How the Royal family gets away with it

The News Agents

The episode features journalist Andrew Lownie discussing the recent allegations made by Earl Spencer regarding King Charles III's reaction t

Key takeaways

• Andrew Lownie supports Earl Spencer's claim that King Charles expressed indifference toward Princess Diana's death shortly after her passing.
• The Palace utilizes 'woolly statements' and coordinated attacks on the character of messengers to avoid addressing substantive allegations.

Main topics

• Royal Family Scandals
• Palace Media Strategy

Notable quotes

They play the man rather than the ball.

Conclusion

The episode suggests that the monarchy's reliance on secrecy and narra

Transcript preview

Speaker 1 (0:02) This is a global production. The Speaker 2 (0:05) House of Windsor has taken yet another battering this week. All over the world, allegations from Princess Diana's own brother that the king himself was giddy at her death. That he told Earl Spencer in the hours after her tragic car crash in Paris in 1997 that her sons would forget her soon enough. On paper... Pulped or otherwise, you might think that that could be enough at least to wound a monarch whose own ascension was almost halted by the toxin which flowed from the Diana marriage and her demise. And yet it hasn't really. The battering has felt like toasting at best. Why? The passage of time? The peers I mention? Isn't there always one? Or is it something else? The power of the media to still relentlessly mediate royal stories? an alliance between palace and press which affects royal coverage in ways most of us don't ever even see. Andrew Lowney has seen that process at the sharp end. He's one of the few writers and journalists about royal affairs who can't be placed neatly into the category of courtier. His book, entitled A Biography of the Former Duke and Duchess of York, became a bestseller because it spared no royal blushes and applied scrutiny, which we rarely see. exposing Andrew and Fergie as well the entitled figures that they then were. So we thought what better week to invite Andrew into the newsagent studio, that's Andrew Lowney, to assess how damaging has this book been? What is the state of the House of Windsor now? And how does the palace work with press to curate our monarchs and princes? Welcome to the Newsagents. Speaker 2 (1:48) The News Agents. Well, Andrew Lowney, welcome back to The News Agents. Let's just actually start very, very clear. Do you believe Earl Spencer? Speaker 1 (1:58) Yes, I do. I think broadly speaking, I've only read half the book, but I mean, broadly speaking, I think he's telling the truth. It was a good opportunity to... challenge the narrative that we've been fed for the last 30 years and I think that's what he wanted to do. I think the problem is he's been let down by some sloppy editing and poor legal work and so he has to take responsibility for the mistakes he's made but those should have been picked up and so I think the sad thing is that the message that he had is kind of been diluted and indeed in some ways has been destroyed by the fact that he has made some very silly mistakes in the book. Speaker 2 (2:32) I suppose The natural thing to ask would be, what's the point of it? I mean, it's so long ago. I mean, of course, he's got the right to write a book about his sister if he wishes. Well, his Speaker 1 (2:43) argument is there's going to be a lot coming out next year for the anniversary. I mean, I know dozens of books lined up, television programs. And, you know, everyone wants to kind of shape the historical record. He wants to get his version of events out before, I think, as he honestly said, before the TV programmes and the books, in which he has no control, bring out a slightly different version. That seems to me a perfectly genuine reason. I mean, after all, that's why politicians and generals write their memoirs. The thing I have to say, Andrew, I mean, we've talked before Speaker 2 (3:14) about Prince Andrew, formerly. known as Prince Andrew, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. And, you know, as scandals go in the royal family, how Speaker 1 (3:27) does this compare? Speaker 1 (3:29) How does it compare to that? The Charles Spencer with the Androen? Speaker 2 (3:32) Let me rephrase it. Obviously, the royal family have been going through plenty of turbulence in recent years. It always feels as they are in one way or another. Even in the King's short reign, there have been lots of scandals, lots of problems. How does this compare to all of those, would you say? Or will it just disappear? Speaker 1 (3:50) No, I think this is just another nick in the whole institution, and it's going to begin to snowball depending on how they respond. You know, I think the Andrew thing is very serious because it was about endemic corruption within the institution itself, not just two rogue apples there. But I think people sense a vulnerability with the monarchy. I think people are more emboldened. I think people are much less deferential. We've had many more programmes questioning their finances, for example. And I think even members of the royal family sense an opportunity here. I don't think it's a coincidence that Harry has popped back and we've got now Sarah Ferguson back in town. Speaker 1 (4:26) And I think the problem is that the monarchy always reacts too little too late and just misjudges the mood. And instead of addressing all these issues, they kind of try and cover them up. And I think once people realise the cover-up that's gone on over Andrew over the last 40 years, I think they really will be in trouble. Speaker 2 (4:43) We'll come back to Andrew, but just on this question around the sort of he said, he said with Earl Spencer and the King. Speaker 2 (4:52) One of the things I've been most interested in, really, is not so much the substance of it, which, after all, we can probably never really prove, but the reaction to it. I mean, I have been amazed, I don't know about you, at the number of people, you know, senior media people, commentators, whatever, who all have been talking about this idea that the palace has vehemently denied everything that Earl Spencer said, but their statement didn't deny it. Speaker 1 (5:14) No, I mean, and this is always what happens. It's some sort of woolly statement, which they think discredits him, but it doesn't address the issue, absolutely. I think what's very interesting is we've seen very coordinated attacks on him. It's all about him as a father and a husband. And they basically called him mad, Speaker 2 (5:31) or, you know, not mad, they basically said that he was just, you know... and you couldn't really remember things at the time. Yeah, I Speaker 1 (5:37) mean, they always play the man rather than the ball. I mean, I've had experience with this myself, and the messenger gets blamed. So, yeah, I mean, I think what's interesting is that they responded so vehemently and quickly, when in fact a dignified silence might have been cleverer. I mean, I think the problem with Charles Spencer, as with Harry, is they kind of host themselves with their own petard. Speaker 2 (5:55) Why do you think it... Because, you know, it was atypical, wasn't it? Why do you think they did respond at all, and then so personally, so viscerally? Speaker 1 (6:03) Well, there's a lot of personal animus between the Royal Family and Spencer. I mean, we saw it even in the eulogy. But I think that the sense of someone as an insider always sounds more authoritative than someone like me writing. I mean, it's true of intelligence books. When I wrote intelligence books, they would come down hard on a Peter Wright, but they would let things by people like me get through, even though it came from often the same source. So I think also maybe a new, more aggressive approach to these things because they realise never explain, never complain doesn't work. Who knows what the thinking is? But I think they're always trying to change the narrative, I mean, to suit their own purposes. And, you know, we often find them briefing against other members of the royal family to take attention away from the principles, etc. I mean, it's what Harry complained about and it's what Diana complained about. Is Speaker 2 (6:54) it reflective, perhaps, of all these years on, as you say, nearly 30 years on now from her death in 1997, that she still touches such a nerve, that they're still afraid of her in one way and afraid of her legacy, that she's so untouchable and becomes so iconic that she made them afraid when she was alive and she still is in death? Speaker 1 (7:18) Well, I mean, she's mortalised by her early death. And of course, you know, people project onto her what they want. But yes, I mean, she was a sort of star. And that was the problem, that she kind of eclipsed the other members of the royal family. They didn't like that. And that was part of the sort of background to these discussions with Charles Spencer. I mean, I don't believe that the king was quite as callous as he says. But again, these things can be in the heat of rather angry exchanges. Things can be misinterpreted, can be misheard. So, you know, there could be some truth on both sides. But yes, I think she still has this power. I mean, the fact that 30 years after her death, there are going to be so many programs. New people are still coming forward. We've got new information. I Speaker 2 (8:01) mean, actually, it'll be quite uncomfortable for them, won't it? Because, you know. Inevitably, as you say, there will be so much recollection and reflection on her life and her death. And let's be honest, I mean, I'm still amazed to some extent that there isn't more thinking about reflection Speaker 1 (8:20) on how Speaker 2 (8:21) they behave towards her in those years. Well, Speaker 1 (8:23) I mean, this was an opportunity to do that. And I mean, there have been. It was Speaker 2 (8:25) a Speaker 1 (8:25) very good documentary that Phil Craig made with Patrick Jefferson, which kind of raised this years ago. But I think the problem is that, yeah, I mean, there is a lot of support for her still. There's a sense that she was badly treated. I mean, my own view of her has changed the more I learn in that I think, you know, there was clearly a lot of briefing against her. They talked to tame journalists to present her as mentally unbalanced. We clearly had the panoramas thing. You begin to see why she may have felt paranoid. And you see how they use tame journalists to feed a narrative and they try and silence others. And I mean, we saw