade uniform given that she has been beating the drum for Charles for decades. I will be curious if she receives some kind of special medal or award from Charles when he is king.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Putting William and Camilla in the same setting had to be very carefully done. They couldn't arrange an open public event with Princes William and Harry with Camilla and everyone looking happy at the time. It would have looked forced, there would have been a backlash and I'm not sure William or even Harry would have gone through with it anyway. Just having Camilla show up an event where William is attending, but no picture of them taken together, pretty much did the trick. The same thing happened when William accompanied his father to a (his first and last) Royal Garden Party at Holyrood House in Scotland. Camilla also attended the Garden Party, but he wasn't seen with Camilla. The early idea was to make it look like William was welcoming Camilla into the family and accepting the reality.

IIRC, and I haven't been able to watch the documentary, William decided to meet Camilla because he and Harry were planning to invite her to the birthday party they were planning for Charles. There is absolutely no reason that the PR people couldn't have waited until Charles' birthday party to reveal that William and Harry had met Camilla.

It would have been a much better way to convey that William and Harry accepted her into Charles life. As it was, the controversy of the leak overshadowed the meeting and Camilla's aide was forced to resign.

The Sun's royal correspondent from 1995 to 2002 Charles Rae told the documentary that details of the meeting between Camilla and William had been revealed by Mr Bolland and not by Camilla's secretary.

I'm sure that has been reported but it doesn't mean it is true. IIRC, Camilla's aide admitted to accidently leaking the story at the time.

Everyone can choose which source to believe but if Bolland leaked that meeting, he was incompetent. It was high risk with little reward.

Also, Charles' image was on the upswing at that point anyway. Many people perceived him as being a good father to William and Harry after Diana's death.

Finally, the royal family has always taken a long-term approach to popularity. Charles knew that the public wouldn't immediately accept Camilla. There was no reason for him to leak the news of the meeting.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

I wasn't a fan of the documentary, but I think I still might watch the other documentaries in the series. I took most of what was said in the documentary with a grain of salt, as I noticed the Mirror was shown or mentioned a lot.

It had quite a republican vibe to me, which I found unusual, as I've watched a lot of documentaries about the BRF since I became interested around the age of eight, and almost all of them have had a pro-monarchy or royalist vibe.

After having watched the documentary I can also totally understand why Charles thought it was controversial.

 

[Dman]

IIRC, and I haven't been able to watch the documentary, William decided to meet Camilla because he and Harry were planning to invite her to the birthday party they were planning for Charles. There is absolutely no reason that the PR people couldn't have waited until Charles' birthday party to reveal that William and Harry had met Camilla.

It would have been a much better way to convey that William and Harry accepted her into Charles life. As it was, the controversy of the leak overshadowed the meeting and Camilla's aide was forced to resign.

I think the idea was to get William and Camilla together and get the story out. I don't think anyone "accidentally" leaked the story. The campaign was moving and moving fast.

I think William tried his best to not be photographed with Camilla. He also wasn't photographed with her at the Royal Garden Party in Scotland.

 

[Queen Camilla]

IIRC, and I haven't been able to watch the documentary, William decided to meet Camilla because he and Harry were planning to invite her to the birthday party they were planning for Charles. There is absolutely no reason that the PR people couldn't have waited until Charles' birthday party to reveal that William and Harry had met Camilla.

I believe it was a surprise birthday party held quite some time before Charles' actual birthday party.

According to an April 1995 People magazine William had already met Camilla and had known her & APB for years.

The 1998 meeting was not their first meeting.

IIRC Bollard quit in 2002, three years before C&C married.

I think William tried his best to not be photographed with Camilla. He also wasn't photographed with her at the Royal Garden Party in Scotland.

I am not familiar with the date of this event but William attended Laura's 21st birthday party and spent the evening laughing with Camilla. Charles as usual did not attend. Laura's 21st birthday was April 20, 1999.

William was 16.

Not a PR move.

 

[cepe]

All I read on here is everyone's interpretation of events, depending on their starting point. And it will always be like that.

This programme didn't tell us anything that wasn't already in the public domain apart from the fact that journalists don't appear to like each other very much and no one like Piers Morgan. On second thoughts, I think we all knew that anyway.

Next week, with the treatment of the young royals, might (and I mean might) be interesting

 

[Dman]

All I read on here is everyone's interpretation of events, depending on their starting point. And it will always be like that.

This programme didn't tell us anything that wasn't already in the public domain apart from the fact that journalists don't appear to like each other very much and no one like Piers Morgan. On second thoughts, I think we all knew that anyway.

Next week, with the treatment of the young royals, might (and I mean might) be interesting

I agree, it's not revealing anything that wasn't already known. It was an interesting PR campaign though.

I am not familiar with the date of this event but William attended Laura's 21st birthday party and spent the evening laughing with Camilla. Charles as usual did not attend. Laura's 21st birthday was April 20, 1999.

William was 16.

Not a PR move.

William may have seen Camilla a Laura's party, but the PR move was to get them to appear at the same event in public.

I think Charles and Camilla tried to get William and Harry to be good friends with Tom and Laura, but that never really worked out.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I think the idea was to get William and Camilla together and get the story out. I don't think anyone "accidentally" leaked the story. The campaign was moving and moving fast.

I think William tried his best to not be photographed with Camilla. He also wasn't photographed with her at the Royal Garden Party in Scotland.

They wouldn't have needed William's approval to get a photo of him with Camilla. If you can believe that they deliberately leaked the news of the meeting--which gave them nothing--I don't know why you assume that Boland wouldn't have tipped off the paparazzi when Charles, Camilla, William and Harry were out riding, shooting, hunting, or whatever.

I believe it was a surprise birthday party held quite some time before Charles' actual birthday party.

According to an April 1995 People magazine William had already met Camilla and had known her & APB for years.

The 1998 meeting was not their first meeting.

I can believe that William and Harry knew Camilla prior to Diana going public in 1992, but this would have been the first meeting since Diana's death.

If the party was before November, it would have made even more sense to wait until then to reveal that William and Harry arranged for Camilla to be at Charles' party. The PR machine would have gotten a lot more mileage out of the story without the allegations that Charles was using William for his own purposes.

All the advantages of the first story without the negativity.

 

[Queen Camilla]

IMO, that is why everything adds up to an accidental leak.

I read that William, Harry, Laura and Tom had been spending Easter together for several years at Balmoral. The article was written in January 1999 which would mean prior to Diana's death.

William's meeting was June 1998, Easter was in April.

Several years, imo, is at 3 years so 1996.

Can anyone confirm where Charles, William and Harry spent Easter of 1998? 1997? 1996?

 

[Mermaid1962]

This is what I see as well. Neither Charles nor Camilla are "popular." I remember when MAJESTY MAGAZINE were trying to popularize Camilla, putting her on the cover and running articles about how "down-to-earth" she was and how she made Prince Charles happy, etc. It was very obvious. That doesn't happen now.

But Camilla still isn't that popular today. She may be 'accepted' but that's about it as far as public opinion goes.

 

[Queen Camilla]

It is a culture of youth.
No one expects a woman in her 50s or 60s to be popular.

 

[PetticoatLane]

It would be very very easy to keep that private if he wanted too.but that wasn't what it was about
It was set up so people would see Will accepting Camilla
And as this just keeps going round and round I'm over and out it's very late here


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

This is absolutely not true. The fact this meeting happened was ALWAYS going to come out in the press. Every person who worked for Charles in just about any capacity will have known it was happening or heard rumours of it happening either before or after and any one of them could have leaked it. It was too big a deal to stay private. In a lot of ways Charles, if he did play a part in its leaking to the press, was probably wise to ensure that the correct version of events was the one the paper actually published. Otherwise, who knows what they would've come up with.

At different times both Charles and Diana have used their children for their own agendas. But, I suppose, that's what a lot of parents who are divorcing acrimoniously do. It's not nice, but it happens.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

This is absolutely not true. The fact this meeting happened was ALWAYS going to come out in the press. Every person who worked for Charles in just about any capacity will have known it was happening or heard rumours of it happening either before or after and any one of them could have leaked it. It was too big a deal to stay private.

100% agreed.

 

[royal rob]

This is absolutely not true. The fact this meeting happened was ALWAYS going to come out in the press. Every person who worked for Charles in just about any capacity will have known it was happening or heard rumours of it happening either before or after and any one of them could have leaked it. It was too big a deal to stay private. In a lot of ways Charles, if he did play a part in its leaking to the press, was probably wise to ensure that the correct version of events was the one the paper actually published. Otherwise, who knows what they would've come up with.



At different times both Charles and Diana have used their children for their own agendas. But, I suppose, that's what a lot of parents who are divorcing acrimoniously do. It's not nice, but it happens.

If he wanted kept private it would have stayed that way. If staff let it out without his permission they would have been sacked. He used William it is not new we have known this for some time.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[PetticoatLane]

Very little can stay private when you have a staff of over 100 people working for you. How on earth could Charles have proved definitively who did the leaking, short of making them all take lie detector tests?

We've seen it time and time again, despite confidentiality clauses in their contracts, members of the royals' staff are perfectly willing to divulge any and all information about their employers, for the right price.

Maybe Charles did deliberately leak this information, I'm not discounting that idea. I just do not trust the word of a tabloid journalist. We've all seen in excruciating detail, via the Leveson Enquiry and multiple criminal hacking trials in the UK, the fact that the press are perfectly happy to outright lie to their readers without a moment's pause.

 

[Rudolph]

The Sun's former royal correspondent Charles Rae told the documentary that details of the meeting at St James's Palace in 1998 had been revealed by Prince Charles' former PR man Mark Bolland.

'We got all the details, her [Camilla] drinking the gin and tonic, her having a sneaky fag beforehand because she was nervous and everything else.

'So all the detail came to us and was, if you like, absolutely kosher. Apart from Camilla and William telling us, you couldn't have got it from a better source… It was Mark Bolland.'

--------
Now Bolland denies he leaked the info but as much as I don't like tabloid reporters I don't see why Rae would substitute Camilla's aid for Bolland

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

It is inevitable. There are so many people in and around and about these royals that every hiccup is immediately leaked. Remember the practices of News of the World, even hacking the mobiles of royals or persons around and knew even before the royals themselves where they would go, where they would stay, etc.

It is no wonder that "modern royals" like the new Kings of the Netherlands and Spain prefer to remain in their small, cosy and very private current houses instead of moving to the formal palaces and castles which are at their disposal... It is also no wonder that the Cambridges tried to live as small as possible, dreaming about Anmer Hall, but reality is that they will sucked up more and more in the machinery led by "the grey men".

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

It is no wonder that "modern royals" like the new Kings of the Netherlands and Spain prefer to remain in their small, cosy and very private current houses instead of moving to the formal palaces and castles which are at their disposal.

King Willem-Alexander will move in at Huis ten Bosch when renovations are complete. And King Felipe remained in his residence at the Zarzuela complex.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

If he wanted kept private it would have stayed that way. If staff let it out without his permission they would have been sacked. He used William it is not new we have known this for some time.

Camilla's personal assistant, Amanda MacManus, was sacked after Prince Charles found out she was inadvertently responsible for the story. The BBC News | UK | Camilla PA resigns

The first rule of PR is the same as the first rule of medicine: Do no harm. This story was bound to get out sooner or later. If Bolland pushed the story, he is incompetent. It would have been much better to wait until the surprise birthday party.

The party itself was good media for Charles because it helped counter the narrative that he was a bad father. Because the party was a surprise, it would have been obvious that Charles didn't pressure William and Harry to invite her.

The media would have been falling all over themselves to find out how long William and Harry knew her, what they did together, etc.... The story of the first meeting would have come out sooner or later because, as others have pointed out, too many people knew about it.

Charles wasn't a perfect father and I believe he did use his children to improve his image--as do most politicians in the U.S. The story that he used Harry is more believable to me. It doesn't make sense that he leaked the details of the meeting between Camilla and William.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Yes, but the King could have used other residences. Already when he still was the Prince of Orange b.t.w. It is not for nothing that he seems very attached to his private villa De Eikenhorst, like Princess Beatrix has always had her most pleasant time at her little romantic private estate Drakensteyn.

Of course also King Willem-Alexander will be swallowed by the grey men: when he moves to Huis ten Bosch Palace, the dozens of figures around him are no longer avoidable. King Felipe seems to remain in his "Pabellón del Príncipe", which is "just" a nice house and reminds in nothing a royal residence. It is only illustrative for the fact that things are difficult to remain private in such circumstances (the fact that the press would always have known that Prince William met Camilla, with or without spin).

 

[Rudolph]

Camilla's personal assistant, Amanda MacManus, was sacked after Prince Charles found out she was inadvertently responsible for the story. The BBC News | UK | Camilla PA resigns

The first rule of PR is the same as the first rule of medicine: Do no harm. This story was bound to get out sooner or later. If Bolland pushed the story, he is incompetent. It would have been much better to wait until the surprise birthday party.

The party itself was good media for Charles because it helped counter the narrative that he was a bad father. Because the party was a surprise, it would have been obvious that Charles didn't pressure William and Harry to invite her.

The media would have been falling all over themselves to find out how long William and Harry knew her, what they did together, etc.... The story of the first meeting would have come out sooner or later because, as others have pointed out, too many people knew about it.

Charles wasn't a perfect father and I believe he did use his children to improve his image--as do most politicians in the U.S. The story that he used Harry is more believable to me. It doesn't make sense that he leaked the details of the meeting between Camilla and William.

All that shows me is Camilla's PA took the fall for Bolland. It makes no difference to the Sun who leaked the story. Why would the royal correspondent for the Sun say it was Bolland when in fact it was Camilla's aide?