On rulebreaking royals
The Duchess of Sussex is exactly right. She cannot expect royal life under media scrutiny to be easy; but she is entitled to expect it to be fair. She has discovered it is not fair, and this hurts. Perhaps she might have realised earlier that this would be so. A constitutional monarchy is bound to live in a gilded cage, and the point about such cages is not only that they lock you in, but also that they make you perpetually visible.
That is no excuse for bad press behaviour, however. Fond as I am of my own trade, I have always thought – and argued publicly – that the media, especially the tabloid press, are unfair to the Royal family. We are either at their feet or at their throats. Both postures are unpleasant.
When I edited this and other papers, I often had dealings with anguished members of the Royal family and their perplexed advisers, who were at their wits’ end about the media. They tended to fall into one of two traps (sometimes into both, one after the other). The first was to be disdainfully distant from the media. The second was to get too close to us, feasting with panthers.
An example of both was the course of the Charles/diana relationship. At first, official media dealings were absurdly starchy. I even remember an order being issued that she should be referred to as “Princess Charles”. This was strictly correct, but obviously doomed to failure.
As the marriage deteriorated, the Princess and her supporters started using the media to brief against her husband. On the publication of Andrew Morton’s book Diana: Her True Story, she set up a photoopportunity of her visiting the house of a friend who had helped Morton, thus signalling she backed the book.
On one level, such tactics worked well. They made life hard for Prince Charles, as Diana intended, but they also made her a half-agent, halfprisoner of the press, who continued to denounce her as well as praise her. At the time of her death, she was being persecuted by the very titles she had often conspired with.
And she did tell us extraordinary things. She once claimed to me that Prince Charles did not actually want to be king and would prefer to live in a villa in Tuscany with Camilla Parkerbowles. Her son William, she said, should therefore be king instead. This was a private occasion, so I did not report it, but her words were reckless.
In response to such stuff, Prince Charles’s own advisers moved from stand-offishness to Machiavellianism. Complicated and improper behindthe-scenes deals – for example, about Prince Harry’s youthful drug-taking – were brokered via the press regulator. In the short term, this spin-doctoring of HRH seemed to work. In the longer term, it sowed more dissension.
Both approaches missed the essential requirement of people in royal positions: to be professional. However horrible the press, the royal set-up needs to recognise that we have a job to do. The public are entitled to know about that set-up, since they pay for it. Besides, monarchy is an institution which depends on popular esteem. It is in its interest to have a working relationship with those who convey information and photographs to the public. Camera intrusion can be vile, but where would modern monarchies be without lovely pictures for the public to enjoy?
There have, in fact, been many times when successful royal press relations have been achieved. One such was when the press agreed we would not cover Prince William’s time at university so he could get on with his studies in peace. When this time expired, he felt the agreement had been observed, and kindly gave a small party for editors to thank us. I noticed then how good he was at being polite and friendly without giving too much away. As Duke of Cambridge, he and the Duchess usually maintain this professionalism. I don’t think he enjoys dealing with the media, but he keeps his side of the bargain.
There are a few rules worth observing for a professional relationship with the press.
Rule 1: do not seem too needy. The press are bullies and fasten on to this sense that they are being pleaded with. Here the Queen is the model – never self-pitying, never anxious to know what we think or what we might write. The Princess Royal is also good at this. She gets on with her duties, speaks with her customary directness and doesn’t fuss.
Rule 2: do not get involved in political or cultural controversy. The risks massively outweigh the benefits. Just be a quiet force for good.
Rule 3: coordinate what you do with other royals. The monarchy, after all, matters far more than the concerns of any member of the Royal family. We know that dynasties often fight. All the more reason for their members to present a united front to the outside world, even when seething inwardly.
The Sussexes are in danger of ignoring all three rules. Both, in their different ways, seem needy – she of attention, he of peace and quiet. Both seem politically naive. Both also appear not to be coordinating with their royal relations.
It is sad to watch, because both show clear commitment and a wonderful way with people, and the whole country was with them after their wedding. With our support, they surely have the qualities to come out the other side.
read more at telegraph.co.uk/opinion