The Royalist - Charles: Undervalued By The Media?

Charles: Undervalued By The Media?

Written by Joanne Leyland

Tuesday, 07 March 2006

Carrying out yet another day of exhaustive engagements, during which he helped promote the successful integration of different faith groups in a Bedfordshire community, it's likely the Prince of Wales realised the image which would help promote what was a serious visit would be those showing him taking part in a gentle game of cricket.

That is if the images appeared at all in the national press (think about it...how many photos or how much coverage of Charles on duty in Bedfordshire did you see in your papers this morning?).

The fact is the whole of the Royal Family undertake, both publicly and privately, a huge amount of work, 99% of which goes unreported by the oh-so-powerful media. This is why Prince Charles continues to suffer a bad Press.

The fact is we are all probably guilty of judging Charles and Camilla by the past rather than present. That isn't to say Charles and Camilla haven't behaved badly. But then again, there are times when they do good works, but still their past overshadows them.

So isn't it about time the media as a whole started to give a more unbiased view, not only of Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall, but of the whole Royal Family?

In two weeks time, Charles and Camilla will travel thousands of miles to undertake an official tour of Egypt and India, before moving on to Saudi Arabia. The media will likely cover the tour only when they deem it to be of enough interest (the more titillating or sensational the better). Perhaps, as in the days of Diana, it will happen yet again that we only get to see the royal tour covered in the mass media when the royal lady (in this instance Camilla) wears an interesting outfit or piece of jewellery?

This is why Charles often feels the need to partake in so-called 'stunts'. Apart from the fact such behaviour helps to humanise him to those he's meeting — as with the game of cricket this week —
the Prince knows that he has to make himself of interest to the travelling Press.

Remember the images of him wearing a rastafarian hat the wrong way around? The sad fact is that up until the Prince did this admittedly rather childish act, his visit to Jamaica in February 2000 was receiving little coverage from the UK media. That, in turn, meant a large majority of the British population likely thought Charles was at home in Gloucestershire, weeding his garden or enjoying the luxurious lifestyle which comes with his role.

The sad fact is, by wearing the hat and making a fool of himself, Charles appeared on every single front page and TV screens around the world.

This is why we rarely see Princess Anne on the television screens, as she undertakes official engagements. Anne won't do 'stunts'.

Diana, Princess of Wales was often criticised by royal aides because she seemed so preoccupied with her media image. In fact, it could be argued that Diana was years ahead in her thinking. She rightly foresaw that the media were becoming increasingly important to the way in which the Royal Family relates to the people.

Today, viewers in Britain saw an example of how reliant on 'stunts' coverage of the royals has become.

The President of Brazil has arrived in London for a State Visit which will see Britain strengthen ties and promote trade between the country and the South American nation, thereby resutling in jobs for your average man and woman in the street. It is during visits such as this that the true worth of monarchy can be seen by even the most cynical republican.

However, so far at least today, there has been only one 'royal' report on UK television. You'd expect it would be coverage of the Queen and the Royal Family welcoming President Silva and the Brazilian delegation to the UK?

Wrong!

The only 'royal' coverage so far today came on ITV's This Morning, a long running and very successful magazine show presented by the popular Fern Britton and Philip Schofield.

The royal aspect of the story is that a new poll, commissioned by internet website Genes Reunited, reveals Prince William and Kate Middleton have been chosen as a small section of the public's choice for King and Queen, pushing Charles and Camilla into second place. Here are the results from visitors to the geneaology website:

If you could choose a modern day King and Queen, who would you pick?
Poll commissioned by: Genes Reunited

1. Prince William & Kate Middleton
2. Prince Charles & Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall
3. Fern Britton & Philip Schofield (UK TV presenters)
4. Jack & Vera Duckworth (Characters from popular British soap opera Coronation Street)
5. Richard Madeley & Judy Finnigan (UK TV presenters)
6. Madonna & Guy Ritchie
7. David & Victoria Beckham
8. Jordan & Peter Andre (Married model & pop star)
9. Tony & Cherie Blair
10. Neil & Christine Hamilton (Former 'disgraced' MP, now TV personalities)

Referring to the main results of the poll — the latter of which show we really shouldn't take it too seriously! — respected Royal historian and writer Andrew Roberts told This Morning: "There is a serious aspect to it, in fact, which is of course that Prince Charles has not regained the affection of the nation that he had in the early Nineties, before the news of the collapse of his marriage was generally understood and recognised. It's something that he works on, of course, that it was hoped very much that his marriage to Camilla Parker Bowles would help."

"I think the British people want him to be happy and appreciate that she does make him happy, and that's a very important part of kingship. But, there's still a mountain to climb, clearly."

The historian goes on to make the very valid point that, despite his image as a somewhat 'spoilt' and even insulated figure, the Prince of Wales has helped achieve some incredible results with the charity which he set up in 1976: "Over half a million people have been helped by The Prince's Trust, an astonishing private charity effectively."

Roberts also suggests (a little controversially, perhaps, as some would argue this isn't the role for a future constitutional monarch) that the Prince is often proven to be right to speak out on a variety of subjects, some of which are highly political: "There is a sense, I think, that when he writes to Ministers — as we know that he does a lot — when these letters are published, everybody agrees with what he's saying on GM crops, on the environment, on building and architecture, on the prayer book and the rest. He's actually said things before his time and he's brought people over, through campaigning for things that we all now pretty much take for granted, which when he started back in the Seventies and Eighties, to make these noises, were pretty controversial."

"The other thing to remember, of course, is that when he is King — and polls apart, he is going to become King as soon as the Queen stops breathing. That's constitutionally what will happen, however many people want Prince William — then he will have to be a very different man as King as he is as Prince of Wales."

"He's not going to be able to refuse to go to State banquets for the Chinese President over the issue of human rights there, because that is his constitutional duty and he'll just have to frankly, you know, shut up."

But possibly of most interest, and one which many royal watchers should perhaps consider, is the following comment from the respected writer, one which reflects the fact so much of the media and, via them, the public appear so obsessed with image and the unattainable and unrealistic concept that the monarch (like some popular TV celebrity) should be forever youthful: "Let's not forget...the Queen, if she has anything like her mother's longevity, is going to actually beat Queen Victoria's record on the throne, of sixty-four years. I think it is Wednesday 16th September 2016 she beats Queen Victoria's record and she's going to do that. Which would mean, of course, if they do get married William and Kate are going to be in their forties. And so...they'll have children of their own who are pretty much the same age as they are now."

As much fun as are polls such as this one showing a desire for the glamorous William and Kate to be the next King and Queen, it's perhaps worth considering what would have happened had such polls, and the growing media obsession with image, played a role in the days of George Washington or Winston Churchill, two men who were never what you would call 'glamorous' figures!

For if our ancestors had had access to the media of today, and allowed themselves to be led primarily by the Press in their attitudes to public figures, it's unlikely either great man would have ever had the opportunity to change our world in the way they did.

All of which makes you wonder, if only for a moment, whether the hardworking Prince Charles, for all his personal faults and private behaviour, really does deserve the negative Press he almost always receives when it comes to coverage of his public life?

Please feel welcome to offer your opinions on this and any other royal story by visiting our Royal Forum or via our Comments section below.

Comment on this article

Leave your comments (Show/Hide Form)

Other Visitors Comments

Name: Teri	Comment: Yes dear, I agreed with you that bad press and public opinion soon fades in time. I just disagreed with your point that Anne is treated with respect because she wasn't in the past, which I personally always thought was rather sad and unfair.

Name: Jemima

Comment:
Charles gets far too much press, good and bad.

Sophie, Edward, Philip, and Andrew should get half as much exposure of their charity works as Charles and Anne do because they do about twice as much that goes unsung.

Charles employs PR people to keep Rah Rah stories in the paper about him and make him look wonderful. But those stories are quite boring, unconvincing and pointless. He accomplishes very little. Even the Prince's Trust is led and supported by many others with Charles on the fringes. He simply shows up with the big name entertainers periodically. It's subsidized by the British Government and has little to do with him. Like his last marriage, it's in name only and only ornamental, for show.

Charles and Cornwall don't sell papers but they're in them almost daily. Over-kill.

Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)

Name: NewYorker

Comment:
Teri my darling, you again haven't understood what I said. But with your post you actually made my point.

In the 1970s I remember Princess Anne being rather popular, especially after her Olympic heroics, and the terrorist attack against her. You are right she was never popular with the press and was unfavourably compared to Diana,but that was the press. The people always knew of Princess Anne's great charity work and her amazing work with Save the Children. And as you pointed out in the end, yeah...Princess Anne has proven her worth and so did Edward and Sophie. Who is the one who hasn't yet? Still complaining and still pitying himself? Charles.

You see? You said it yourself, that the press and people can forgive and forget, especially towards those Royals who move on and do great work without staying in the past all the time, repeating the same old excuse of no one understanding him.

But Charles is repeating the same old mistakes, with the same old bullies and bad influences around him. So don't blame the press. You said it yourself.If he had managed to prove himself a different person, I think both the press and the people would have been glad to hail him. But he continues with the same and worst mistakes.

Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)

Name: Teri

Comment:
I'm sorry to contradict you once again NewYorker, but sadly Princess Anne was NOT respected in the 1970s and 1980s and was cruelly treated by the media, particularly when compared (unfavourably) with Princess Diana when in her heydey.

Had the internet been around at that time then I'm sure she would have been discussed with as much disdain as the Prince of Wales and his wife is now.

I guess it goes to prove the old adage that time heals old wounds. People and the media have now forgiven her for not being the "princessy" material they wanted at the time, and her past bad press seems to be forgotten by some members of the public. This also seems to be the case for Edward and Sophie.

Name: NewYorker

Comment:
Teri, Princess Anne is far more respected than Charles, and I believe the majority of Britons would have wanted her as Queen.

As for her brother and Camilla being easier targets: are you serious? Charles has the bigest PR machine working for him in the land, and the two most wild cards to use a tennis phrase, in order to be popular — his sons — and he still continues to gaffe.

I think the whining and self pitying should stop, but it's too late now. It's his easy solution.

Prince Edward and Sophie have been targeted hugely by the press (and some of those attacks were straight from Charles) but look at them now. They are going from better to best, both working hard on their marriage and on their duties. They are the only ones who represent the Queen abroad for royal weddings and baptisms, and in general have an honorable face to present. Edward was ridiculed and attacked so much in the press, but look at him and Sophie now. They got over it and have become a success.

If a person is self indulged and whining from morning to dawn then he gives the impression to others on how weak and selfish he is. Probably its too late, BUT CHARLES SNAP OUT OF IT.

Name: Tracey

Comment:
Yes, you are right Teri, there have been many bad Kings and most have lost there heads or crowns because the people saw them for who they were and were revolted by their actions and lifestyles. Just because we are now in the 21st Century doesn't mean that couldn't happen to Charles and that is why the beauty of a republic or democracy is a long held dream for a lot of countries, because if the elected are of a similar character and nature to Charles they are easily dealt with at election time and voted out, unfortunately that can't be done with Charles. Though if anyone who had had any backbone within the establishment had stood up to Charles then maybe Diana would still be alive today.

Name: Mona

Comment:
Joanne, bless you, but please stop with the "how hard the royals work" line. It's tiresome. Virtually everyone I know works hard, leaving the house before dawn and returning after dark every day, with a few weeks off for vacation. Washing their own clothes, preparing their own meals, driving their own car, cleaning their own homes, and spending the weekends tending gardens, because they must, not as a hobby. As someone has already noted, Charles gets months of holiday time every year, and dozens of servants to look after his every need.

Last year, during the review of his finances, it was noted that he hadn't saved/invested any money. It struck me as odd, until I realized, he doesn't have to, he knows he'll be taken care from the cradle to the grave in a style which most of us can't even begin to imagine.

Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; AOL 9.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; Media Center PC 3.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)

Name: Lisa

Comment:
Sorry, I do not remember Diana having to wear some stupid hat backwards in order to get attention. And it was interesting to see an article on this site last week stating over and over how the media did NOT in any honest fashion report the booing that went on in Wales- hardly seems as if they are "after" Charles by that example.

I used to feel somewhat sorry for him, because I do believe he has generated so much money for charity and initiated some worthwhile organizations. However, in reading the testimony of Mark Bolland I no longer think of "poor" Charles, the misunderstood oaf who has no clue.

This man is very cunning and knows how the game is played- and he plays it badly after all these years. The public gave him a pass after Diana died, the "poor, single father doing his best" and he squandered all that good will by introducing his mistress to his sons mere months after their mother died, being seen officially in public with his mistress for the first time at THE RITZ in London — of all the tasteless venues — and then appeared with her at SPENCER HOUSE.

We saw the mistress cross the Atlantic, only to stay in the very SAME hotel that Diana stayed at in New York and wearing clothes disgustingly similar to Diana's.

It's the rest of the royals I feel sorry for - Charles paid a man to step on his own family and their public reputations to make his mistress more palatable.

Obviously, Camilla is an aquired taste and the public has yet to want a sample!

Yes, I wish the media would focus only on the good. Those charities could sure use the free advertising and more money donated. IMO this is what the royals are for - to go out and represent the Queen and the people of Britain. I think it says a lot about human nature that we are all more interested in the private lives than the public ones.

Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)

Name: shelley	Comment: Charles does indeed go to work and do his job, because that is his job. He also takes months of holidays each year, one of the perks of having his job. Unfortunately he takes it upon himself to be an "expert" on all things.......which is NOT his job. Not showing a good moral example to his subjects doesn't speak well for him. My vote would have to go for Jack and Verak Duckworth!

Name: Teri

Comment:
An admirable attempt Joanne.

Unfortunately, the vocal minority simply cannot move beyond the past and refuses to differentiate between the public and private sides of the Prince of Wales.

Equally unfortunate is the fact that the Press recognises that they can make a lot of money out of pursuading the gullible that there is a controversial story to be told, rather than report the mundane, everyday story.

I say "minority" because this is a big world and most people either don't have the time, technology or even the inclination to state their true opinion of this member of the British royal family (if they even care that is). I realise that I'll get hammered by saying this, but then again, it is always the same people who make the same comments on this website, isn't it? (And no, I'm not for a minute criticising your right to say it.....)!

p.s. NewYorker, unfortunately Princess Anne has received a great deal of ridicule by the press over the years. It's just that her brother and his wife are currently easier targets!

Tracey, there have been many men apparently unfit to be Kings with far worse private backgrounds. Pull out a history book and take a look!

Name: Tracey

Comment:
With respect Little Mo, you forgot to quote the entire text of Christ's message, it goes on to say...'He turned to the woman (the one about to get stoned for committing adultery) go, sin no more'...which means that while we shouldn't judge, neither should you continue on sinning knowing full well what you are doing is wrong.

Charles' behaviour in the marriage with Diana was reprehensible from the start, and while Diana'a reactions to her problems was unacceptable, she was not the one who came to her marriage with a lover in tow.

Charles has a legacy of poor and immoral chioices and behaviour, and knowing full well he is doing wrong, yet he has continued on regardless.

Well his position in this life is a public role in which high moral standards are called for and he now must live with the consequences and comments of others because he chooses to live this public life.

He could have choosen to step away from the Crown like his great Uncle Edward did, but he has chosen to have both the crown and Camilla, and so he has chosen to live with the criticism as well.

He cannot have one without the other, as much as he would like to.

Name: LittleMo

Comment:
Good for you Joanne for giving a balanced article and raising the profile of much of the good and unseen and uncommented on work that all of the 'active' royals do. (by 'inactive' I am referring to for example the duchess of Kent who has her own personal problems).
Far too many people offer too much criticism of the Royals. People such as Charles didn't ask to be born into that position, it just happened to them. And they cannot all have the dutiful and quiet, even shy personality that the present Queen does. So they have to make the best of the situation they have been born into, their personality and the circumstances of the times.
Lets remember Christ's words at the stoning - let he amongst you who is innocent cast the first stone ............... and so maybe not be so quick to criticise.

Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)

Name: Laura	Comment: My vote goes to Phill and Fern! My mornings are not the same without them!

Name: NewYorker

Comment:
And Charles hasn't behaved perfect on his public life either. From branding reporters very publicly as 'awful',to snubbing the Chinese Goverment very publicly, to campaigning against or pro laws ,or destroying professors' careers, architects careers, campaigning against GM foods, so easily condemning them.

I recently read an article about how a speech of Charles's against modern architecture almost kept modern projects years behind. He has used his position very badly, many times, to promote himself, his friends and even servants who have gained millions through his name. Even his Prince's Trust was allegedly hit heavily by scandals in the USA, so his public life isnt so smooth either.

And why you mention Diana, Joanne? We talk about Charles, Diana has been dead 8 years now. Stay on Charles. Some of us had hoped,that he may have emerged as a different person, but he hasn't. He is the same. Don't compare Diana with him. AT LEAST Diana is dead. Charles is causing this himself — his mistakes, his wrongdoings. Leave Diana out of it. For one time see the man as he is. Who "cares" about Diana, she is dead now. Even if she wanted to change something, she can't now. Charles is alive. Instead of changing, he even legalised his biggest mistake by marrying it.

Diana left her mark, history will judge her. Charles is alive, and still he hasn't managed to change his image. He has stayed as this self-pitying man, blaming others, a sad personality. What more does he want?

He supposedly married the woman he always loved, he has two sons who will do everything to keep him happy. What else does he want? Why can't he be a success? Who will he blame again?

Name: Joanne

Comment:
Hi all.

Ah, you know me, I always like to try and initiate a lively debate between us all

Seriously, with this article I'm thinking primarily of the Prince of Wales' public works. I just feel somewhat sorry that (as we see from the Court Circular) the likes of Prince Charles and the rest of the Royal Family too (it has to be stressed) go out on a daily basis to undertake good works but such engagements are often only reported on in the national Press when said royal makes a gaffe or is involved in any 'scandal'. I'm trying to make the point that sometimes perhaps we should try to differentiate between the Prince's public and private sides (albeit I totally appreciate it can be argued — often quite rightly — that we can learn much about a person by looking at both sides of their life, public and private). I'm simply attempting to get people thinking about Charles as a public figure and whether it's right that he is judged purely on his private behaviour, that so little is said when he does do something well (in the same way that Diana's good works were also overlooked by a sensationalist media who were more interested in her private life). I feel it works both ways: both Charles and Diana undoubtedly deserve applauding for the many good works, and inordinate amount of engagements, they undertook. On the other hand, they also both deserved to be criticised on occasion.

Anyway, please do continue to send in your thoughts about Prince Charles and the media coverage as I've noticed from the Comments section there are always some very vocal opinions both in support and against the Prince. All the time I'm simply trying to initiate such debate, engage us all in a sensible discussion about matters royal.

Joanne

Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.0.1) Gecko/20060111 Firefox/1.5.0.1

Name: NewYorker

Comment:
I think a scene today at the State Banquet for the Brazilian president said it all about Charles Camilla and their "happiness". I wonder, though, if any paper tomorrow will publish Charles looking absolutely sad and out of place besides Camilla, who smiles so broadly, looking for the cameras again, ignoring the people the banquet was for.

More and more pics of Charles like that are appearing when he is with Camilla, while he looks far more relaxed when he is alone.

Name: NewYorker

Comment:
Please, the man is over 55. Stop the whining about the bad press giving him a bad name. If he and those around him could move on from the whining and selfpitying that this article Joanne is so full off, he could have had a chance to appear as the firm and very trusted Future King.

You mentioned Princess Anne. Maybe the Princess doesn't get too much coverage, but she is well respected all around, and very popular with the people, who would have even voted her for first President. And I bet for Queen too if people had a choice.

Stop the whining. Charles has made his own bed and he still is making it with all the bad press he managed to inflict to himself these recent weeks.

Diana isn't here to blame her, so it's maybe time to stop listening to his suck ups and admit he makes huge mistakes and bad choices.

It's very hard to believe that he is missunderstood for over 50 years now. He keeps on gaffing.

As for Camilla, O dont think she is a "working"royal. Taking up 5-10 appearances a month means nothing, especially with the money she costs, and the rest of the days promoting her son's books and her daughters galery.

Joanne, I believe the Press — especially after Diana's death — has treated Charles and Camilla very well. They have covered much more than they revealed and, especially, they supported the marriage very much, selling the great love story fairytale. And they still do. Spinning stories about the success of the US trip and their popularity with the British people. To say the press is giving poor misunderstood Charles (for over 50 years) and Camilla (the new virgin) a bad name is laughable.

But I guess you had to write a 'poor me' Charles article. He has done great work with the Prince's Trust. It's a sign of how unfit he is, that he can't promote that huge success, he can't show it. It's his mistake that the press and people are focusing on his personal failings, and his mingling in politics, because he is the one responsible for it.

He ridiculed himself so many times,with the talking to plants line, whatever love means, and the political campaigning for the Tories. He is the one who made himself available for such ridicule.

If he was focusing himself on his great charity then the press would have no choice but to report it. But since he keeps on gaffing and making mistakes, then the ridicule continues.

Blaming the press is the easy solution. The press won't report Princess Anne either, but I don't see her being ridiculed all around.

When the time comes, he will see himself in the mirror and maybe blame himself too, instead of always blaming all the others: his parents, Diana, the people,the press...

Name: Tracey

Comment:
Yes, he deserves all the bad press he gets. Good works mean nothing if you have the moral fibre of a gnat.

Charles has known his whole life what is expected of him, yet he expects to do what he wants regardless of who he offends. He has had the opportunity to make the title of Prince of Wales something to be proud of, yet through his personal choices he has instead made it a title to be associated with extravagance and moral cowardice. He himself said to Diana why should he be the first Prince of Wales [u]not[u] to have a mistress.

Excuse me but I dare anyone (with any sense of right and wrong) to say that to any wife and expect her to be willing to comply. His attitudes belong to an era while not born into, wishes he had been.

I personally don't feel he is fit to be King, nor his choice of wife fit to be Queen. The country needs to look forward and all Charles does is hanker for the past.

The real choice is either move forward with William (though I have serious concerns with his lack of judgement and choice of friends) or become a republic.

< Prev		Next >

[ Back ]

Main Menu