The Royal Family and the Media

[Rudolph]

Like any press coverage of royals it largely depends on whether or not a person likes the royal to begin with

For people who like Kate it won't matter and for the people who don't like Kate the DM has it's finger on the pulse of the nation.

The people I know like Kate and opinion polls in Britain reflect this. Kate for example is light years ahead of other royals in popularity.

Consistently the most popular royals in Britain are the Queen, William, Harry and Kate.

 

[Skippyboo]

Everybody that marries into the family would have gotten similar coaching, access to better clothing and hairdressers. As for voice coaching, I think it was more for speaking in public than changing an accent. I would think that trying to change your voice in your 20s would be difficult. Actors can do it for a role but to do it all the time would be hard.

To do have to applaud the Mail for their attempts at Kate hate: bringing up the wind problems, the charity disco outfit (which totally matched the type outfits others at the event) and the hairstyling of Amanda Cook using a photo from 2011's Arc gala which was when James Pryce was doing Kate's hair. ??

Diana, Camilla, Sophie all got more stylish after they joined the BRFs.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Rudolph]

I have German ancestors but I don't speak with a German accent. Not sure why the DM thinks Kate should sound like a Durham coal miner.

Kate has had the best private school education in Britain, comes from a wealthy family and the DM likes to portray her as a street urchin

 

[Spheno]

I have German ancestors but I don't speak with a German accent. Not sure why the DM thinks Kate should sound like a Durham coal miner.

Kate has had the best private school education in Britain, comes from a wealthy family and the DM likes to portray her as a street urchin

Kate had Oxford-educated grandpa (and great-grandpa), but, apparently, it doesn't count.

 

[Skippyboo]

Mike's side of the family doesn't count only Carole's miners side. Carole would never have been hired by BA for her stewardess job if she sounded like Eliza Doolittle. Thus she never meets Mike.

Pippa and James don't sound that dramatically different from Kate.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

It is the phenomenon which I have mentioned more on these boards: Girl... you are no Princess. You pretend to be a Princess. Don't get too much air in your head, luv'...

When she was not a Kate Middleton but a Lady Catherine so-and-so, then this portraying of a humble commoner trained as a modern-day Eliza Doolittle would not have appeared.

They can never do good. When someone marries blue blood (f.e. Princess Michael, daughter of Baron and Baroness Günther von Reibnitz née Countess Szapáry von Muraszombath, Széchysziget und Szapár) then it is a "Princess Pushy" of course.

It is the economic model of the DM. Click-click-click-click. The more clicks, the more income their adverts generate. The more scandalous the articles, the more clicks they have. To attract readers who in principle reject the DM (like many of us, I think) they place the very best and the biggest pictures of (royal) events. So we still feel attracted to it like a magnet. Voilà, the Daily Mail, in a nutshell.

 

[Skippyboo]

The DM loves a good label. Carole Middleton social climber control freak while Cressida's multidivorced mum was former aristocratic it girl. Autumn Philips - Canadian. It's been like 10 ten years we know she is Canadian you don't have to write in every article. We also know about Mike Tindall's messed up nose too. Thanks Daily Mail.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[miss whirley]

I have German ancestors but I don't speak with a German accent. Not sure why the DM thinks Kate should sound like a Durham coal miner.

I once read that Catherine, Pippa, and James have a Marlborough College accent and so does Eugenie. I knew that British public schools had different cultures, but I was unaware they had verbal calling cards. It was an interesting perspective from someone who lived near Marlborough College.

Kate has had the best private school education in Britain, comes from a wealthy family and the DM likes to portray her as a street urchin

You know it took all of The Daily Mail's self-control not to accuse William of bestiality when he married Catherine. In the eyes of the DM all working-class and middle-class women are subhumans, more akin to farm animals.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

[...] In the eyes of the DM all working-class and middle-class women are subhumans, more akin to farm animals.

I am not sure if that is completely true. Also aristocrats have been portrayed as idiots, maniacs, perverts, scroungers, whatever.

 

[Curryong]

I've never noticed that distinction. As a large proportion of the DM's British readership is from the working and lower middle classes (the DM is not a middleclass newspaper), it would be quite foolish of the editors to stigmatise females in such a way.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I've never noticed that distinction. As a large proportion of the DM's British readership is from the working and lower middle classes (the DM is not a middleclass newspaper), it would be quite foolish of the editors to stigmatise females in such a way.

The DM has a lot of fun in portraying British women as foulmouthed obese bingedrinking tattooed sl*ts opposed to the alwas elegant, slim, well-mannered and stylish Parisiennes (which is also a gross generalization, I can assure you). In both portrayings there is a truth but it is só blown up, out of all proportions, that all nuance is lost. Typical DM.

 

[wartenberg7]

One question: Did the Queen as a Princess back there in Malta as a sailor´s wife do more royal engagements than the DoCambridge today?!
Did she do more engagement than Kate between Charles´ birth and 1951, after the King has fallen so seriuously ill?!

Could you imagine the storm of outrage William and Kate would face if they would turn their back on England for a couple of years? And, contrary to Princess Elizabeth, William´s not even immediate heir presumptive to the throne!

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Queen didn't spend all that much time in Malta - a few months over a two year period. Yes she did do a lot more than Kate when in the UK - remember she didn't take the children to Malta but left them in the UK. On one occasion she even returned to the UK and went straight to Sandringham leaving Charles with her parents in London. She didn't see him for nearly a week having been in Malta for a couple of months with Philip.

William will never be an heir presumptive - he is the heir apparent to the heir apparent. The Queen was only ever an heiress presumptive but neither Charles nor William have ever been presumptive heirs as they could never be replaced. Harry is currently Charlotte's heir presumptive and Andrew is Harry's but new children will replace them.

There also wasn't the press scrutiny of the royals back then - they would tear strips of Kate if she didn't immediately go and see George after even just a day away but the Queen could wait a week or more as the heiress presumptive. They also didn't do as much as they do now. The Queen was standing in for her father more and more from the late 1940s and certainly from 1950 onwards.

 

[Queen Camilla]

In no other line of reporting do the views of reporters suddenly translate into 'public opinion'

The Express sells less than 500.000 papers a day and yet Palmer thinks he speaks for a nation of almost 70 million people?

The next time opinion polls come out about the royal family, it will be as popular as ever and the younger royals will be near the top.

Yet they represent 70 million when the deliberately skewed written polls are negative about Camilla.

The next time the polls ask deliberately leading questions should we not believe them or should we only believe them when they are against Charles and/or Camilla and in favor of William and Catherine.

 

[miss whirley]

The DM has a lot of fun in portraying British women as foulmouthed obese bingedrinking tattooed sl*ts opposed to the alwas elegant, slim, well-mannered and stylish Parisiennes (which is also a gross generalization, I can assure you). In both portrayings there is a truth but it is só blown up, out of all proportions, that all nuance is lost. Typical DM.

The DM's product is selling hate of women to women readers. It's very disturbing. More progressive papers, like The Guardian, often question the ethics of the DM's business model.

Daily Mail’s cruel but usual punishment of women still sells … | Media | The Guardian

 

[LauraS3514]

"Duchess Do-little"... The vitriol dripping from the Daily Mail is beyond belief.

Wow, that's the same title they gave Sarah in the late '80s and to Camilla early in her marriage. No imagination there at all.

 

[Claire]

I thought I would just drop in - haven't said much on these forums in years. I was a journo for years in a newspaper that moonlights as a tabloid and my dad was one his entire life converting the royals. And yes I attended meetings where you discuss how you will spin the image of the royal you are covering. In today's reporting you no longer report the story - you write the fairy tale or you expand on the soap opera. I know an editor that told us that the media created Diana, Princess of Wales and can pull her down and build her up as many times as they want. And yes that is true, all of the royals that you know through the press are only personas created by the press to sell papers and different things sell papers, get hits on Internet sites or have people watching tv. Don't get me wrong the palace and royals create their own masks themselves - and the pull between the two is a nice little game they play.
You only have to look through the headlines to see what slant the media , and yes different media outlets will have different takes and then look at the engagements, speeches and photo calls the Royal press office gives to see where they going. When you see a newspaper start singing another tune you know there is an exclusive coming.
Everything you know about any public figure though the media is a cleverly crafted piece of work from both sides.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I thought I would just drop in - haven't said much on these forums in years. I was a journo for years in a newspaper that moonlights as a tabloid and my dad was one his entire life converting the royals. And yes I attended meetings where you discuss how you will spin the image of the royal you are covering. In today's reporting you no longer report the story - you write the fairy tale or you expand on the soap opera. I know an editor that told us that the media created Diana, Princess of Wales and can pull her down and build her up as many times as they want. And yes that is true, all of the royals that you know through the press are only personas created by the press to sell papers and different things sell papers, get hits on Internet sites or have people watching tv. Don't get me wrong the palace and royals create their own masks themselves - and the pull between the two is a nice little game they play.
You only have to look through the headlines to see what slant the media , and yes different media outlets will have different takes and then look at the engagements, speeches and photo calls the Royal press office gives to see where they going. When you see a newspaper start singing another tune you know there is an exclusive coming.
Everything you know about any public figure though the media is a cleverly crafted piece of work from both sides.

I have the idea the new Kings in Madrid, Brussels, Amsterdam are so much more open to media than their predecessors. The Scandinavian monarchies were already pretty open. I think that for the continental royals the portraying of the royal families is close to reality indeed. It is only the British, with their poisnonous vitriolic media-culture, in which spin seems more important than reality, where the image seems distorted to me.

 

[Lee-Z]

Everything you know about any public figure though the media is a cleverly crafted piece of work from both sides.

Yes, i think you're right and this is true for all public figures/celebs out there.
Royals in different countries/cultures will use and be used differently by the media (think of the dutch royals with their mediacode) but they all have stuff that is and isn't published

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Yes, i think you're right and this is true for all public figures/celebs out there.
Royals in different countries/cultures will use and be used differently by the media (think of the dutch royals with their mediacode) but they all have stuff that is and isn't published

But is the information the public has on the Dutch, Swedish, Belgian, etc. royal families distorted? The one day we see King Willem-Alexander smartly dressed for the Petit-Palais in Paris, the next day we see him in t-shirt with bodywarmer on a muddy field giving a helping hand. Then we see an overweight dude with unattractive teeth and a ravaged wet hairdo answering to media. Everything à la improvisité.

What you see is fairly what you get, minus entrance to the core private life (we do not see Philippe's living room, Queen Mathilde in bed or the two Infantas fighting upstairs). But all by all the images from the continental royals seems pretty close to what we all can see. Europeans can often see them in real life, you can touch them or even get selfies.

The 1950's spin of The Model Family is a far cry anno 2016.

 

[Rudolph]

I know in Britain social media is having a big effect. When Charles and Camilla went to the Balkans this year, I think one newspaper reporter went along

In the 'old days' this would mean no news or photos but because the British royals have a strong social media game, Clarence House was able to keep us up to date with Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. Lovely photos and videos. My wife cried at Charles's speech as if she were in the room.

So social media does play a role in how the royals are covered in the press

 

[AdmirerUS]

I stumbled on this at Getty today. It's quite amusing. If Royals Worked. If Royals Worked | Getty Images

 

[Dman]

Well, Carole Malone seems to have enjoyed the Cambridge Royal Tour-
Prince William and Kate just won't measure up to the high standard set by the Queen - Carole Malone - Mirror Online

 

[Muhler]

Thanks, Dman.

Well, the first line reads: Is there anyone out there who’s been remotely interested in Kate and William’s trip to India ?

How many links to just the Danish press covering this visit would you like me to post? Twenty? Thirty?
The coverage is not as high as if it was the SRF or NRF though but W&K (and Harry) come in as a close third on this visit.
BB had a large feature in this weeks magazine issue and will have a large feature next week as well.

As for the rest of the column, well...

 

[Skippyboo]

If no one was interested why did the reporters send all those reporters and photographers? Basically none went with C&C and a handful with Harry. However, everybody was there for India and Bhutan.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[MichelleQ2]

Well, Carole Malone seems to have enjoyed the Cambridge Royal Tour-
Prince William and Kate just won't measure up to the high standard set by the Queen - Carole Malone - Mirror Online

what a terrible whiny article... did she even go on the tour?

and this inspired quote: The media’s done its best to jazz it up with endless pictures of Kate’s dresses, her hairdos, and action shots of her throwing herself into various national sports.

THE MEDIA? if this tour was not a photographers banquet what was? and the Cambridges and their hosts made this a visually interesting tour - not the media... they just photographed the event.

 

[cepe]

what a terrible whiny article... did she even go on the tour?

and this inspired quote: The media’s done its best to jazz it up with endless pictures of Kate’s dresses, her hairdos, and action shots of her throwing herself into various national sports.

THE MEDIA? if this tour was not a photographers banquet what was? and the Cambridges and their hosts made this a visually interesting tour - not the media... they just photographed the event.

She was not on the tour and the Mirror reporter who did go said it was a great tour. I'll try and find the link to that report.

EDIT link to report by Victoria Murphy http://ow.ly/4mMmAV

 

[Dman]

I've come to the conclusion that some members of the media don't know what they want out of the new generation of Windsors.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

You can't take Carole Malone seriously. This is a woman who often sits on Sky News Press Preview and criticizes William and Kate for the most ridiculous things. She said during the Diamond Jubilee that the monarchy will be finished after the Queen's death. And she also criticized William and Kate last year for not talking to the press outside the hospital when Charlotte was born.

 

[Muhler]

I've come to the conclusion that some members of the media don't know what they want out of the new generation of Windsors.

Worse, they don't want to know.

A biased journalist is IMO a worthless journalist.