The Royal Family and the Media

[Curryong]

I think she would have been driven mad by it, Dman, I really do. Quite literally so, perhaps.

We don't know whether Diana would have married, had another child if she'd survived till now. If she did not and was still living much of her life in the public spotlight then she would have been faced with several, perhaps a multiplicity of blogs dealing with her fashion, charity work, public appearances, private life, lovers etc.

People shielding themselves behind pseudonyms can sometimes be unbelievably cruel and can start rumours on Twitter at the drop of a hat, as we know. It would make Diana terribly miserable, I think, and perhaps it's best that she never had to face that onslaught.

 

[Dman]

Since she allegedly had a habit of reading everything about herself, I believe she'd have had a difficult time with the negative comments about herself,sons, daughter-in-law and grandchildren that invariably come with social media.
I believe that most royals cope with that side social media by ignoring the negative as much as possible.

I think the younger royals read both. William has mentioned that he reads both negative and positive. Charles is very sensitive to it all.

I think she would have been driven mad by it, Dman, I really do. Quite literally so, perhaps.

We don't know whether Diana would have married, had another child if she'd survived till now. If she did not and was still living much of her life in the public spotlight then she would have been faced with several, perhaps a multiplicity of blogs dealing with her fashion, charity work, public appearances, private life, lovers etc.

People shielding themselves behind pseudonyms can sometimes be unbelievably cruel and can start rumours on Twitter at the drop of a hat, as we know. It would make Diana terribly miserable, I think, and perhaps it's best that she never had to face that onslaught.

She would've had a hard time no doubt. I do think she would have no choice but to embrace the new age of media, because her duty to her charities and humanitarian work would've been very important to her.

Since her death, The Queen, family and palace officials are very tough on privacy now.

I think had she lived a lot of privacy settings would've been put in place. It would've been the only way she would've been able to cope with it all.

 

[eya]

Is Prince Andrew's defiant statement part of a new Royal media strategy?

 

[cepe]

Dman (post#424) and Curryong (post #423) are right in highlighting the impact that social media and intensive press (not pap) intrusion would have had on Diana.

I've mentioned this elsewhere but we do tend to forget the impact that all of the noise from press, broadcast and social media must have on royals today.

Lots of criticism about Andrew today mainly, I think, because he isn't popular. But he is a father and I think he is worried about the impact on his daughters.

You may not agree but generally people think that he and Sarah are good parents and give him the benefit of the doubt and think about what it must be like for Beatrice and Eugenie.

Easy target for media trolls and nasty publications chasing clickbait.

WE have no idea of the impact that all this negative stuff has on those girls but he does. Andrew has kept quiet under massive negative press about himself. But not now and not about his daughters.

 

[eya]

'Just fanning the flames': royal commentators' verdict on Prince Andrew's outburst

 

[royal rob]

I don't think he should have twittered that statement. He has opened the box any gossip that he doesn't deny will be taken as the truth now.
I don't think Charles would be happy


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Osipi]

I really don't think he should have opened his mouth either. Telling the media to back off and leave his daughters alone is equatable to asking a mosquito not to bite. In fact, I think it puts Andrew exactly where the media wants him to be. They know he's paying attention. They know they can rile him and to some of the reporters, that's all they need to up their game even more against the Yorks. The media acts like trolls and are always on the lookout for fair game. Give the trolls attention and they'll feast on it and come back wanting more.

Bad move Andrew.

 

[Skippyboo]

Wow, Andrew releases a statement and gets nothing but criticism. Harry does the same thing and is praised.

 

[cepe]

Wow, Andrew releases a statement and gets nothing but criticism. Harry does the same thing and is praised.

He isn't popular so he gets criticism.. If he saved someones life, they would say he should have been quicker.

 

[Osipi]

I think there is a world of difference between the two statements. Harry released his because of concrete harassment of people close to Meghan Markle and racial slurs that were out of line. He felt responsible as it is due to dating him that Meghan and those close to her are being harassed. Its the onslaught of media attention to Meghan because of Harry and he wanted to nip it in the bud at the beginning

With Andrew, he was addressing and taking on the media for things that have been rumored about for a while. The Yorks have always had the media proclaiming negative things and picking on any little tidbit to make a mountain out of a molehill where any of them were involved. This kind of negative press has been going on for decades and to have Andrew react now sends a totally different message than the one that Harry sent out.

At least that's how I see it. Basically though, when it comes to the Yorks, they're damned if they do and they're damned if they don't. This family is very familiar with being between a rock and a hard place when it comes to the media.

 

[royal rob]

He isn't popular for a reason or I should say a lot of reasons. From dodgy money matters to friends with sex offender. This isn't the place to go into it but make yourself a pot of tea and read up on him either by his thread or google

In reply to cepe
Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Mermaid1962]

I'm pleased that Andrew made the statement. These stories have been going on for years and not denied. The article about Andrew wanting his sons-in-law to get earldoms was the last straw IMO.

Wow, Andrew releases a statement and gets nothing but criticism. Harry does the same thing and is praised.

 

[cepe]

He isn't popular for a reason or I should say a lot of reasons. From dodgy money matters to friends with sex offender. This isn't the place to go into it but make yourself a pot of tea and read up on him either by his thread or google

In reply to cepe
Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

I know all about that, but it doesn't mean that he is always in the wrong.

This is about protecting his daughters IMO. And he's right to do that.

 

[Al_bina]

Veering off the subject ...

Technically speaking ... Could Prince Andrew request the earldoms in question?

 

[cepe]

Technically speaking ... Could Prince Andrew request the earldoms in question?

Nothing to stop him asking - the decision lies with the Monarch.

But it would be extremely unpopular.

EDIT: should add that if he did ask and was turned down, we would never be told

 

[Skippyboo]

Still need to allow for females to inherit in the Letters Patent for it to be passed on to Beatrice. Eugenie would stay the same. Her kids would be just like Mia, Savannah and Isla if she married Jack.

His York title and attached lesser ones are male only.

 

[Al_bina]

Nothing to stop him asking - the decision lies with the Monarch.

But it would be extremely unpopular.

EDIT: should add that if he did ask and was turned down, we would never be told

Thanks for the answer!
Prince Andrew is fully aware of the tricky situation he is in. He should act accordingly.

 

[Ish]

Thanks for the answer!
Prince Andrew is fully aware of the tricky situation he is in. He should act accordingly.

I would add that while Andrew could make the request, it seems somewhat unlikely.

A lot of the whole "Andrew wants his daughters to be working royals" nonsense is based on the idea that Andrew was raised with the idea of what his children would be, based on what he and his mother's cousins were. There's no reason to think he ever thought his daughters' future husbands would become peers - his sister's husband wasn't made one despite marrying the daughter of the monarch, and Princess Alexandra's husband wasn't made one, with her position being the same as Beatrice and Eugenie's.

This is all just Andrew is unpopular, it's a slow time, let's cause problems. The best part about the whole thing is Richard Palmer claiming that royal coorespondents definitely don't want to report false news and would never make anything up.

 

[cepe]

I would add that while Andrew could make the request, it seems somewhat unlikely.

A lot of the whole "Andrew wants his daughters to be working royals" nonsense is based on the idea that Andrew was raised with the idea of what his children would be, based on what he and his mother's cousins were. There's no reason to think he ever thought his daughters' future husbands would become peers - his sister's husband wasn't made one despite marrying the daughter of the monarch, and Princess Alexandra's husband wasn't made one, with her position being the same as Beatrice and Eugenie's.

This is all just Andrew is unpopular, it's a slow time, let's cause problems. The best part about the whole thing is Richard Palmer claiming that royal coorespondents definitely don't want to report false news and would never make anything up.

For me the best part is journos saying that Andrew should not have issued his statement because what they had written was tittle-tattle and gossip.

 

[eya]

Getty photographer Chris Jackson reveals his top royal moments of 2016 | Daily Mail Online

 

[MARG]

Wow, Andrew releases a statement and gets nothing but criticism. Harry does the same thing and is praised.

He isn't popular for a reason or I should say a lot of reasons. From dodgy money matters to friends with sex offender. This isn't the place to go into it but make yourself a pot of tea and read up on him either by his thread or google

In reply to cepe

Great call Skippyboo, the double standard is mind blowing. As to Andrew's popularity rob, I think that "reason" or "reasons" wouldn't hold up to close scrutiny. Do we castigate HM and Prince Philip for their friendship with Rolf Harris, he even got to paint HM's portrait!

Does guilt by association apply to him, Charles, Anne, etc. over all the great and good that have been exposed as paedophiles, embezzlers and downright crooks? No, it does not. I mean, how could they have known. Yet exactly the opposite is heaped on Andrew. As for the advice to research, it needs to be said that google is often not "your friend" and is certainly not the last and most accurate resource for any research!

I'm pleased that Andrew made the statement. These stories have been going on for years and not denied. The article about Andrew wanting his sons-in-law to get earldoms was the last straw IMO.

For me the best part is journos saying that Andrew should not have issued his statement because what they had written was tittle-tattle and gossip.

People tend to forget that both Beatrice and Eugenie have been on the receiving end of such a lot of hateful accusations about every aspect of their lives from school to clothes, jobs, holidays, et al, ad infinitum! It was about time someone took a stand.

And yes, the fact that the journos fail to recognise themselves is hilarious. Perhaps the old Robert Burns poem should be hung on their walls:

"O wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us!"

 

[Ish]

Great call Skippyboo, the double standard is mind blowing. As to Andrew's popularity rob, I think that "reason" or "reasons" wouldn't hold up to close scrutiny. Do we castigate HM and Prince Philip for their friendship with Rolf Harris, he even got to paint HM's portrait!

Does guilt by association apply to him, Charles, Anne, etc. over all the great and good that have been exposed as paedophiles, embezzlers and downright crooks? No, it does not. I mean, how could they have known. Yet exactly the opposite is heaped on Andrew. As for the advice to research, it needs to be said that google is often not "your friend" and is certainly not the last and most accurate resource for any research!

I believe the difference in this regards is that while other members of the BRF have been associated with a number of high profile individuals who were revealed to be pedophiles, they've never been implicated in it. Members of the BRF typically disassociate themselves with the individual once their actions become public knowledge, and there typically isn't reason to believe that they knew about the high profile individuals' actions.

I would add to that the association between the high profile individuals and the BRF tend to be somewhat exaggerated - more of a "this is a famous person who because of being famous met members of the BRF more than once and may have received an honour or two during their career."

The case with Andrew and Epstein is different. Andrew maintained a friendship with Epstein after the allegations came out, and was photographed in public with him after Epstein served time. Then to make matters worse, Andrew was named in a civil case that alleged impropriety on his behalf (not outright pedophilia, as Virginia Roberts was of age in both places where she claims she had sex with Andrew).

I'm not saying that the press isn't at times unduly harsh on Andrew, or that his daughters aren't treated ridiculously (I think it's absurd how Beatrice and Eugenie get portrayed). Jut that there are reasons why Andrew is more disliked than his siblings. In general, I think he's been more scandal prone in the last 20 years than any of his siblings, and the scandals that he's been associated with have been more damning than the ones that his siblings have been associated with.

 

[Osipi]

And yes, the fact that the journos fail to recognise themselves is hilarious. Perhaps the old Robert Burns poem should be hung on their walls:


Originally Posted by Robert Burns
"O wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us!"

This ranks as perhaps the best found and wisest quote I've seen in a very long time.

Thanks Marg!

 

[AdmirerUS]

At the risk of sounding open minded, all of us know pedophiles, child abusers, people who abuse their partners. We just may or may not know about it. We may suspect or we may be willing to "judge not lest we be judged."

I'm not condoning the behavior, but I am convinced that shunning miscreants does little to solve social issues. I've known too many abused people to believe that ignoring their abusers does anything more than make me feel smug for about 5 minutes. JMO. And off topic. Mea culpa. Pigs are flying as I have just defended my least favorite royal. :0

 

[eya]

Prince Harry in Africa: Royal Family safari photos - Tatler

 

[JessRulz]

Posts about the Queen and the guardsman have been moved to the http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...elizabeth-and-duke-of-edinburgh-29391-43.html thread.

 

[eya]

Why Prince William and Kate Middleton Have A Work Problem - The Daily Beast

 

[eya]

Here's what the royal family actually does every day

 

[cepe]

That has got to be one of the laziest pieces of "journalism" Ive read in a long time.

 

[Rudolph]

Because many of us use the DM as a reference for royal related stories, I thought I'd post this article. I'm sure more tabloids will be added to the list.


Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source. The editors described the arguments for a ban as “centred on the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication”.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website?CMP=share_btn_tw