The House of Windsor and The Press

[grandduchessella]

As Tsaria noted on the Salic Law thread, this topic seems to arouse a lot of interest. I'm starting one using Tsaria's last post on the prior thread as a 'jumping off' point.

Slander = the spoken word
Libel     = the written word

The only reason the British Royal Family has historically been reluctant to invoke the law of libel is because of the risk of having to appear in a Court of Law and be subjected to the possible humiliation of cross-examination.   A perfect example of this is HM The Queen, suddenly and 'out of the blue' recalling a, now notorious, conversation with one Mr Paul Burrell.   

The degradation of an open court case almost happened once and concerned a well documented episode in the horse racing life of King Edward VII.

This is well and truly off-topic and is a subject which, as I wrote before, is probably worthy of its own dedicated thread.

tsaria

There was the famous Mylius libel case with George V. Milius reprinted the old rumor that GV had been married to an Naval officer's daughter when he was stationed in Malta. It dropped away for years until Mylius revived it. By then, GV was King, married with children. He decided to pursue the matter and brought it into court. Mylius lost and was sentenced to jail. I once wrote a good deal about it but it was on one of the old threads. I'll try to dig up my info again.

[ChristineM]

Thank you Grandduchessella.

The British Royal Family, probably more than any other family of royals, enjoy - if I can use the term - a vicarious relationship with the British - and foreign - press.   

At no time was this more apparent than during the association of the late Diana, Princess of Wales and the British press corps.   In the beginning she courted their attention.   She loved them and they loved her.   She knew most of them by name.   Later she was to use them during the dreadful 'Battle of the Wales' when she would quite calculatedly used press coverage to suit her own ends.   She offered them endless photo-opportunities.   Slipping out of Kensington Palace, dressed in simple black jumper and jeans, she visited the homeless at the dead of night.    Miraculously press photographers just happened to be there, waiting for their opportunity of a good 'shot'.   She also arranged to be present during surgical operations, dressed in theatre greens.   I'm sure many can remember the photograph of the late Princess, gowned, capped and masked, those huge blue eyes, outlined in kohl, gazingly directly into the camera lens.   Did anyone ask, how was it possible for a member of the press to be present on such an occasion? 

Only once the 'game' was rumbled, did the Prince of Wales and his office, begin to realise the power of the press and to play Diana at her own game, culminating in what is now recognised as the 'Squidgygate Tapes'.   The stakes then got higher resulting in the 'Camillagate Tapes'.

The trouble with this type of press attention is that, sooner rather than later, it inevitably tips over into intrusion.   In the case of the late Diana, Princess of Wales, with altogether totally catastrophic, tragic results.

The British Press can be 'responsible' in so far as their association with the Royal Family is concerned.   When the Prince of Wales asked Fleet Street's editors to respect the privacy of his two sons, they did precisely that.   Prince William was able to enjoy an almost normal student life at St Andrew's University.    Prince Harry was left well alone while at Eton and during his Sandhurst training.   This moritorium has proved successful for both parties.   The princes give press calls - when it suits them.    The Press get the copy and the pictures they want.   The Princes can highlight matters which concern or interest them.   Exceptions were only to be found in the pages in the foreign press.   

Only when the two young men venture into some of the fashionable wateringholes on the King's Road to exit, bleary eyed at some unearthly hour of the morning, will the cameras be waiting - usually as the result of a 'phoned tip-off from another reveller.

tsaria

[TampaBay]

Princess Anne treats "the Press" like 'horse droppings" when she is not ignoring them. 

However, she is the one member of the Royal Family that "the Press" surrender a grudging respect!

TampaBay 

[Nadezhda_Edvardova]

In the Guardian Unlimited's article "Absurd State of Afffairs" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,,1934873,00.html), Roy Hattersley wrote:

"When, long ago, I talked to [Prince of Wales, Charles] in preparation for a profile that I was writing, his one moment of passion during the whole conversation was provoked by mention of proposals to do away with the royal yacht and the royal train. Not only did he insist on the necessity of both those amenities, he reminded me - with much feeling and a great deal of justification - that the bicycling monarchs of Scandinavia are not the undemanding paragons they claim to be. They were, he said, just better at creating the right impression."

It does seem true that the Scandinavian monarchies don't get bad press in quite the same way as the Windsors do.  Why do you think it is so?

Pax,

N.

[Leuchtenberg]

The Scandinavian royals  do get bad press from time to time, believe me.  It's just not as widely spread throughout the world as the Windsor dirt.

Of course, it seems unlikely that one would see the Crown Princes of Norway and Denmark giving interviews admitting adultery or blaming mummy and daddy for all their problems.

Well, there was that one time when Princess Alexandra of Denmark was caught lolling about topless with her financial advisor and getting her toes sucked....oh wait...that was another Windsor fiasco. 

Hmmm...I know.....Queen Silvia was recently bragging about how her children were the best educated royals.  No, that was a Windsor thing too.

Perhaps the Windsors get more bad press because there are more of them behaving much worse than their  Scandinavian counterparts.   And face it, Princess Michael of Kent's foolish remarks are going to sell far more papers worldwide than say, an unwed mother marrying into the Norwegian Royal Family, or a Danish consort upset because he feels he's been gelded, or even a Luxembourg prince fathering a child out of wedlock.  (I know the later is not Scandinavian, but you get the idea.)

[Emperor of the Dominions]

It does seem true that the Scandinavian monarchies don't get bad press in quite the same way as the Windsors do.  Why do you think it is so?

Pax,

N.

I believe there are several factors involved in this.

The main one being comparing and contrasting the Windors with other monarchies around the world. The British/English throne has been unbroken for a 1000 years (aside from Cromwell's few years) and the current monarch is the second longest reigning monarch in the world. I think these type of facts draw more scrutiny and interest to the Windsors than most other Royal houses. Others may look at Britian to see how a successful monarchy works, alas it sometimes falls short of a utopian example. 

R.I. 

[Zanthia]

Well, the english monarchy has always been good for a scandal. Maybe the scandinavian royal families don't get so much bad publicity bacause they know better than to air their dirty laundry in public. And the fact that they are in better touch with the people.
I saw the program "Windsor" earlier this year, and when some of the staff wished the Queen a merry christmas, she was just standing on the stairs, and at least five meters away from them. I could'nt help but notice that she just said "Thank you" and nothing else. Not a smile or handshake, not even "and a merry christmas to you too". I immediatly thought "that's exactly why most of the world see you as a cold fish, Lillibeth,". I seriously doubt that Daisy, Silvia or Sonia, or their children for that matter, would act the same way.

[gogm]

The House of Windsor has world-renowned pomp. They have palaces. They have jewels. The Windsors are more "royal" than just about any other royal house. They set the standard for what a monarchy is. They also get the most attention.

[ilyala]

the scandinavians are discreet as a nation. i would like all of you who aren't scandinavian to think of all the things you know about scandinavian history and compare it to what you know about british history.

the scandinavian monarchies lasted a long time too, but they were much more discreet in their development. while england was always somehow in the center of attention and involved in european and world history, scandinavian countries developed at an even better living standard, but much more quietly. the scandinavian countries are among the most developed countries in the world but unlike countries like the united states and britain they don't claim that this gives them any right to meddle in other people's business.

i'm sure scandinavian monarchs make mistakes too. but just like their nations they and their press are much more civil and discreet about them.

[CHRISinUSA]

You are certainly right about the discreet nature of Scandinavians - it is to their credit.  The image of Britain as the center of the universe - at least royally - is really only a couple centruies old.

As with all great empires, the British era has risen and fallen over the centuries.  In the 18th century, Britain was hardly the most powerful or well-known of monarchies.  In those days you had the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, the Holy Roman Empire.  Even France and Spain were as equal to or even more powerful than Britain. 

After 1760, France and Spain had set-backs and began a decline in power (except for the Napolean years in France).  Russia enjoyed its pinnacle during this century, the Holy Roman Empire broke up and was replaced with an emerging German empire and the Austria-Hungary Empire.  Denmark rose in prestige and influence.  This is also when Britain began its rapid ascention to the pinnacle of power - first due to colonization, and later its leading adoption of industry.

Nearly all European empires were destroyed by WW1.  Britain was the remaining principal power, and despite the slow but steady decline of the country's world-wide influence , the British Crown has remained as the most well-known and prestigious Crown in much of the western world.  Ask your average American, Brazilian, Argentinan or African who "The Queen" is and they are likely to say Elizazbeth II.  Ask them to name the King and Queen of Sweden or Belgium and you're likely to be greeted with blank stares.

But who knows what the 21st century will bring?  The American "empire" has peaked and is probably started its decline....who will be the next great power?  (I'm guessing China).

[Romanov_fan]

The English monarchy has always historically inspired much interest, and it it is widely known. The dynasties that have ruled in England have it all, and they are very relatable. They are basically modern celebrities in some sense, but even historically, they have always been the center of the world's eyes.It's not just the modern Windsors, it is many English royals going back a long time. I think the Windsors are simply more interesting and glamourous than the Scandinavian royals. Those royals are rather dull, anbd their countries not that interesting. People want to read interesting stuff, that's why the Windsors get more publicity bad or good.

[Taren]

Ask any random person what royals they can think of -past or present- and the majority of them are going to name British royals. You might get a Catherine the Great or Marie Antionette or Anastasia in there somewhere, but that's about it. None of my friends are interested in royalty, but I bet most could at least name Henry VIII, George III, Victoria, and Elizabeth's I &II. I think that's beacuse most of the British royals have a good story that goes along with them. To my knowledge, no Scandinavian monarch ever married six times and started his own religion and it is George III that we learn about in history class as the one we gained independence from. Not to mention the eras known by the names of British monarchs. Victorian era, Elizabethan, or even the Queen Anne furniture and architecture. Plus, think of all the places in the world that are named after British royalty. Even after the United States gained independence we still kept the names of the Carolinas, Georgia, Maryland, and Virginia for states, not to mention several cities like Williamsburg and Elizabethtown. Then in Canada there's Alberta and Prince Edward Island among other places and in Australia there's Adelaide, Victoria, and Queensland. Even if most people living in those places don't know the origins of the names, the fact that they were named for those people cannot be denied. While the other monarchies have been quietly doing their own thing, Britain just sort of got out there and made itself known.

So what does this have to do with boats and trains? Well, the more famous you are, the......more famous you are. The British monarchy is spread all over, on levels large and small and because of that they're the most famous. Everything they do because of that level of being "out there" is going to attract some sort of attention. Everyone knows the luxuries they have. I couldn't tell you what luxuries the Scandinavian monarchs have, because they're less known. Look at the tabloids. What story are they going to publish: a Paris Hilton or Anne Hathaway? Paris always, because she's more famous and known for attarcting scandal (not unlike the British royals). Anne Hathaway is classier and quieter and definitely less famous and therefore less likely to sell a story.

[Romanov_fan]

Yes, I think those are the reasons.British royals have always been well known, it is not just a recent phenomena as some seem to think that it is. It has actually been true for a long time that the British royals were interesting, and were considered to be so. Other monarchs have never been as interesting, not just in Sweden, Denamark, etc. Russian history is interesting, just as much as British royals, but it is not as well known to the average person as much as British royals. I think the British royals then and now get the news for what they are, which is always good copy.

[Nadezhda_Edvardova]

Is it possible that sharing the English language has something to do with it? N.

[gogm]

The UK is certainly well known in the English-speaking world, including the USA. UK law was USA law prior to July 4, 1776 and likewise save for change of date for most other English-speaking lands.

However, if you took people from around the world and asked them if they recognized royal names, the UK names would likely be the best known.