The Windsors, the Media and Tell-All Books


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.

ysbel

Heir Apparent , TRF Author
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
5,377
City
New York
Country
United States
Since this community is made up of people from all over the world, I would like to ask our British members to give the rest of us some insights on the British papers and magazines that we most routinely get our source of royal information from.

I'm wondering what's their reputation in Britain? How reliable are they when reporting about royals? What if any slant or bias do they have in reporting royal news? Who's their main audience? It could help the rest of us make some sense of the reports we are reading on the Internet.

Here are a few papers whose names I got from the BBC website. So Brits, what's your opinion of these papers in relation to their reporting of royals?

  • Daily Express
  • Daily Mail
  • Daily Mirror
  • Daily Star
  • Daily Telegraph
  • Financial Times
  • Guardian
  • Independent
  • Morning Star
  • Sun
  • Times
I guess I should add the BBC too since that's the most familiar British newsource in the United States.
 
The Daily Mail is a very right wing newspaper and comes out with classic headlines such as 'Asylum Seekers Steal Babies'. They were huge supports of the Thatcher government and are generally pro-Royal. They have always supported Charles and Camilla. They are very anti-Blair.

The Daily Star is usually half full of naked women and stupid stories such as alien abduction. Much like the National Enquirer in America I suppose. The Financial Times isn't really worth reading unless you like lists of share prices etc.

The Sun is a joke. It prints stories without actually having any confirmation and so often they find themselves in hot water. They tend to print total fiction and so as a news source, you can disregard almost everything they say. The only thing you can take as truth with The Sun is the date. They have alot of celeb gossip.

The Mirror is alot like The Sun and another British paper called, 'The News of the World'. They tend to be tacky tabloids and they thrive on pictures of the Queen scratching her nose and sex tapes involving celebrities.

The Morning Star I haven't seen for ages but I believe thats a socialist newspaper, and used to be regarded as a newspaper for communists. The Times is fairly respectable and you can trust what they say, the same with the Independant and the Guardian. They are quite reliable. The Telegraph isn't really all that good a newspaper.

So, the Dailies are usually totally unreliable and best ignoring. The Guardian, The Independant and The Times can be trustworthy at times. I generally don't read newspapers, I get all my news from the BBC Online.

As for audiences, The Sun and The Dailies are read by the working classes. The Daily Mail is a very middle class newspaper and the Guardian and Independant, Financial Times etc are Middle/Upper Class newspapers because of the stories they include and their general writing style.

An average Sun article will contain about 200 words with three or four pics. An Independant article will probably not have a photograph and include 2000 words which is why it becomes more reliable. And because of the audience they write for, the Middle/Upper Class papers have better sources.
 
ysbel said:
Here are a few papers whose names I got from the BBC website. So Brits, what's your opinion of these papers in relation to their reporting of royals?
  • Daily Express
  • Daily Mail
  • Daily Mirror
  • Daily Star
  • Daily Telegraph
  • Financial Times
  • Guardian
  • Independent
  • Morning Star
  • Sun
  • Times
I guess I should add the BBC too since that's the most familiar British newsource in the United States.

All IMO and I have to say I only buy my top three.

Financial Times - fairly good
Guardian - not too bad
Times - not too bad

The following IMO are inaccurate and unreliable.

Express, Mail, Mirror, Star, Sun, Morning Star, what they don't know, they will make up normally with 'a source' as the get out clause.:(
Independent is I understand, anti royalty.:mad:

BBC can also be iffy and seems to depend on who is writing the story that day. On the whole I agree with BeatrixFans' assessment on who reads what, although I am surprised to hear that the Mail is considered middle class, I lump that in with The Mirror/Sun.
 
Last edited:
Thanks BeatrixFan and skydragon. :)

I'm surprised the Daily Mail is seen as pro-Charles and Camilla. Don't they have Richard Kay who has run some very unflattering and erroneous articles about Charles?

Thanks for the heads up on the Independent, skydragon. I didn't realize that they were anti-royal.

This is all good stuff to know. :) I hope other Brits will drop in and contribute their point of view.
 
Before the marriage they were very offish but after the marriage they have become truly obsequious and are praising Camilla like mad. The Daily Mail have never criticised the Queen AFAIK.
 
The Express has run a lot of stories about Diana death cover-ups recently - not one that I buy but have noticed headlines. The Independent tends to have a strong editorial and leans towards stories that show how the world is being messed up/what a disaster the Iraq war was/is etc, not too bothered about the royals as such unless it is a serious piece or covering how Duchy of Cornwall tenants are getting badly treated by HRH.

Definitely agree that the Mail and Express are 'lower end' of the market though slightly more sophisticated than the Sun.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BeatrixFan said:
Before the marriage they were very offish but after the marriage they have become truly obsequious and are praising Camilla like mad. The Daily Mail have never criticised the Queen AFAIK.

Beatrixfan, have you ever seen any of the papers criticize the Queen really, I mean I think she is generally not a bad old stick and she does her bit very well. She has done her duty and noobody can deny that. I think the only time I remember her getting flack as such was when Windsor Castle burnt down and she was criticized for govt money being spent on the personal apartments, but even then it turned out it was the PM who had said it. The only other thing I remember was the furore in the papers about the Queen wringing a pheasant's neck to put it out of its misery after it had been shot but not killed.

Can you remember any other critical stories about the Queen and who would you say criticizes her most?
 
BeatrixFan said:
Before the marriage they were very offish but after the marriage they have become truly obsequious and are praising Camilla like mad. The Daily Mail have never criticised the Queen AFAIK.

Very interesting. :) BTW what does AFAIK mean?
 
lizz70 said:
The Express has run a lot of stories about Diana death cover-ups recently - not one that I buy but have noticed headlines. The Independent tends to have a strong editorial and leans towards stories that show how the world is being messed up/what a disaster the Iraq war was/is etc, not too bothered about the royals as such unless it is a serious piece or covering how Duchy of Cornwall tenants are getting badly treated by HRH.

Thanks lizz for providing your viewpoint! I imagine the Independent is not the paper to read if you're looking for something upbeat. ;)

But then it may mean that when they report on royals they'll have an original angle.
 
ysbel said:
Very interesting. :) BTW what does AFAIK mean?

BeatrixFan seems to have gone.

It means As Far As I Know.:)
 
ysbel said:
Thanks lizz for providing your viewpoint! I imagine the Independent is not the paper to read if you're looking for something upbeat. ;)

But then it may mean that when they report on royals they'll have an original angle.

No, it isn't a laugh a minute I must admit :D but they are good for covering the political stuff to do with royalty, esp overseas royalty - what is going on in Nepal for example.
 
The Sun have had a few jibes at the Queen - the pheasant, the flag business and occassionally saying she looks miserable and unhappy.
 
The Times, Telegraph, Guardian (and its Sunday equivalent, the Observer), the Financial Times (the pink paper), and Independent are the papers which are known as broadsheet papers because of their size (the size of each page, not the number of pages); they were (this is recently changing) the same sort of size as the New York Times and Washington Post. The others are known as tabloid papers and are the same size as things like the National Enquirer. Much easier to handle, but with less room on each page.

The broadsheets have always been considered to be more high-quality than the tabloids, although I think that after Rupert Murdoch took over the Times it started turning into a tabloid-type paper in the quality of its articles even if not in the size of its pages. The Telegraph has been the most focussed toward business and the most right wing in its editorials; the Guardian has been the most left wing, and unlike the others it originated in the industrial north of England rather than London. The Independent is a newer paper; when it started up the editors said that they weren't even going to mention anything to do with the monarchy because they considered monarchy irrelevant to modern democracies, but with some of the newsworthy items over the years they've somewhat relaxed that rule. They're still republican, though. The Times was always considered the paper of record rather like the NY Times in the States, but that's been less and less the case over recent years.

I'd be inclined to believe that there was truth in stories I read in the Telegraph, Independent, and Guardian. I'm honestly not sure about the Times any more.

Of the tabloids, the Mail has been the most likely to have real news in it, but stories are rather superficial and not always very well balanced. The Express, Sun, and News of the World are pretty much, in my opinion, a waste of perfectly good trees.
 
Thanks everybody. This is good to know.

Elspeth said:
I think that after Rupert Murdoch took over the Times it started turning into a tabloid-type paper in the quality of its articles even if not in the size of its pages.

Unfortunately, I think that's the case of every paper that Rupert Murdoch touches. :( He owns a paper or two in New York but they started out as tabloids.
 
Elspeth said:
I'd be inclined to believe that there was truth in stories I read in the Telegraph, Independent, and Guardian. I'm honestly not sure about the Times any more.

It just goes to prove that different people see different things. The only one of the 3 that I would halfway believe is the Guardian.:D
 
I don't think the Telegraph and Independent are unreliable in their news reporting; they're just more right wing in their editorials than the Guardian.
 
ysbel said:
Since this community is made up of people from all over the world, I would like to ask our British members to give the rest of us some insights on the British papers and magazines that we most routinely get our source of royal information from.

I'm wondering what's their reputation in Britain? How reliable are they when reporting about royals? What if any slant or bias do they have in reporting royal news? Who's their main audience? It could help the rest of us make some sense of the reports we are reading on the Internet.

Here are a few papers whose names I got from the BBC website. So Brits, what's your opinion of these papers in relation to their reporting of royals?

  • Daily Express
  • Daily Mail
  • Daily Mirror
  • Daily Star
  • Daily Telegraph
  • Financial Times
  • Guardian
  • Independent
  • Morning Star
  • Sun
  • Times
I guess I should add the BBC too since that's the most familiar British newsource in the United States.

I would say that the papers i have highlighted are definitely pro-monarchy. To be honest the BRF have had a hard time of it in the last 15 years with the press. Their reputation has taken quite a battering. Some of it is their own fault and the rest down to pure media hounding. Most papers in England are - IMO right wing. The Guardian, Independent and Mirror are pretty left wing and tend to criticise the monarchy more - esp the Independent. Alot of what is reported is pure speculation.

The one thing i've noticed is that the press love to pick on a particular member of the family. In the 70's it was definitely Princess Anne who they criticised for her fashion taste, she was even called stuck up. Sarah Ferguson got a rough time of it in the late 80's and early 90's some of it was down to her own mistakes. Now it seems it Charles and Harry's turn - particularly Charles who i feel the press have it in for. Its like the man can't win.
 
And after the "bloody" incident with the press on vacation, Charles has even worse press than ever.

To be honest, I rather believe the BBC than any of the newspapers for several reasons:

1. News are fresh: as soon as they happen, BBC has them
2. BBC usually doesn't take part: against or with royalty, they just provide the information in a very respectful way
 
The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Daily Mail and The Newsletter(Northern Ireland Paper) all provide good extensive Royal coverage.
 
Which type of tell-all book os more damaging?

I just finished Sarah, Duchess of York's autobiography and this question came to mind. Which do you think is more damaging, a tell all by a royal or by someone in their circle or a staff member?

This book was odd at times because it seemed like she was wavering between saying some damaging things and trying to stay neutral of deferential to The Queen. It also brings to mind the books the the late Princess of Wales "participated in" and those of former staff like Paul Burrell and Stephen Barry.

My opinion: I think both are damaging but I am leaning more to the royal's books being more damaging.​
 
Which type of tell-all book is more damaging?

I just finished Sarah, Duchess of York's autobiography and this question came to mind. Which do you think is more damaging, a tell all by a royal or by someone in their circle or a staff member?​

This book was odd at times because it seemed like she was wavering between saying some damaging things and trying to stay neutral of deferential to The Queen. It also brings to mind the books the the late Princess of Wales "participated in" and those of former staff like Paul Burrell and Stephen Barry.

My opinion: I think both are damaging but I am leaning more to the royal's books being more damaging.
 
Last edited:
I would say that both are damaging. But I also lean on to the one where the royal "tells all." For instance when Princess Diana told her side in some aspect or another, there is nothing to prove because she said it. When someone else tells the story most of us seem skeptic.
 
I think what is damaging is the furore that surrounds it. The problem with the Andrew Morton book was that Diana lied and said that she had no particpation in its written, blamed her brother in law - Andrew Fellows and than when it came out that she had been passing tapes and such along to Morton.

Sometimes unofficial records make more trouble because they great press as they are sensational. The majority of people don't care if it is coming from a realiable source. Many people honestly believe that news print the truth and that where there is smoke there is fire. So I think it is more the damage control of either that determines which is more damaging in the long run.
 
Any "tell-all" book, doesn't matter who writes it, is not good news IMO. Sometimes mystery is the best thing.
 
Charles' former employee, the one that sold copies of his diaries and more than the Andrew Morton book, the crossfire interviews of Diana and Charles were one of the worst blows the monarchy had endured
 
Which type of tell-all book is more damaging?

We need to know what type of damage are we going to discuss about. By damaging do you mean:

1. a tell all book written and backed up by tabloids, thus, printed lies;

2. a tell all book exposing secrets, thus, an insider's story.

3. a tell all book based on people and interviews behind the back of the person the book is written about. For example, Kitty Kelly's books on the Windsors and the Bush Family (I got that last one on CD and is a jaw dropper scandalous book). Like the unauthorized bios.

I think the most damaging book is the one written by an insider, a family member. Why? because the book acts as a diary, a catharsis from that person that let us go inside of the inner circle with his account of actual events. That's the book that hurts the most, not the unauthorized bios or the ones backed up by tabloids.
 
The real Royal courtship | Mail Online
19 May 2012

The real royal courtship: The monarchy and the media

It was the story of the century – the King abdicating to marry a divorcée – yet it had been kept out of British newspapers by the palace.
Author Juliet Nicolson explains how the crown had to learn to woo the press


excerpts

Since last year’s Royal Wedding, the Duchess of Cambridge has become one of the country’s most popular cover stars. A princess who resembles a supermodel ensures the happiness not only of the British press but the public too, who are guaranteed the prospect of pages of wonderful pictures during the upcoming Diamond Jubilee – pictures not only of Kate and the Queen herself but also of a new, particularly photogenic and relaxed Royal generation.

Yet just 75 years ago such lavish coverage of the Royal Family would have been unthinkable. Press freedom was controlled and even censored by crowned heads themselves. When the current Queen was ten years old, the face of the woman who wished to marry her uncle the King was almost unknown to the British public. Just one week before the 1936 abdication of Edward VIII, Wallis Simpson’s picture erupted on to front pages. Until that moment an almost total press blackout on her existence had been guaranteed in Britain.

The new Queen Elizabeth, the future Queen Mother, soon revealed an instinctive gift for working with the press in order to allay the sense of betrayal felt by a post-abdication public. She realised that a succession of carefully placed images, lifting the veil on some of the mysteries of the Royal Family’s daily life, would help to re-establish the nation’s confidence and affection in the monarchy as a whole. So she set out, with the cooperation of the press, to present to the public a united family, untainted by divorce, a family who would never dream of abandoning each other, nor, just as importantly, their country.

Not only had the Queen managed to reassure a jittery public that the monarchy was a reliable symbol of unshakeable continuity in the face of adversity, but she had given the editors pictures that would guarantee soaring newspaper sales.

The postwar years ushered in a new challenge – television...In an attempt to use the medium to the monarchy’s advantage, in 1968 the Queen agreed to the filming of the BBC Royal Family documentary. But the cosy scenes of life at the Windsors’ dinner table and family picnics were interpreted by the public as embarrassing rather than endearing. Glaring sunlight had been let in on royal magic, bleaching out something of its appealing mystery. Barbecued sausages became a source of derision.

Yet royalty remained news, and the fascination with Prince Charles’s young bride-to-be enveloped the popular press...The fascination grew into an addiction that proved dangerous for the monarchy, press and public alike. On a couple of occasions when the intrusion into Diana’s life seemed beyond control (shopping for Mars bars, sunbathing in a bikini when six months pregnant), the Queen personally appealed to editors on her daughter-in-law’s behalf. But this time not even a Queen could quell the fevered interest.

In the 90s the Royal Family inadvertently provided the press and public with a helter-skelter of irresistibly newsworthy stories... The final horror of Diana’s death in 1997 momentarily shook the country’s loyalty to the monarchy... This time press photographers were accused of being directly responsible for the tragedy. The relationship between the press and the monarchy had reached an all-time low.

Gradually the press and public sympathy turned back towards the Queen, and during 1997's Golden Jubilee summer newspapers and broadcasters were united on one story: that a great number of the British public recognised, applauded and welcomed the service this now elderly woman had given her country.

In this past year...the public image of the monarchy has been revitalised by the glamour and charm of [William and Harry] and, of course, Kate. Over the past 15 years the press and Royal Family have learnt that there are mutual boundaries to respect, and that cooperation can only work to mutual advantage... And we the public – and the press – appreciate the Royal Family all the more for it.

 
This is quite extraordinary reading, especially about Princess Margaret's less charming side! Thanks for posting, Dman. I might just have to buy the Diaries to see what else they contain!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom