The Royal Family and the Media


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
I can't imagine Wallis as Queen. There was nothing warm or endearing or even loyal about her. She began dating the future king while she was still married! She epitomizes the social climber, IMO. Hang on to what you've got to something better comes along. I agree, BeatrixFan, that the British ppl probably would have accepted her as long as their precious and much adored Edward remained king, but I don't think many people, outside of her close catty little group of friends, cared for her. She was tough, harsh and with a "past", which in those days meant everything. She wasn't even smart enough to at least put on an act for the public and appear demure and withdrawing and "innocent" which is what the public wanted in their future Queen. And actually, she pretty much stole Edward from one of her friends who was involved with him at the time (I think it was one of Gloria Vanderbilts illustrious aunts - on her mother's side). I don't think Wallis would have made a good queen at all and it was karmic justice that she ended up the way she did.
 
Well, I think that ceremonially, yes - she would have looked the part and could easily have made done the engagements side of things and the charity work because she did so as Duchess of Windsor. State banquets she could probably handle too but I have a feeling that she and Edward would have been a very formidable couple politically and would have seen their downfall in trying to force certain things. And then there's the war issue - would they have attempted to steer things in a different direction to how the Government wanted to go. But you raise an interesting point when you say she was a social climber Bella, because I believe that as much as she made a point of saying she didn't want to be Queen anyway and the HRH didn't matter, I'm sure it actually did. Hence the quotation she had on a plaque above their bed, "Blessed be their Royal Graces".
 
BeatrixFan said:
Well, from what I've read, most British people didn't actually care much about Wallis, they just wanted to keep Edward VIII and if that meant accepting Wallis then so be it. Indeed, if you look at news reports, there are photographs of huge marches with people protesting to "Keep our King" etc. I think it was the Government that had a problem, and not the people. Winston Churchill is said to have told Wallis he'd ensure she was Queen but I've never seen any confirmation that he did although he was a huge supporter of Edward and so it wouldn't suprise me. But we'll never know. I think it's a shame she never got her chance to shine but we had the Queen Mother as Queen and that was wonderful so maybe it's best history did pan out as it did.
Click to expand...

I am not sure I agree the British people "didn't care" because when members of Parliament returned to their districts to take the public pulse, the majority of the people were opposed to Wallis becoming Queen.

I think Edward put himself in an impossible position with both the Government and with Wallis. It is clear she was willing to move on with her life and give up any notion of marrying the King to keep him on the throne. But the truth is Edward wanted to abdicate and did nothing to improve his chances of remaining the Sovereign.

Churchill's main desire was to keep the King on the throne, not necessarily any regard for the suitability of Wallis as Queen. In fact, it is said he was the one who quietly suggested to the Cabinet that the King could marry Wallis morganatically and grant her the title of Duchess of Lancaster. But the Cabinet and Parliament refused to pass a bill allowing the King to grant her a lesser status than she would have been automatically entitled to as his wife.

Wallis would not have made a good Queen. She was completely unprepared and unsuited for a life of public duty and convention nor was she particularly enamoured with the British way of life. Edward did the right thing in abdicating the throne to marry her.
 
BeatrixFan said:
I believe that as much as she made a point of saying she didn't want to be Queen anyway and the HRH didn't matter, I'm sure it actually did. Hence the quotation she had on a plaque above their bed, "Blessed be their Royal Graces".
Click to expand...

This is definately true. She made it clear many times in the years after the Abdication that she had never had any desire or intention to become Queen.

I think she very much was offended by the letters patent denying her the right to be HRH. But as the years went by, she probably didn't care much since they were not living in England and it mattered less in the life they built for themselves in France and America.

I also think her main concern was the Duke not be estranged from his family if at all possible and it wasn't worth fighting over. She was much more concerned with the money than the title.
 
Considering their sympathies toward Hitler, I don't know how England would have fared during WWII. Edward is quoted as saying "I didn't think Hitler was such a bad chap" and their visit there and subtle support of Hitler was a little scary. Hindsight is 20/20 but even at the time Adolph Hitler was frightening..
I think as far as style, Wallis would have made a good queen. She had exquiste taste and was very fashion fabulous but as far as substance, she really didn't seem to have much. Throughout their exile they never began or publicly supported a charity and did nothing but go from party to party. England needed substance, and they got it with George (Bertie) and Elizabeth.
 
branchg said:
She made it clear many times in the years after the Abdication that she had never had any desire or intention to become Queen.
Click to expand...

Of course she's going to say that. What do you think she'd say: I'm bitter and resentful my plans fell apart and I was denied becoming Queen of England! This woman most certainly wanted to be Queen. I think most women who marry the heir to the British throne do so not out of love but out of the fact that they will one day (if all goes accordingly) be Queen. Camilla might be an exception. No disrespect intended, but I hardly doubt that all these rather ordinary dowdy little men who have sat upon various thrones would have landed the lovely intelligent (even strong-minded) brides they had if it weren't for their positions.
 
She was not an honorable woman by any means and certainly Edward did England a big favor by abdicating the throne. They both were selfish and greedy with little sense of duty.
 
Bella said:
Of course she's going to say that. What do you think she'd say: I'm bitter and resentful my plans fell apart and I was denied becoming Queen of England! This woman most certainly wanted to be Queen. I think most women who marry the heir to the British throne do so not out of love but out of the fact that they will one day (if all goes accordingly) be Queen. Camilla might be an exception. No disrespect intended, but I hardly doubt that all these rather ordinary dowdy little men who have sat upon various thrones would have landed the lovely intelligent (even strong-minded) brides they had if it weren't for their positions.
Click to expand...

I hardly think of David as a dowdy little man - he was quite dashing and charming - and certainly a good looker when he was younger, even when he was older, he had a rogueish appeal.
 
ysbel said:
I hardly think of David as a dowdy little man - he was quite dashing and charming - and certainly a good looker when he was younger, even when he was older, he had a rogueish appeal.
Click to expand...
He always struck me as weak. And I guess looks are, as I said in another post, all in the eye of the beholder. I believe he was charming. He certainly was adored by the British people. But I don't think he would have garnered all the adulation hadn't he been the heir to the British throne. And I don't think someone like Wallis Simpson would have batted an eye at him if he had been just an ordinary, albeit charming, fellow.
 
Bella said:
He always struck me as weak. And I guess looks are, as I said in another post, all in the eye of the beholder. I believe he was charming. He certainly was adored by the British people. But I don't think he would have garnered all the adulation hadn't he been the heir to the British throne. And I don't think someone like Wallis Simpson would have batted an eye at him if he had been just an ordinary, albeit charming, fellow.
Click to expand...

But I think you're looking at character from the viewpoint of time after which its easier to judge one's character.

But in the 20s, when he was younger and untested, it was harder to see. He was an outstandingly popular Prince of Wales - more popular than Prince Charles has ever been in his life. It was the Roaring Twenties, when young men and women sought to throw off the horrors of the First World War and the Victorian modes of their elders. Substance in character was not a prized commodity. One only needs to read the books of F. Scott Fitzgerald, the great chronicler of the times to see that. (Incidentally, one of the most amusing of Fitzgerald's stories concerns a group of people trying to crash a party where the Prince of Wales was expected)

The Prince of Wales was the epitome of the 'Bright Young Things' as young people were called at the time - he was dashing, good-looking, a charmer. It's what the women prized back then.

As far as Wallis not batting an eyelash at him if he were not Prince of Wales, in charms and looks he was far more well endowed than either her first two husbands and she married them. Character may be another thing entirely, but as I said, character wasn't a prized commodity back then.
 
Bella said:
He always struck me as weak. And I guess looks are, as I said in another post, all in the eye of the beholder. I believe he was charming. He certainly was adored by the British people. But I don't think he would have garnered all the adulation hadn't he been the heir to the British throne. And I don't think someone like Wallis Simpson would have batted an eye at him if he had been just an ordinary, albeit charming, fellow.
Click to expand...

Bella: I agree with you 100%. Weak as water, yet very charming. And his charm came with his positioin in life. No substance. Wallis on the other hand was an opportunist! They would had been a horrible King and Queen.
 
Well, have they been crowned Queen Elizabeth II will still be Queen. Wallis and Edward never had kids so the crown would have passed to her anyway. Much like the situation of Queen Victoria in the 19th Century.
 
Spoofs, Cartoons and Caricatures of the British Royal Family

Post cartoons and caricatures, and anything of that sort, for the British Royal family, here! For such a busy and visible royal family, it is suprising that there is not already a thread like this, because I know there are images like this out there! I can't wait to see what kind of things you guys come up with!

Here are two images to start:
(I found them via RoyalBlogs.NL, and they are from eventarts.de)
(click on the images to open them at a larger size in a new window)

Funny Paper-doll Puppet Queen Elizabeth II

Funny Paper-doll Prince Charles of Wales

There was also a picture of one of Camilla on royalblogs.nl, but I can't find it on the website
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
The relationship between the British Royal Family and the press

Things have changed a lot from 1952 when after the death of her father, the new Queen Elizabeth II asked the press not to take any pictures of her and Prince Philip on their way back to the airport in Africa to fly home. The press photographers in a show of unity with their Queen lined up the road to the airport and each held out their press cameras that had been opened to reveal an empty film chamber thereby visibly showing their intentions of honoring their Queen's request.

Such a unanimous gesture of goodwill by the press towards any public figure is hard to believe in this environment where the press is often antagonistic towards anyone in the public eye.

Now the Royal Family (as is every other public figure ) is getting roundly criticized by the press on a regular basis and the nature of what they have been criticized for has changed. Some of the criticism is fair and some of the criticism is quite frankly not fair. The tone of the press has not only gotten more negative but it has also gotten more aggressive and intrusive into their private lives over the years. It looks pretty soon that not a member of the British Royal Family will escape the new reality.

Some think that the change in the press' view of the Royal family started from the BBC special on the British Royal Family that was shot in 1969. Harmless by today's standards, it showed normal scenes of a family at home (even if the home was a palace). The program was dotted with scenes like that of the teenaged Prince Charles showing his younger brother Edward how to play the cello. As innocuous as these family scenes look today, some think that this program started to give people the idea that the private life of the British Royal Family was fair game for the press and created a watershed event.

Since we have such a diverse membership from all different countries and age groups, I'd like to pose some questions to the members here to think about regarding the British Royal Family's relationship and the press.
  • How long have you been following the British Royal Family?
  • How has the press coverage of the British Royal Family changed since you started watching them (or has it not changed at all?)
  • How do you think the British Royal Family has handled the press over the years?
  • Do you see a change in the British Royal Family's behavior towards the press from the time when you first began following them?
  • If you have seen a difference in how the British Royal Family handles the press since you started following them, what is the biggest difference in what the British Royal Family is doing?
  • From which individual royal have you seen the most change since you first started following the British Royal Family?
  • Which individuals have done the best in handling the press?
  • Do you see a change in attitude from the press towards the British Royal Family? How would you describe it?
  • Do you think it will be easier or harder for the British Royal Family to adjust to the current press environment than when you started to follow them?
  • Do you think it will be easier or harder for someone marrying into the British Royal Family to adjust to the present press environment than it was when you first started following them?
I'd also be curious to learn what advice you would give the British Royal Family about handling the press. Here are some questions to think about:
  • What should the British Royal Family as a whole try to accomplish in their dealings with the press?
  • How do you think individual members should handle their public relations?
  • Are there any examples outside of royalty that the British Royal Family could take notes from?
I'm looking forward to hearing what everyone has to say.
 
Last edited:
There's been quite a bit of speculation recently about whether the press would actively encourage news of Prince Harry's deployment to areas like Iraq and Afghanistan on the basis that if something happened to him, it'd be more profitable for the papers. I don't think something like that would even have been considered during the time Prince Andrew was serving in the Falklands and certainly not during the world wars. These days the press are treating the royal family as just another commodity. I'm not sure when or why that started, but I hope it doesn't take another tragedy like Diana's death to make them rethink their attitude.
 
I´ve been following th British Royal Family very close for nine years now. The event that started my interest wasn´t the tragically death of Diana ( like for other royal fans), but it was the 50th birthday of the Prince of Wales ( and a longer stay for me in the UK).

For now nearly nine years i research day by day ( if my job and family allow it) the British and the German press to read all about ´my´Royals.

My result about the press coverage is a very negative one.
The press handels the Royals like unprotected game. There are no moral limits, no limits of privacy, no limits for bad taste, etc.

In the limelight is always the private life, rumours, speculation, possible scandales.
The hard and good work most of the Royals do, their service for the whole country, is only a rare topic. A good dicussion pro or contra the monarchy is a rare subjekt too.

The german press has learned very quickly from the British tabloids. The only difference is now the language, but nothing more.

I don´t think that the British Royal Family deals always the right way with the press and the media.
Sometimes they should say a word more (official) to give not so much room for rumours.
Sometimes they should keep silent, because their official statements damage the person or the thing.

I also think they should step in more often with lawyers to protect their privacy and to show journalist that they can´t write lies without to get punished.

I´m sure that Clarence House is partial responsible that Harry couldn´t join the troops in Iraq. They want to do the best for him, i know, but they gave the press the stuff they want to have much to early, i think.

All in all i have to say nothing changed in these years and i haven´t the hope it will happen in the next nine years.
But if you follow the press for many years you learn to seperate the news in some you believe and others you throw in the wastepaper basket...
 
I have always had an interest in the BRF, more as people than as news items. Many of the early shows they did, were done from a respectful standpoint.

As to if the media coverage has changed, we can all see it has. Until Diana the BRF treated the press with distance, which they accepted and allowed the Royals to quietly get on with their lives. They had little attempts to 'intrude', but were put back in their place.

I don't think it is just the media who's attitude has changed, people have. For those of you over 50, could you even have imagined as a child, pushing your way to the front of a queue, where you discussed loudly what you did with your boyfriend and his 2 friends the night before. Going on a TV programme to tell an audience of 1000's that your boyfriend has crabs and is sleeping with your father? Watching endless 'reality' TV programmes supposedly showing you how people interact. Even 30 years ago it was unheard of, now it seems to have taken over.

People on the whole are less inhibited and less caring. They boast on national TV that they have returned clothing they wore to an event, to get a refund. people used to be ashamed of being called a thief, now it is a badge of honour.

HM has tried to make little changes with the help of her advisors. Philip, well he is just Philip and people accept that.
Andrew hasn't changed his attitude at all.
Charles is now starting to fight back over some issues, he will sue, he will authorise CH to release the truth behind an event (not that the media want to believe it) and I believe he would defend his son's by whatever means he can.
Anne has never changed in her total disregard for the press, if invited they are welcome, but she doesn't suffer fools gladly and as a result, on the whole they leave her alone.
Edward, well what can one say about him, in the UK he is the forgotten son.

As for William and Harry, since being back in the public eye, it is apparent that they think they know how to handle the media (like Williams friendship with Tom Bradbury), but they have learnt nothing from their mothers experience.

How do I think they should handle the media, treat them with reserve, tell them nothing, don't react and sue, sue, sue!
 
Last edited:
ysbel said:
How long have you been following the British Royal Family?
Click to expand...
Since October 1957 (in a few months I will be celebratng my 50th anniversary with this fascinating hobby!)

ysbel said:
How has the press coverage of the British Royal Family changed since you started watching them (or has it not changed at all?)
Click to expand...
Since I have always lived in the United States, I can't totally speak first-hand about British coverage. I know that in my early years of following the royal family it was hard to find articles, etc. There was no internet, of course, so times were really lean compared to today. I overcame this as well as I could by having several British penpals who would send me clippings (but even so, there were not a lot) and I scraped together my allowance and baby-sitting money to afford to subscribe to a London newspaper. There could be days at a time when that newspaper had little more than an inside column or two about any royal.

So, I would say from my experience that one great change has been in the amount of coverage.
The other great change has been in the style of coverage, with the movement from articles being "news" to being part of "entertainment"; from the focus of royals as professional public servants to royals as celebraties.

ysbel said:
How do you think the British Royal Family has handled the press over the years?
Click to expand...
I actually think they have done a good job. They have always been willing to give reasonable access to press and photographers. The problem is that the press has a different idea of what is reasonable.

ysbel said:
Do you see a change in the British Royal Family's behavior towards the press from the time when you first began following them?

If you have seen a difference in how the British Royal Family handles the press since you started following them, what is the biggest difference in what the British Royal Family is doing?
Click to expand...
The first change I saw was in 1968-1969. It was somewhat about the press, and much more about television. Prince Philip appeared on Meet the Press in the U.S. and on Face the Press in the U.K., answering all sorts of questions. Prince Charles was interviewed for the first time, intially on radio and later on TV. It was during this time that the 43-hours of film (edited down to 110 minutes for TV) were being taken for the documentary Royal Family. In addition certain authors were given access to follow and observe the royals during the year, resulting in a biography of Princess Anne by Judith Campbell and the book The Queen's Year by Andrew Duncan.

Only through later reading did I learn that there had been a conscious decision at this time, led by the new press secretary William Heseltine, to embrace the inevitable reality of televsion. These measures were meant to introduce Princess Anne and Prince Charles into public life and the public conscience as emerging adults.

I do think that following this time, coverage was less respectful, more openly derisive. However, it seems it might be because of the over-saturation of all the things I mentioned and not just the documentary. Well before 1968, there were writers about royalty who admitted that they invented things, saying "So what are they going to do, sue me?". The coverage since has escalated in that even more things are invented and even fewer things are vetted and substantiated.

From the 1968-1969 reaching out to the media as partners, the royal family pulled back for a long time, perhaps not wanting to been seen as "The Royal Show", perhaps to emphasize that 1968-1969 was a special period not to be a continuing repeated event, and perhaps because they were concerned that the result was not quite what they expected.

It was quite a while before any similar documentary was done. I'm thinking particularly of Elizabeth R in 1991. By that time, television and the press were saturated with royal coverage because of the fascination with Diana.

ysbel said:
From which individual royal have you seen the most change since you first started following the British Royal Family?
Click to expand...
The Prince of Wales. Of course, he was just a little boy when I first started, but throughout his life he has become much more comfortable with the press, more confident in his own abilities, more able to be himself, and has been honest with the press as far as his feelings towards them goes.

ysbel said:
Which individuals have done the best in handling the press?
Click to expand...
Believe it or not, Prince Philip. He has always been bluntly honest with them. He's given tons of interviews. He's been repaid with deliberate misunderstanding and undeserved derision.

Unless by "the best in handling the press" you mean who has made the press like them the most, then of course it's not him. :lol:

ysbel said:
Do you see a change in attitude from the press towards the British Royal Family? How would you describe it?
Click to expand...
As I mentioned above, shift from serious news to entertainment/celebrity.

ysbel said:
Do you think it will be easier or harder for the British Royal Family to adjust to the current press environment than when you started to follow them?
Click to expand...
I think that entirely depends on the individual and personal thickness of skin.
Also, it may be that we, who read every word we can find about them, are more sensitive to negative coverage than they are themselves.

ysbel said:
Do you think it will be easier or harder for someone marrying into the British Royal Family to adjust to the present press environment than it was when you first started following them?
Click to expand...
Easier. Unless they've spent their lives on a desert island. The expectations and pitfalls have been so widely discussed and written about that it would almost impossible not to be aware of the possiblilities. In addition, I think more direct explanations and warnings and descriptions would be provided to the person in question that mya have been given in the past.

ysbel said:
What should the British Royal Family as a whole try to accomplish in their dealings with the press?
Click to expand...
Well, they seem to be in the position now of reaction only (should they choose to react to anything in the press) and less in a position of accomplishment. I prefer the example of dignified silence rather than making the press feel like partners, since the press act as antagonists. So, I guess I'd say the main thing they should try to accomplish is to maintain their dignity.

ysbel said:
How do you think individual members should handle their public relations?
Click to expand...
In a matter-off-fact way, such as the way things are reported at the Monarchy website and the Prince of Wales website. These have occasionally been used to refute and clarify blatant errors in press coverage. I definitely don't think they should respond to every invention or inaccuracy though for that could just fuel more ridiculousness to elicit a response.

ysbel said:
Are there any examples outside of royalty that the British Royal Family could take notes from?
Click to expand...
I wish I could come up with something here, but I can't.
 
Skydragon said:
As for William and Harry, since being back in the public eye, it is apparent that they think they know how to handle the media <snip>, but they have learnt nothing from their mothers experience.
Click to expand...

I'll probably be bombarded for this, but since it's truly my opinion, I'll share it:
I don't think it was intentional, but I believe Diana did them a disservice with too much of the well-publicised fun-parks/MacDonalds/etc. things. The message they seem to have received is "as long as you're percieved as doing the 'normal' things instead of being royal, you'll be okay, all will be forgiven".
 
I'm somewhat in two minds about the Prince of Wales's readiness to threaten legal action over malicious stories in the press. While it's nice to see one of the royals finally saying "enough!", it's asking for people to assume that the allegations are true every time he doesn't threaten to sue a newspaper or TV station owner. That might be enough to cause some journalists to make up just about anything in order to see what they get threatened with lawsuits over and what they don't.

Of course, it's much harder now for the royals to keep quiet about things and rely on the press to have a sense of fair play and not attack people who don't answer back. Nowadays the silence is just seen as weakness and an invitation to mount more and more outrageous attacks as long as they result in more sales. But still - I think this readiness to resort to threats of lawsuits may not be a good idea.
 
Some interesting replies. I've learned a lot from your sharing your thoughts.

It seems the press is now acting as a 'maker' of the new rather than as a mere reporter of the news. It changes the dymanic between the reporters and the reported. Before the news personailities had the power; now it seems the press has the power. One wonders if the press wants to be the new 'king' or 'queen' maker.

I also hadn't thought of the possibility of it being easier for a new royal to enter into the fishbowl but Janet is right and new entries into the Royal Family will be well forewarned of the pitfalls. I would have thought that the former Elizabeth Bowes-Lyons had an easier time of things in 1923 than did her granddaughter in law Diana in 1981 simply because relations with the press seemed easielr to handle.

What could be the advantages and pitfalls of Charles' new assertive attitude towards the press?
 
 
Last edited:
Can anyone translate some of the captions in the caricatures posted by Redferns? They look interesting, but my limited French is not much help getting the whole picture.

Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Somebody
British Royal Family and the Media
Replies
0
Views
1K
Somebody
Somebody
An Ard Ri
The Spanish Royal Family and the October Flooding in Spain
3 4 5
Replies
142
Views
15K
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri
Blog Real
Prince Paul of Yugoslavia (1893-1976) and Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark and Family
Replies
2
Views
1K
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla
Marengo
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Notification - Additional Rules for the Wales Forum
Replies
0
Views
690
Marengo
Marengo
Blog Real
King Inge I (1040-1110) and Queen Helena
Replies
0
Views
246
Blog Real
Blog Real

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom