The Royal Family and the Media


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Really he had to go on a weekend boys get away because he was doing a two day visit to Paris .. in your face !!! hectic tour !!!
I wasn't going to comment anymore on that subject but some times it's just crazy to keep blaming the media. All royals and all royal families have to deal with it.
 
To be honest, we don't know why he went on that trip at that particular time and we probably never will know. Its really not our business how a person conducts their private lives and what they choose to do or why.

Just pointing out that the media can and does take what seems to be and spins it into something that is not exactly cotton candy and rainbows and unicorns. We, as different people that look at the same thing, form different opinions on what we see also without knowing what is behind curtain #3.

People that are in the limelight and have this happen to them over and over and over again learn to ignore it all and get on with their lives. :D
 
IAN HART: The lasting legacy of Princess Diana - Worthing Herald

"It wasn’t that long ago that Prince William was in the news for daring not to attend a Commonwealth event, choosing instead for some ‘R&R’ with friends.
Thankfully, despite the furore, the media stopped short of putting him on trial for treason, like Charles I, or tarring and feathering him, but it was clearly another good old royal storm in a team cup – albeit best bone China.
From the internet conversation with a music icon to Harry revealing he went into counselling over the death of his mother, and TV footage of William stating that, even 20 years on, the shock of Diana’s death still lives with him to this day – groundbreaking, and hopefully it really helps people at their lowest the length and breadth of the nation.
These are the royals this country needs. While this nation will always love and respect the House of Windsor the next generation, specifically these two young men, will transform and take the Royal Family into the 21st century and beyond – which makes all the ‘scandal’ and ‘shame’ of a few weeks ago almost laughable."







"What companies could learn from the British monarchy, the most successful business in history The wily royal family has navigated ups and downs for centuries, mastering spin as a way to survive on taxpayer-funded income The wily royal family has navigated ups and downs for centuries, mastering spin as a way to survive on taxpayer-funded income"

What companies could learn from the British monarchy, the most successful business in history - MarketWatch

Over 300 of the best photographs (and their accompanying anecdotes) will be selected for inclusion in a new book, The Crown from the Crowd – to be published in early May, with all proceeds donated to the Help for Heroes fund.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Very well written article and really makes the silly uproar the media played about William's trip to Switzerland seem as empty words compared to what William and Harry are accomplishing these days.

Thanks for posting it eya. :flowers:
 
Yes, and they also upheld his complaint on one as well, so your point is...?
 
And I think you are excusing. Some might think tabloids regurgitating each others fabrications and putting their own little spin on things is fine. But I won't justify it.

For example, Back in September 2015, the Sun falsely claimed James Middleton and Donna Air split. People Magazine jumped on the bandwagon - as you can see in this tweet https://twitter.com/people/status/647193821890150400.

Then the couple issued a statement saying they never split. People magazine quickly deleted their original article (though they left the twitter link up, oopsie ). Then they wrote a new article talking about how the couple never split and they took some digs at some of the media that had reported the story, conveniently ignoring their own now deleted article.

They swim in the gutter while pretending to be above the other rags. If it walks like a tabloid, and talks like a tabloid..

I'm a little tired of this topic but if you want to continue this discussion it should probably be in the royals and the media thread, as I think our debating the merits of People Magazine has become off topic in this thread.

Ha. You brought it up and were wrong. But I'm more than willing to drop the discussion. Not interested in further debate.

How was I wrong? I've actually explained my point of view. While you just responded with "wrong". What makes you believe People Magazine is the paragon of journalistic virtue?
 
Dang. I just realized something in the past few hours that, to me, really reflects the media when it comes to reporting on any royal or persons of interest because of connections to royalty such as the backlash that has generated over Pippa and James' wedding.

The media takes these people and turns them into their very own "reality stars" and with constantly barraging the public of every little detail, innuendo and outrageous speculation, its turned the public's perception of human beings into being subjects of a reality show where people treat anything reported as gospel and keep coming back for more as a heroin addict looking for their next "fix".

One just has to look at all the instances and explanations of when and where Meghan attended this wedding to realize just how out of whack speculations can get. We've become trained tabloid puppets that we can we can offer our views that "Meghan didn't want to upstage the bride" and "Harry is playing the press on this one" and other similar notions instead of just taking as fact that Harry and Meghan were together in London and that he picked her up for the evening party.

It does remind one of a reality show now doesn't it?
 
Dang. I just realized something in the past few hours that, to me, really reflects the media when it comes to reporting on any royal or persons of interest because of connections to royalty such as the backlash that has generated over Pippa and James' wedding.



The media takes these people and turns them into their very own "reality stars" and with constantly barraging the public of every little detail, innuendo and outrageous speculation, its turned the public's perception of human beings into being subjects of a reality show where people treat anything reported as gospel and keep coming back for more as a heroin addict looking for their next "fix".



One just has to look at all the instances and explanations of when and where Meghan attended this wedding to realize just how out of whack speculations can get. We've become trained tabloid puppets that we can we can offer our views that "Meghan didn't want to upstage the bride" and "Harry is playing the press on this one" and other similar notions instead of just taking as fact that Harry and Meghan were together in London and that he picked her up for the evening party.



It does remind one of a reality show now doesn't it?



The media give the people want they want. If it's entertainment the sport we go to the clothes, food etc we buy. If people don't click or buy it won't continue. We turn it into a reality show.
People love it. The media do their job.
 
I think a number of factors play into this that didn't exist until the past 20 years or so. The first is the 24 hour news cycle, also the change in how "entertainment" news is presented, the internet and "reality" TV.
Instead of print publications with thoughtful articles we get rumor, just so a publication or news outlet can claim to have gotten the scoop.
 
I think a number of factors play into this that didn't exist until the past 20 years or so. The first is the 24 hour news cycle, also the change in how "entertainment" news is presented, the internet and "reality" TV.
Instead of print publications with thoughtful articles we get rumor, just so a publication or news outlet can claim to have gotten the scoop.

Another thing the internet has done is keep past royal gossip and scandal immediately available like it was something that happened three days ago. Names like Roddy Llewellyn, Madam Vasso, Jimmy Donahue and associated misdeeds are a click away for all to see, not moldering away in some newspapers' archives.

The media give the people want they want. If it's entertainment the sport we go to the clothes, food etc we buy. If people don't click or buy it won't continue. We turn it into a reality show.
People love it. The media do their job.


Right. And people love royal photos of seemingly improper behavior, so the tabs pay the paps top dollar for them. That's why the paps are always outside the restaurants when even minor royals are within, because there's a chance of a wardrobe malfunction or some tipsy lurching about. That kind of photo can command thousands, especially if the royal person trips and falls or has something weird like a footprint on the back of their coat.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"What companies could learn from the British monarchy, the most successful business in history The wily royal family has navigated ups and downs for centuries, mastering spin as a way to survive on taxpayer-funded income The wily royal family has navigated ups and downs for centuries, mastering spin as a way to survive on taxpayer-funded income"

What companies could learn from the British monarchy, the most successful business in history - MarketWatch
That is the most stupid, idiotic, ridiculous and ignorant article I've ever read. It shows again that American journalists don't know what they are writing about.

US journalists should be embarrassed by themselves. And I really don't understand how it's possible to write something so stupid.
 
I think these past couple of weeks have seen Sarah Duchess of York get the best coverage she's had in years. It's been a honeymoon for her and a real signal of redemption, for want of a better word.

The Duke of York acknowledged her support and assistance with his P@P initiative. She's always supported him in that, but it was nice for him to give her the hat-tip directly to the press. He also referred to her as "the Duchess" which I can't remember him doing since they were married.

Along with being photographed with Queen Rania in Cannes at a charity event, Sarah was feted in Houston during their British Opera events as a special honored guest and received extremely positive local press coverage. That pale lace dress she wore to the opera looked just wonderful, too.

Finally, Sarah was a featured speaker at the Telegraph-sponsored Luxury Travel event at The Savoy Hotel. She was promoting her Children in Crisis charity, naturally, but I thought that her appearance at this event was pretty significant.

First off, Sarah and her daughters have been pilloried in the press for years over their luxurious vacations. I thought it was a pretty jolly turn of events to have them (the princesses were there, too) as such high-profile participants at the Luxury Travel shindig ... which is sponsored by The Daily Telegraph, a paper that for decades has been quite harsh to the Duchess regarding her lifestyle. It's great to see her finally lending her name to an industry in which she really knows something about. Forget all that pudding tea/scented candle/ business, this is the way to go.

I might seem to be mocking her here, but I'm not. The British Royal Family depends on this industry in many ways, and its nice to see the symbiosis here, sponsored by The Telegraph.

I also like the fact that she wore dark-rimmed eyeglasses onstage during her presentation and a very simple black dress we've seen a few times before. It was all very appealing and a sea-change from some recent gala appearances.

Bravo, Duchess!
 
I don't know if you meant to post in this thread but Sarah isn't a royal anymore and whatever press she does get has very little impact on the BRF. I've seen numerous articles recently about her appalling fashion sense, her up and down weight loss and her travelling. But as she is a private citizen she can do what she likes.
 
I don't know if you meant to post in this thread but Sarah isn't a royal anymore and whatever press she does get has very little impact on the BRF. I've seen numerous articles recently about her appalling fashion sense, her up and down weight loss and her travelling. But as she is a private citizen she can do what she likes.

LQ, here on this forum, she is listed as a royal in the British Royals section. I'm aware that she's not HRH, but, if it doesn't bother the admin here who listed her in with the DoY and the two princess in the British Royals section, it doesn't bother me.

And, I was speaking of a very favorable past two weeks of press, not the past six months, which has been, on the whole, pretty awful. The past two weeks have been the best she's had in ages.


Her press, negative or positive, may not affect HM and the main line royals other than making steam come out of Prince Philip's ears, but it directly impacts the DoY and the two princesses.
 
The British Royal Family and the Media have a very wary view of each other. While some believe that the members of the BRF should just accommodate the media, I find the whole notion repellent.

It is interesting to see that most of those royals with a higher profile attending the Middleton/Matthews wedding acknowledged the press as did some of the celebrities. But a smile and a wave were all they needed and all they got.

There have been niggles about the way Harry and Meghan are handling their romance. Basically, we have only really seen them coming or going to one or the other's home. What is wrong with this, their lives are not a reality show and when they are out they expect to be photographed but there is no onus on them to stop and chat. They are not reality stars that stand, pose and gush, and if they were they did act like that they would be roundly castigated by the BRF and the media that didn't get that scoop and, of course, us!
 
LQ, here on this forum, she is listed as a royal in the British Royals section. I'm aware that she's not HRH, but, if it doesn't bother the admin here who listed her in with the DoY and the two princess in the British Royals section, it doesn't bother me.

And, I was speaking of a very favorable past two weeks of press, not the past six months, which has been, on the whole, pretty awful. The past two weeks have been the best she's had in ages.


Her press, negative or positive, may not affect HM and the main line royals other than making steam come out of Prince Philip's ears, but it directly impacts the DoY and the two princesses.



Erm she's not listed as a royal, she is part of the BRF sub forum because she is the mother of two princesses and was once married to a Prince. Therefore she gets included.

Zara and Peter have threads, the Gloucester children have threads but they aren't royal.

We'll have to agree to disagree considering her appearances in the last two weeks, I've personally seen nothing but the continued attack on any York member. Whilst I'm not saying it's deserved, I have seen Sarah painted in a glowing light. I also don't think DOY or Beatrice and Eugenie give two hoots about what the papers write. That family has been subject to the worst sometimes and I'm sure they don't bother with it anymore. If they did, more fool them IMO.
 
Yessssss! Good that he won. ?
 
The media better figure out that neither of those boys are going to put up with infractions ...gonna cost them financially and assuming they had a reputation might harm that as well.


LaRae
 
"Even Charles’s love life was choreographed for him with the sort of elaborate care and tact usually reserved for pandas in captivity. " :eek: :D

I haven't read Bedell's book yet. It's not something that's on the top of my reading list. I have seen her on a couple of talk shows promoting her book. And recently there was a fun online slideshow of photographs accompanied by quotes from her book.

As far as the New Yorker reviewer's critique of Bedell's biography, and of Prince Charles, don't you guys get the full-on sarcasm and humor of it all, even if the review is downright serious albeit replete with tongue-in-cheek jabs at both Charles and Bedell? :lol: [Apparently some posters' responses to the review were deleted after I submitted this post?]

ROFL at the reviewer's mocking of Bedell's alliterative subtitles for her biographies; and of Prince Charles' long-suffering unease over his family's 'philistinism' and their askance 'tude toward his "intense, lachrymose responses to art, literature, and nature." Not to mention Prince Charles supposed 'annoyed peevishness' at having to travel on some rare occasions first class rather than on a private jet. The part about Prince Charles carrying around with him a white leather toilet seat is rather a mild lavatorial luxury I should say compared with the not so long ago traditional royal duties expected of the monarch's Groom of the Stool, eh! ?

But the quote about the choreographing of Prince Charles' love life absolutely takes the cake. ;)

Hopefully, Princes William and Harry understand how fortunate they are to be modern day princes who fortuitously had a mother who lavished them with loving care and attention, despite the fact they lost her during their adolescent years. Moreover, they have been able to avoid the panda treatment when it comes to their love lives. :D

“'I think it is disturbing for women to have experiences if they have to remain on a pedestal after marriage,' Mountbatten wrote to Charles." Wowza! The less said about this Lord Mountbatten quote the better, considering his and his wife's scandalous affairs, and well-known but swept under the rug marital problems. Geesh!
 
Last edited:
I normally don't spend time on reading/posting the crap from the horrid Globe, but I came over this when I took one of my 3 daily visits to the royal twitter pages and had my biggest laugh for days.

From the Sun's former Royal Correspondent:

Charles Rae‏ @Sunxrae
Where do they get this bollocks from!!!!????

And as you see: The dying Queen quits and has named Charles as King, while William and Kate is betrayed and cruel Camilla triumph.
 
Last edited:
This is a remarkable and unique twist to raise funds for Help for Heroes. Not only by having a book published solely with contributions from the public as they see their royals, but giving much needed attention and awareness to this charity which has been supported in the past by both William and Harry.

I like this idea and would definitely buy the book. :D
 
LONDON — Arthur Edwards, a photographer for The Sun, has spent four decades tagging along after members of Britain’s royal family. He sprinkles his conversations with recollections of kindnesses bestowed on him over the years: a jocular telegram from Prince Charles in 1981, a thoughtful phone call to his granddaughter from Princess Eugenie in 2013.

But raise the subject of Prince Harry, whose May 19 wedding to the American actress Meghan Markle will be the highlight of the year for much of the British media, and Mr. Edwards’s face clouds over. “He’s become — it’s no secret — he’s become very withdrawn. He doesn’t say ‘good morning’ to us anymore,” Mr. Edwards said. “He’s upset with us generally.”

If Mr. Edwards had hopes that Prince Harry would be in a forgiving mood as the wedding approached, they were banished when Kensington Palace announced details of the media’s access to the ceremony: Specifically, there will be almost none.

One reporter will allowed into St. George’s Chapel for the wedding, a palace spokesman said on Tuesday, noting that the space is small and it is not a formal state occasion. Four photojournalists will get coveted spots outside the chapel. Scores more will be stationed along the carriage route and on the castle grounds.

Mr. Edwards, 77, a veteran of seven royal weddings, said he assumed the decision was Prince Harry’s. “I can’t imagine the press officer advising that to the prince,” Mr. Edwards said. “He and Meghan have seen what’s been written and said, ‘We don’t want anyone near the wedding.’ That’s a clear message, yeah.”

Read more: New York Times: Britain’s Wedding-Mad Tabloids Feel a Cold Royal Shoulder
 
Oh well. The wedding will be well covered. The Sun who trashes Meghan on a daily basis is upset that Harry and Meghan don't care for them? That is laughable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom