Harry and Meghan’s Scribe Teases New Book Full of Shameful Royal Secrets
- 8 months ago
Harry and Meghan’s Scribe Teases New Book Full of Shameful Royal Secrets.
It’s hard to believe that this time last year, Charles, then the Prince of Wales, was still weathering one of the worst storms of his royal career. Explosive revelations from a top political editor had uncovered dubious financial contributions being made to one of his charities, leading many to question the ethics behind the millions being raised.
For the late Queen’s son, the stories threatened to stain his own legacy and bring shame to the institution of the monarchy – particularly when a Palace aide was forced to publicly pledge that Charles would “never again accept” bags of cash to his charities.
The previous year, another scandal, this time involving one of Charles’ charities and a Saudi billionaire, resulted in an investigation being launched by London’s Metropolitan Police Service, in which two men were questioned under caution. And yet follow-up coverage of both of the monarch’s Princes’ Foundation donations saga – particularly from the majority of the royal press pack – has been virtually non-existent.
While there has been little new information from authorities, a lack of updates has never usually been an obstacle for individuals on the royal beat. The months this year when the Duchess of Sussex had not been seen or heard in public certainly didn’t stop dozens of stories being written about her every day. The king, whose foundation has been caught up in a criminal investigation, on the other hand, curiously hasn’t appeared to evoke much interest from many of those who dedicate their lives to covering the Royal Family.
Even in the lead up to Charles’s coronation last month, when the likes of the Daily Mail, Telegraph and Daily Express dedicated countless pages to lengthy, praise-filled profiles of the new monarch, there was hardly a mention of the scandal that he had been apologising for just 70 days prior to becoming king.
This is nothing new. Though heavyweight scoops about members of the family are still broken by other sections of the media, royal churnalism – the regurgitation of press releases and steady supply of briefing memos sent out by royal aides – has become the tried-and-trusted reporting style for a number of royal correspondents when it comes to protecting precious relationships with those at the Palace. Not wanting to bite the hand that regularly feeds is why those with some of the deepest access and strongest relationships are often the ones sharing the very least. And that’s exactly how Palace communications aides would want it.
The nature of these relationships has created a beat where impartiality, though often claimed, is rarely a reality. Being critical or negative in one’s reporting, when necessary, would ultimately mean risking those precious relationships. So, impartiality is usually flexed in other, more easy ways – namely focusing on stories about royals that won’t damage relations with t
It’s hard to believe that this time last year, Charles, then the Prince of Wales, was still weathering one of the worst storms of his royal career. Explosive revelations from a top political editor had uncovered dubious financial contributions being made to one of his charities, leading many to question the ethics behind the millions being raised.
For the late Queen’s son, the stories threatened to stain his own legacy and bring shame to the institution of the monarchy – particularly when a Palace aide was forced to publicly pledge that Charles would “never again accept” bags of cash to his charities.
The previous year, another scandal, this time involving one of Charles’ charities and a Saudi billionaire, resulted in an investigation being launched by London’s Metropolitan Police Service, in which two men were questioned under caution. And yet follow-up coverage of both of the monarch’s Princes’ Foundation donations saga – particularly from the majority of the royal press pack – has been virtually non-existent.
While there has been little new information from authorities, a lack of updates has never usually been an obstacle for individuals on the royal beat. The months this year when the Duchess of Sussex had not been seen or heard in public certainly didn’t stop dozens of stories being written about her every day. The king, whose foundation has been caught up in a criminal investigation, on the other hand, curiously hasn’t appeared to evoke much interest from many of those who dedicate their lives to covering the Royal Family.
Even in the lead up to Charles’s coronation last month, when the likes of the Daily Mail, Telegraph and Daily Express dedicated countless pages to lengthy, praise-filled profiles of the new monarch, there was hardly a mention of the scandal that he had been apologising for just 70 days prior to becoming king.
This is nothing new. Though heavyweight scoops about members of the family are still broken by other sections of the media, royal churnalism – the regurgitation of press releases and steady supply of briefing memos sent out by royal aides – has become the tried-and-trusted reporting style for a number of royal correspondents when it comes to protecting precious relationships with those at the Palace. Not wanting to bite the hand that regularly feeds is why those with some of the deepest access and strongest relationships are often the ones sharing the very least. And that’s exactly how Palace communications aides would want it.
The nature of these relationships has created a beat where impartiality, though often claimed, is rarely a reality. Being critical or negative in one’s reporting, when necessary, would ultimately mean risking those precious relationships. So, impartiality is usually flexed in other, more easy ways – namely focusing on stories about royals that won’t damage relations with t