Talking to the media

TLLK · December 25, 2017, 04:57:48 AM

QuoteThe RF would im sure love it if they said nothing about her, but they know its like letting a pressure cooker calm down, theyre letting the boys speak in a measured manner to avoid any future outbursts.

Agreed and IMO this is the appropriate thing for them to do. :)

royalanthropologist · December 25, 2017, 05:29:18 AM

Perhaps the golden rule for the BRF is say something nice or say nothing at all. I don't think we will ever see the kind of media splashes that happened in the 1980s and 1990s again. The firm is very in much in control. Even W&H are quickly brought back to heel when they seem to be critical of anyone in the family although they indulge them in pretty much everything else.

I think the whole Diana thing was always awkward for the BRF. She was part of them by virtue of the marriage and children but many of them had grown to dislike her intensely. They could hardly say "nice" things about her without looking like complete two-faced hypocrites. So they just kept quiet and ignored her for as long as they could.

amabel · December 25, 2017, 07:07:22 AM

and they wil continue to do so. They are not going to say antying nice about her, because they know it would not be believed, and they are not going to criticise her because she was a royal and W and H's mother. As for Will and Harry, They have enough sense, I hope not to criticise their father's family when the RF provide their bread and butter and give them a role in life and identity...

Kritter · December 26, 2017, 01:41:33 AM

The RF does not provide their bread & nutter. :no: That is done by the taxpayers & the BRF cannot afford to be seen forcing W&H to pretend that their Mother did not exist anymore. :banana: IMO we shall see many changes when the Queen goes & not just because Charles will be King.

royalanthropologist · December 26, 2017, 04:53:08 AM

I think that the BRF is quite wise and measured in their approach. Say and do nothing. Let Diana's children handle everything. They are grown men and there is no question they actually did love her. Neither the queen nor some members of her family are going to do an OTT grief session for Diana because that would not be a true reflection of her feelings. This was a daughter-in-law that they had a very bad relationship with. I can totally understand why they say and do nothing. For contrast you can look at how they deal with Armstrong...he divorced PM acrimoniously but was always a welcome guest at their events and was by all accounts a beloved ex-in law.

amabel · December 26, 2017, 05:01:22 AM

Quote from: Kritter on December 26, 2017, 01:41:33 AM
The RF does not provide their bread & nutter. :no: That is done by the taxpayers & the BRF cannot afford to be seen forcing W&H to pretend that their Mother did not exist anymore. :banana: IMO we shall see many changes when the Queen goes & not just because Charles will be King.

at present Will, and harry are supported by Charles... we only pay for their security.

Double post auto-merged: December 26, 2017, 05:04:01 AM

Quote from: royalanthropologist on December 26, 2017, 04:53:08 AM
I think that the BRF is quite wise and measured in their approach. Say and do nothing. Let Diana's children handle everything. They are grown men and there is no question they actually did love her. Neither the queen nor some members of her family are going to do an OTT grief session for Diana because that would not be a true reflection of her feelings. This was a daughter-in-law that they had a very bad relationship with. I can totally understand why they say and do nothing. For contrast you can look at how they deal with Armstrong...he divorced PM acrimoniously but was always a welcome guest at their events and was by all accounts a beloved ex-in law.

True, I gather that the queen was always friendly with Snowdon. Of course theyre not going to say anytig abuot Diana, why should they? I think Will and Harry did rather too much about her back in August... there was a lot of coverage in the papers, and there was nothing really new, a lot of re hashing of old stories, and dragging up old wounds. I think Will and H wanted to say something special about her, on hr 20th anniversary but I understand that they have said that this was a special occasion and a one off.

Curryong · December 26, 2017, 06:41:07 AM

The Snowden marriage was very acrimonious with constant fighting. I'm nor sure that the divorce was. IMO they were both unfaithful and had wanted to be free of each other for some time. Tony seized the opportunity when photos of Margaret and her toy boy Roddy Llewellen were published in a British tabloid. I think Tony was in Australia at the time it blew up.

I remember him reading a statement out about it being 'desparately sad' (that there would have to be a separation) but I recollect thinking at the time that he was probably quite gleeful about it. IMO I think the divorce came as a relief to both parties.

Of course he himself had a very colourful private life, illegitimate children, and almost certainly bi-sexual. However, Snowdon was a man of great ability at his craft and a man of great charm when he put his mind to it, and so was retained by the BRF to take family photographs of christenings, birthdays etc for a very long time.

royalanthropologist · December 26, 2017, 07:03:11 AM

He was bi? Good lord. Margaret had such an adventurous life, didn't she? :hehe: Chalk and cheese when compared to her sister.

Kritter · December 26, 2017, 11:18:56 AM

Quote from: amabel on December 26, 2017, 05:01:22 AM
at present Will, and harry are supported by Charles... we only pay for their security.

Charles gets money from, the Duchy of Cornwall & that is owned by the people. So everything is supported by the people even Charles. :happy:

TLLK · December 27, 2017, 12:55:25 AM

QuoteI think Will and H wanted to say something special about her, on hr 20th anniversary but I understand that they have said that this was a special occasion and a one off.

@amabel-IMO this was a special occasion and a one off as you mentioned. Ten years after her death there was the Concert for Diana. The twentieth anniversary saw smaller celebrations of her life and IMO the brothers acknowledged her positive impact, but more importantly reclaimed her as their mother instead of the global figure that the media and others had profited from over the decades ie: Paul Burrell, Ken Warfe etc...

Kritter · December 27, 2017, 01:42:08 AM

I think Camilla leaking to the press about H&M's relationship & other aspects of the royals will continue. She always has been one to run to the media & still does apparently. :hall10:

royalanthropologist · December 27, 2017, 04:45:18 AM

Actually the queen of "leaking" to the media was none other than the late Princess of Wales. Camilla has not done a panorama or Morton or even a Settlen as far as I am aware. If she did indeed tell the press about Harry's love life, I would like to see the evidence. However, if it is true then that was inappropriate...but I hardly doubt that the DOC is wasting her time calling up papers about Harry's love life. That is for sad lonely people and I suspect the duchess is not one and has never been one.

Kritter · December 27, 2017, 04:50:01 AM

:shame: :badfrog!: Charles & Camilla The Leakers

royalanthropologist · December 27, 2017, 04:57:30 AM

Like I said, people who spend their time looking for press points by constant leaking are normally the sad lonely ones with no real friends. Camilla has never been short of friends even at the worst moments of the press harassment. I am still waiting for any evidence that it is Camilla that outed H&M. Somehow I doubt it is going to come...because most likely it is not there. Like the bread rolls yarn, it is a made up story to make some people feel good about themselves...nothing to do with Camilla.

Kritter · December 27, 2017, 05:05:56 AM

:cling: Camilla's friends

MissFrouFrou · December 27, 2017, 05:33:40 AM

Quote from: Kritter on December 26, 2017, 11:18:56 AM
Charles gets money from, the Duchy of Cornwall & that is owned by the people. So everything is supported by the people even Charles. :happy:

Spot on, but more than that, they get to live free in publicly owned palaces and castles ... quite outrageous. Meghan, who has contributed nothing to public life in GB has been living at KP. That should not have subsisted, even after engagement. It's always argued that Meghan is rich in her own right, independent, feminist, earned her own way etc. So why didn't she lease her own apartment, even if just for show? Sorry, O/T ...

Kritter · December 27, 2017, 05:37:55 AM

^ Because that is where Harry lives & her staying there would not cost extra since it already costs by Harry living there. :nono:

MissFrouFrou · December 27, 2017, 05:43:45 AM

Quote from: amabel on December 24, 2017, 01:34:56 PM
I think it is very likely the monarchy will end in 100 years... but I can't see what Rup Murdcoh has to do with it. It will probably end because the royals in 100 times will prefer freedom to being "on show" and having to live a life that is so restricted and the public will not want them to do so.
The RF have to tread a fine line between being "too distanat" which will make the public lose interest, and telling to much bout themselves, which will erode respect.
George's son or grandkids may get tired of treading that line.
But it was mainly Diana who chose to put her private life out in the media, by the MOrton book. People blame the queen for the programme "at home with the RF" in the 1960s but it is hard to see how she coudl ahave avoided making some attempts to "open up" a litle bit to the public, and show a carefully edited programme that covered some of her private life. However she never imagined that it woudl be followed by one of her offspring's wives deciding to talk to jouranlists about intimate things and giving them a wonderful story about the problems in her marrriage.
Charles responded, foolishly, by talking about his side of thte marital troubles, to Dimbleby, but I think after he' had done so, even if he woudlnt' admit it, he knew it was a mistake and has never spoken publicly of Diana or his marriage again.
I hope WIll and Harry will never make those mistakes..

That's generous, I think the monarchy will fall within 10-20 years in the UK after the Queen dies because it has lost all currency for true monarchists. It won't last longer than 5 in other Commonwealth realms, perhaps sooner, depending on whether a referendum is called prior to the proroguing of parliament.

Diana had to vent to the media because she was being sabotaged and shut down behind closed doors by people she used to trust or thought she could trust. Diana was deeply betrayed by many, including the BRF, whose senior members treated her as nothing more than a womb for breeding blue-blood heirs. Charles' dismissal of Diana after Harry was born was brutal and cruel. He never tried to work on the marriage, he gave up easily because he had Camilla waiting in the wings.

Diana was vengeful, but she had every reason to be. I would guess that many of her detractors would have been demanding blood, a lot less gracefully than she was.

I take your point Kritter but it's bad "optics" as they say. There was a real sense of entitlement coming from Harry during that engagement interview. He referred to NC as "our cottage". A little bit of gratitude was expected, from me, at least. She wasn't publicly engaged to him at that point. He could have said, "in NC, where we will now reside".

royalanthropologist · December 27, 2017, 05:51:11 AM

At last :goodpost: someone who is honest about what Diana was all about...REVENGE. It is refreshing to hear the truth rather than some spin about a kind, loving wife who did nothing but help the BRF.

MissFrouFrou · December 27, 2017, 05:55:59 AM

Well thanks, but I am pro-Diana, all the way, as is my family - just so you know. :xmas6: :P

Kritter · December 27, 2017, 06:05:25 AM

QuoteDiana was vengeful, but she had every reason to be.

Yep C&C deserved everything that happened to them. :nod:

MissFrouFrou · December 27, 2017, 06:13:11 AM

Absolutely; although I will state that I admire Charles' sense of duty. As to his personal decisions and known peccadilloes and flaws, I don't like him. but I do think, in terms of duty, he is King material, Camilla aside. But I don't think he will be readily accepted and he has to own that.

I watched another Diana doco the other night and was appalled by Charles' cold, cruel dismissal of Diana.

amabel · December 27, 2017, 08:13:39 AM

Quote from: TLLK on December 27, 2017, 12:55:25 AM
@amabel-IMO this was a special occasion and a one off as you mentioned. Ten years after her death there was the Concert for Diana. The twentieth anniversary saw smaller celebrations of her life and IMO the brothers acknowledged her positive impact, but more importantly reclaimed her as their mother instead of the global figure that the media and others had profited from over the decades ie: Paul Burrell, Ken Warfe etc...

I am not sure it was a good idea,myself... I think that in the month or 2 before Diana's death we saw masses of stuff coming out from the "usual suspects" all just the same old stuff with a different twist and I sort of felt that the boys' tribute to her got mashed up with all that. but perhaps it was inevitable...

Kritter · December 27, 2017, 11:52:27 AM

Harry did a BBC program today. Could this be the new way for Royals to use the media? :king:

wannable · December 27, 2017, 01:29:25 PM

I hope not, a comment by Harry live in reference to MM and not having a family has caused a public reaction from commentators with dissension, which may cause another outbreak of articles from her side of the family. Misconstrued or not, the damage is done by written articles in his involvement and what he said.

If Harry wishes to use this platform, the only request I see viable is it must be a controlled environment of questions and answers.

The horses mouth confirmed he and his fiancee stayed with W&K at Amner Hall. :snowflake: