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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
US Royal Watcher said:
I agree but I still don't understand why Bolland would have leaked the news of the meeting in the first place.
Click to expand...

It was positive news for the PR Campaign. Just my guess.
 
Dman said:
It was positive news for the PR Campaign. Just my guess.
Click to expand...

It was a headline that William met Camilla. That story would have run sooner or later. Charles' approval rating was near 60% earlier that year and there were no negative stories at that point.

How was this leak positive news for the PR campaign?
 
US Royal Watcher said:
It was a headline that William met Camilla. That story would have run sooner or later. Charles' approval rating was near 60% earlier that year and there were no negative stories at that point.

How was this leak positive news for the PR campaign?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter that the negative stories died down, the very idea of William and Camilla getting together was an event that many on the inside couldn't just sit on. As we have known for a longtime, William wasn't happy about the leak, but it was still good news for the main party. The media went nuts over it, an aide was fired, but it didn't hurt the plan.
 
Dman said:
It doesn't matter that the negative stories died down, the very idea of William and Camilla getting together was an event that many on the inside couldn't just sit on. As we have known for a longtime, William wasn't happy about the leak, but it was still good news for the main party. The media went nuts over it, an aide was fired, but it didn't hurt the plan.
Click to expand...

It did hurt the plan. The story turned quickly from William and Camilla meeting to who leaked it and why. That is why Amanda MacManus was (briefly) fired.

The improvement in Charles' approval ratings was based on the perception that he was a good father to William and Harry. After the leak, there was an allegation that Charles leaked the story to make himself look good and actually undermined the effort to enhance his public image.

The fact that William and Harry met Camilla was going to come out on its own. It would have been far better (and not just in hindsight) to let that news unfold naturally.

It also fails to take into account the personal feelings of William and Harry about Camilla and Charles.
 
US Royal Watcher said:
It did hurt the plan. The story turned quickly from William and Camilla meeting to who leaked it and why. That is why Amanda MacManus was (briefly) fired.

The improvement in Charles' approval ratings was based on the perception that he was a good father to William and Harry. After the leak, there was an allegation that Charles leaked the story to make himself look good and actually undermined the effort to enhance his public image.

The fact that William and Harry met Camilla was going to come out on its own. It would have been far better (and not just in hindsight) to let that news unfold naturally.

It also fails to take into account the personal feelings of William and Harry about Camilla and Charles.
Click to expand...

Yes, there was a brief bump in the plan over the leak, but in the end it all worked out.

Listen, the PR campaign didn't run very smoothly and some people were used and some people had reservations about the whole thing, but it worked. I have no doubt in my mind that William and Harry did what they thought was best for their dad. They had just lost their mother, and I'm sure they wanted to see their father happy once again.


It took some prayers and miracles to get Camilla were she is today.
 
Having finally trawled through the first episode of this documentary (and you really do need to be in the mood to watch it!), I am left in no doubt that to hire a PR expert or public relations team etc is a huge mistake and will do no one any good whatsoever in presenting themselves bette in public. If I was royal, I think I would make do with an elderly courtier who has worked at the palace for 50 years "and knows about these things" to advise me on my public image - it couldn't be any worse than employing a spin-doctor!

I agree with US Royal Watcher that the meeting between William and Camilla should simply have been left to unfold naturally. I also feel this is the case with a number of other incidents such as Charles and Camilla's first public outing together at her sisters birthday and the 10th anniversary of the Press Complaints Commission where William and Camilla were attending the same event at the same time. None of these things should have needed to be hyped up before hand and just sensationalised the issue.
As Dman says, it did work out in the end, but I would say more in spite of the spin than because of it.

I can now fully understand William's stance with regard to his relations with the press, his public attitude and countenance, his seeming to be in control of what he does, when he does it, what photos are issued of himself and his family etc, taking legal action when he sees fit, protecting his privacy and all the rest of it.
 
After watching the documentary, I was left with the impression that the royals will use anyone and any means to further their purpose - to be the No1 popular figure in the RF. A few of those who have been used, caught, and then abandoned by the RF seem to have banded together to make this documentary.

What an existence these people have! Cressida's family would fit right in with this clock and dagger scenario with the media. Perhaps that is why she got ditched. Too good at it!! :lol:

It would also explain why Will and Henry hate the game so much. They've been played by both sides it seems.
 
Jacknch said:
Having finally trawled through the first episode of this documentary (and you really do need to be in the mood to watch it!), I am left in no doubt that to hire a PR expert or public relations team etc is a huge mistake and will do no one any good whatsoever in presenting themselves bette in public. If I was royal, I think I would make do with an elderly courtier who has worked at the palace for 50 years "and knows about these things" to advise me on my public image - it couldn't be any worse than employing a spin-doctor!

I agree with US Royal Watcher that the meeting between William and Camilla should simply have been left to unfold naturally. I also feel this is the case with a number of other incidents such as Charles and Camilla's first public outing together at her sisters birthday and the 10th anniversary of the Press Complaints Commission where William and Camilla were attending the same event at the same time. None of these things should have needed to be hyped up before hand and just sensationalised the issue.
As Dman says, it did work out in the end, but I would say more in spite of the spin than because of it.

I can now fully understand William's stance with regard to his relations with the press, his public attitude and countenance, his seeming to be in control of what he does, when he does it, what photos are issued of himself and his family etc, taking legal action when he sees fit, protecting his privacy and all the rest of it.
Click to expand...
Are you serious? Not all PR is bad. The media has an agenda, and the royals need "soldiers" on their part as well to counter balance. And PR is not lying. If you have a dress you want to sell, you put it nicely for people to see with good lightening and good accessories. You don't waddle it up in a corner hoping people will discover it looks nice. It's not lying, just clever salesman ship. This spin doctor went over the top, but PR is not bad.
 
I do not think Bollard was the source of the leak. I believe Amanda told her husband who told another person who told the press.

Amanda was restated because she was Camilla's friend and because Camilla understood about 'bedroom' talk between spouses. Amanda was working for Camilla and not Charles so it is understandable that Camilla reinstated Amanda.

In 1998, Camilla could trust very few people and Amanda did not intend any harm when she told her husband so Camilla reinstated her.

No cloak and dagger, no conspiracy, no PR stunt.

Just a woman who told her husband who told someone else.

ETA: Maybe William was upset because he thought Amanda has ruined the surprise birthday party for his father. She was reinstated in November.
 
Last edited:
hernameispekka said:
Are you serious? Not all PR is bad. The media has an agenda, and the royals need "soldiers" on their part as well to counter balance. And PR is not lying. If you have a dress you want to sell, you put it nicely for people to see with good lightening and good accessories. You don't waddle it up in a corner hoping people will discover it looks nice. It's not lying, just clever salesman ship. This spin doctor went over the top, but PR is not bad.
Click to expand...

PR is not bad but if Bolland was responsible for this leak, he didn't exercise good judgment and wasn't the best person to handle PR for Prince Charles. The role of a PR person is to use their expertise and personal relationships to steer reporters towards positive stories about their clients, and help minimize damage caused by negative stories.

I think Charles needed a good PR person to rehabilitate his image and highlight his charity work, which was largely ignored by the media. He also needed someone to present a positive view of Camilla to the UK. Mark Bolland succeeded with those two goals.

However, if Bolland leaked stories about William and Harry's relationship with Camilla, it was a huge mistake and unnecessary. Not only was there a strong possibility of public backlash, but it was not in William and Harry's best interest. Ultimately, it was not in Charles' interest because it probably set back his efforts to build a trusting relationship between his sons and Camilla.

Charles tried very hard not to use his sons as pawns between 1992-97. It's unfortunate if he slipped up. But I am not sure he did. According to this article, even Richard Kay acknowledged that Charles was a bit naïve and probably not involved--again, that assumes that Bolland was responsible. Prince Charles ‘Sold Out’ William and Harry To The Tabloids - The Daily Beast
 
US Royal Watcher said:
PR is not bad but if Bolland was responsible for this leak, he didn't exercise good judgment and wasn't the best person to handle PR for Prince Charles. The role of a PR person is to use their expertise and personal relationships to steer reporters towards positive stories about their clients, and help minimize damage caused by negative stories.

I think Charles needed a good PR person to rehabilitate his image and highlight his charity work, which was largely ignored by the media. He also needed someone to present a positive view of Camilla to the UK. Mark Bolland succeeded with those two goals.

However, if Bolland leaked stories about William and Harry's relationship with Camilla, it was a huge mistake and unnecessary. Not only was there a strong possibility of public backlash, but it was not in William and Harry's best interest. Ultimately, it was not in Charles' interest because it probably set back his efforts to build a trusting relationship between his sons and Camilla.

Charles tried very hard not to use his sons as pawns between 1992-97. It's unfortunate if he slipped up. But I am not sure he did. According to this article, even Richard Kay acknowledged that Charles was a bit naïve and probably not involved--again, that assumes that Bolland was responsible. Prince Charles ‘Sold Out’ William and Harry To The Tabloids - The Daily Beast
Click to expand...
I did not say Bolland was OK. I was saying that the idea that they shouldn't have PR people, just old advisers, would not be preferable.
 
hernameispekka said:
Are you serious? Not all PR is bad. The media has an agenda, and the royals need "soldiers" on their part as well to counter balance. And PR is not lying. If you have a dress you want to sell, you put it nicely for people to see with good lightening and good accessories. You don't waddle it up in a corner hoping people will discover it looks nice. It's not lying, just clever salesman ship. This spin doctor went over the top, but PR is not bad.
Click to expand...

Yes my dear, I am serious in the context of what I have seen and what I would do if I was royal - I'd take my chances with either my instincts (such as the are) and the old courtier, just as people who hire spin doctors (not so much PR I admit) take their chances too. Having said all that, what happened in Charles' case happened a very long time ago and I can't blame him for doing what he could at the time to make his public image better and introduce Camilla onto the scene officially.
You are right that PR can be great - I'm a sucker for a good advert or sales pitch, but I never needed to be sold my royal family nor my future king's wife, I simple would have preferred it all to have developed more naturally.
 
Jacknch said:
Yes my dear, I am serious in the context of what I have seen and what I would do if I was royal - I'd take my chances with either my instincts (such as the are) and the old courtier, just as people who hire spin doctors (not so much PR I admit) take their chances too. Having said all that, what happened in Charles' case happened a very long time ago and I can't blame him for doing what he could at the time to make his public image better and introduce Camilla onto the scene officially.
You are right that PR can be great - I'm a sucker for a good advert or sales pitch, but I never needed to be sold my royal family nor my future king's wife, I simple would have preferred it all to have developed more naturally.
Click to expand...
You would have preferred the illusion of it being natural. If they did not have PR people in this day and age they would be eaten alive.
 
hernameispekka said:
You would have preferred the illusion of it being natural. If they did not have PR people in this day and age they would be eaten alive.
Click to expand...

But with PR an illusion is created anyway isn't it? And with PR are high profile people not eaten alive anyway?!
 
:previous: Unfortunately I have to say I agree. The hard part is getting a PR team that is schooled in 'ethics over spin' and understand's that they are dealing with a family, not a firm. That it is essential to preserve the family's sense of decency. For example, we over on the Swedish threads, are forever bemoaning the hopeless PR. It's enough to make you wince.

As to Charles, Camilla, William and Harry? On those very few occasions that they have actually participated in a one on one interview, one of Harry's stands out. He said something along the lines of "she makes our father happy, we love her to bits".

Harry did not look or sound tense, his speech and diction were animated and, most important of all, he could have just smiled and said "she makes our father happy and that's okay", but he didn't. Harry comes across as not nearly as tightly wound as William, which is not to say that he relaxes and enjoys the media, which makes his statement all the more telling.

So basically, all this "scandal", "exploitation", etc. is, to me, just so much media hype because, let's face it, a 'wicked stepmother' is so much more "newsworthy" than Charles and Camilla happily, if boringly, married and each with liked and likeable stepchildren.
 
MARG said:
:previous: Unfortunately I have to say I agree. The hard part is getting a PR team that is schooled in 'ethics over spin' and understand's that they are dealing with a family, not a firm. That it is essential to preserve the family's sense of decency. For example, we over on the Swedish threads, are forever bemoaning the hopeless PR. It's enough to make you wince.

As to Charles, Camilla, William and Harry? On those very few occasions that they have actually participated in a one on one interview, one of Harry's stands out. He said something along the lines of "she makes our father happy, we love her to bits".

Harry did not look or sound tense, his speech and diction were animated and, most important of all, he could have just smiled and said "she makes our father happy and that's okay", but he didn't. Harry comes across as not nearly as tightly wound as William, which is not to say that he relaxes and enjoys the media, which makes his statement all the more telling.

So basically, all this "scandal", "exploitation", etc. is, to me, just so much media hype because, let's face it, a 'wicked stepmother' is so much more "newsworthy" than Charles and Camilla happily, if boringly, married and each with liked and likeable stepchildren.
Click to expand...

William and Harry did what what was best for their father. They love him and want to see him happy. They knew that Camilla made him happy...so that's that. I have no doubt they would've done the same thing for their mother. I don't think any of it was easy for them though. In the end, William and Harry acted more like the adults more than members of the media.
 
:previous: I agree, acting as the young men they were instead of flashing back to the rights and wrongs of yesteryear. That is pretty remarkable but perhaps understandable as the media never let up and they had their mother's side and their father's side, twisted, turned and distorted courtesy of the media, whilst they had actually lived it.

Whatever else we know or think we know, William and Harry do know, and have managed to grow into decent men of their generation and social circle. Albeit with a more than slightly jaundiced view of the media.
 
The ABC actually had quite extensive nightly news coverage of the tour of William and Kate.
 
I only watch the ABC and saw extensive coverage every night.
 
According to Express, one of the segments of Part Two of the documentary (airing tonight in Britain) discusses a BBC documentary on Princess Diana that was set to air in August 2007, the tenth anniversary of her death, before being shelved indefinitely.

Diana: Her Story, Her Words was made by Kevin Sim, who purchased rights to the Settelen tapes on behalf of the BBC and used them in the program. Express writes that in tonight's episode, Sim now claims that "the BBC gave a misleading account of why the documentary was not broadcast, insisting it was because the programme did not add sufficiently to the story of her life. But Mr Sim says in a new documentary that the Corporation really axed it because it was worried about upsetting the monarchy."

The BBC shelved a £500,000 Diana documentary for fear of upsetting the Palace | Royal | News | Daily Express
The real reason Diana tapes were shelved: Director claims BBC axed 'dynamite' footage amid fears of upsetting monarchy - despite spending £500,000 on programme | Daily Mail Online

And Republic have come out saying that the BBC has to come clean about their relationship with the royals because of the claims/actions.
http://www.republic.org.uk/what-we-...s-come-clean-over-royal-relationship-republic
 
:previous: That is most interesting. I certainly would be interested in viewing THAT shelved program!!
 
I think I've already seen that Diana doc on TV. It's also on YouTube.
 
If they're talking about the documentary that include the Settelen tapes- I'll post the video in the British Royal Family Video Thread.
 
Mermaid1962 said:
It seems to be the same material that was in the NBC program.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's just stuff that we already knew. I'm not sure the royal family would be upset over it. I think members of the media and others very often forget that the royal family lived through those very tough times. They knew the pain Charles and Diana went through. Nothing is of surprise to them and I think they have gotten over that stuff.

Reinventing the Royals:
Succession
Episode 2 of 2- 9pm Tonight UK Time-

"Written and presented by Steve Hewlett, the series is told principally through the first-hand testimony of those who were there: ex-royal advisors, editors, photographers, journalists, royal correspondents - and an enormously rich archive.

This episode looks at how the experience of growing up in the media spotlight has affected Princes William and Harry, and their attitudes to the press and media. Seismic events like the phone-hacking scandal - which started with the royal princes - and the impact of the Leveson Inquiry that followed have tipped the balance of power in their favour.

The relationship between the royal family and the BBC is also examined, the so-called 'Queengate' fiasco - where a trailer for a royal documentary was cut as if to show the Queen storming out of a photo session with the American photographer Annie Leibowitz. The programme recounts how, in the aftermath, another still-unseen documentary celebrating the life of Princess Diana was shelved by the corporation.

The programme also looks at the question of succession. For Prince Charles it is now not so much his private life as his personal views that are under the microscope, and their potential impact on his upcoming kingship is explored."
BBC Two - Reinventing the Royals, Succession
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Again I* learnt nothing new about the BRF,

I think that the media have come out the worse for this - all needy and whiny. The programme has shone a light on how awful they have been.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Marengo
  • Locked
The Princes and the Press - Two Part BBC documentary 2021
2 3
Replies
74
Views
11K
Marengo
Marengo
Y
"A Royal Life" by HRH The Duke of Kent and Hugo Vickers (2022)
Replies
1
Views
1K
Somebody
Somebody
W
"Victoria & Albert: The Royal Wedding" (2018) - BBC Two Documentary Film
Replies
11
Views
2K
wartenberg7
W
Empress Merel
"King Charles III" (2017) - BBC Two Future History Film on Reign of Prince Charles
2 3
Replies
66
Views
10K
Lady Nimue
L
Queen Claude
"Royal Wives At War" (2016) - BBC Two Telemovie on Queen Elizabeth and Wallis Simpson
Replies
6
Views
3K
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom