Front Burner - Frenemies: The Prince, the monarchy and the media

Episode Date: January 12, 2023

Prince Harry's lifelong discomfort – and even downright hatred – of the press has been a major theme during the publicity tour for his new memoir, Spare. The book has made headlines with allegations about how those closest to the crown use the press for their own ends. Today we explore the delicate and deeply entwined relationship between the monarchy and the media and hear an inside view about how the system works.. Katie Nicholl is Vanity Fair's royals correspondent and author of The New Royals: Queen Elizabeth's Legacy and the Future of the Crown.

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. Hi, I'm Jamie Poisson. It's hard, I think, for anybody to imagine a family dynamic that is so Game of Thrones without dragons. I don't watch Game of Thrones, but there's definitely dragons. And that's, again, the third party, which is the British press.

That's Prince Harry speaking with host Anderson Cooper on 60 Minutes last Sunday. He's talking about the outsized role the tabloids play in the inner workings of the British royal family. Harry's lifelong discomfort and even downright hatred of the press has been a major theme during the splashy publicity tour for his new memoir. It's called Spare, a reference to Harry's birth spot in the order of succession to the throne. And it's made a lot of headlines with allegations about how those closest to the crown use Fleet Street for their own ends. Today, I want to try to understand this delicate and deeply entwined relationship between the monarchy and the media, and why it may be more important now for the royal family than ever before.

To help us with that, I'm joined by Katie Nichol. She's a longtime royals watcher, currently Vanity Fair's royals correspondent, and author of five books on the royals, including the latest, The New Royals. Hey, Katie, thank you so much for being here. Hi, Jamie. It's a pleasure to join you. So we just heard Prince Harry call the British press dragons during his book tour, and we'll get to that in a second. But overall, what do you think of the royal family's relationship with the media, given that you've spent so much time covering them? Well, I mean, rather than what he could have said, which is that it's a sort of a relationship where

one needs the other sort of symbiotic relationship, I think for the most part that works well. I mean, look, no one's going to pretend that the royal family love the media, the tabloids, of course they don't. And that they've learned to tolerate the tabloids, they've learned to work alongside the British media. And I think they, you know, they are astute enough to recognise that without the British media and the publicity that it gives to them, you know, they would be in a very different situation. I think there is still a role the print plays in royals and in the publicity of the royals, their work of what they do. So tell me a bit more about what Harry says happens in that relationship. And then I guess, how do you you see it how do you think it works

well Harry Harry Tilly feels that it's a very unhealthy relationship he he feels that there's a lot of leaking briefings and particularly negative briefings and the planting of stories about certain members of the royal family often to improve the image of other royal family members. And he's been quite explicit in explaining this. But I think he's stopped short of actually giving any concrete evidence. He does give one example in his book about Camilla and how she used a spin doctor at the time to boost her own image at the expense of Harry. You wrote that she started a campaign in the British press to pave the way for a marriage.

And you wrote, I even wanted Camilla to be happy. Maybe she'd be less dangerous if she was happy. How was she dangerous? Because of the need for her to rehabilitate her image. That made her dangerous? That made her dangerous because of the connections that she was forging within the British press. And there was open willingness on both sides to trade of information.

And with a family built on hierarchy, and with her on the way to being Queen Consort, there was going to be people or bodies left in the street because of that. He talks about his own drugs expose in the News of the World newspaper and how that came out, but how other stories were often buried or that story might have been

enervated in the media because actually it took the spotlight off other members of the royal family, perhaps such as Camilla, because Camilla does seem to be a recurrent theme in this narrative, and put the spotlight on him. I mean, what he fails to recognise in all of this,

and I think the sense that I get across most of the interviews that he's done, and in the book as well, is he doesn't seem to have any culpability. He doesn't seem to say at any point, you know, the press, they got me. And actually, they had every right to get to me because I was doing illegal stuff. I was behaving badly. I was completely out of control. And, you know, I was naive to think that as the spare, as the third in line to the throne, I was going to get away with it.

He doesn't say that at all. In fact, he delights at lying to his communications officer or his father's communications officer at the time by saying then that he wasn't doing the drugs. And of course, the tabloid editors and the royal journalists at the time knew full well that he was doing drugs, that he was underage drinking. Since Prince Harry has been at Eton, his father has tried to ensure he can have as normal a life as possible. But this latest story about Prince Harry is the third time the 14-year-old has made headlines in the mirror since he started at Eton.

Not every story was false, but there was a lot of typical exaggeration and rehashing. He's bouncing between the walls, he's taking drugs, he's drinking, he's out late, he's nightclubbing, he's got a girlfriend here, he's got a girlfriend there. What's going on? And so, you know, we are absolutely only hearing it through his side of the story. But I think his view is understandable because of what happened to his mother, because of how he sees things just clearly in black and white.

The press are the villain. They are the enemy, the dragon, however you want to portray them. They, you know, they're the evil persona in this narrative and he is the victim and he very much sees it as that yeah and i think most people can probably understand i mean he paints some quite graphic images and in the autobiography being chased by the paparazzi you know there's a difference between having to accept okay we have this position in this family and therefore there's going to be a level of interest

and being swarmed by paparazzi and chasing you in cars through red lights and then chasing you down the road on foot, which is what happened probably about 30 or 40 times when I was younger. Having them hounding him in the street, he talked about Tweedledum and Tweedledummer. It doesn't actually name them but they're they're two two paps who sort of turned up on one occasion behind a wall in the middle of the countryside when Harry's at a friend's wedding or some sort of social event

and he sort of thinks he's outside he's having a private conversation friends and he's a click from the bushes and he can't understand how these people are there but he knows it's it's it's one of those paps and so he is absolutely haunted by them he's absolutely paranoid about them and i think most people can understand his hatred of them given what happens to his mother yeah when i started my public life 12 years ago i understood the media might be interested in what I did. I realised then their attention would inevitably focus on both our private and public lives. But I was not aware of how overwhelming that attention would become, nor the extent to which it would affect both my public duties

and my personal life in a manner that's been hard to bear. However, there is an important distinction to make in all of this, and I don't think he lays this out. At the time, there was an agreement between the British media and the palace after the death of Diana that the British press would not use unauthorized pictures. This was to protect William and Harry as they grew up. And for the most part, they were left alone. You didn't see intrusive paparazzi images in the British press of the princes as they grew up I think there's an important distinction to be made between the paparazzi and the British media as well and he doesn't really explain that so I think it's quite difficult for anyone that's perhaps not familiar

with the idea of the British royal rota system as well do you understand so I mean but he does he does take aim at the royal rotota system, right? He does. Explain to me, just as somebody who doesn't live in the UK, how does it work? Well, essentially, it is a pool of reporters from the key national newspapers in Britain who each have royal correspondence. And it is a pool of reporters that are invited by the palace to go to official engagements on official royal tours and cover those events one journalist will go and do one event other journalists will go and do another there's a rota of photographers as well and that information is

pooled it is shared within that group of accredited official royal media um and and shared amongst them. So it's the official pack of royal reporters. Does that make sense? Yeah. Yeah. And like, how do they get stories? Like, how does it work? And then who are these reporters? Are they the tabloids? Like, what does it look like here? The Royal Writer is made up of print media. That's both the tabloids, so the Sun, and the Mirror, and the Daily Mail, and the board sheets, the Telegraph, the Times, etc. And it also comprises the broadcast media, so Sky, BBC, ITV, etc, etc. And in each of those media outlets has a specialist correspondent, a royal correspondent. They are accredited by the palace. They are accredited at official engagements and overseas tours. They cover, beat the royal genre

for their newspaper. And the royals in turn have to play ball with them. And so, you know, you're not always going, well, more often than not, you don't get a sit down interview. You don't really get any access. I mean, it sounds like you're on some sort of inside circuit, but you're not. You're there and you're often behind a rope or, you know, standing in a line on a red carpet or outside the engagement recording that moment. So the idea that Harry paints this picture that the royal wrote her is fed, drip-fed stories from the palace is simply not the case. Yes, we get official up-notes. We're told in advance before the public know where they're

going on tour, if they're going abroad, what engagements they'll be doing that week. We're given embargoed information so that we know what's happening, so that we can plan our diaries and so that we can attend those engagements and be there ahead of the royals but this idea that royal correspondents are are telephoned by by palace press officers and given stories it's just not the case i mean if only the job was that easy and that sort of press pack of royal correspondence is essentially just a an extended pr arm of of the royal family so it's been an agreement that's been there for over 30 years. And if you're part of the royal rota, you have priority over the story over everybody else.

And it's certainly not the case in my experience that negative stories were planted or leaked. Yeah, and I just want to be clear here. You're part of this rota? Is that what you're saying? You're part of this rota? I was a part of that rota when i worked for the mail on sunday and i am um i'm now because i work for vanity fair i'm sort of part of what we call the international royal rota so we do get access to events but i'm not part of the british media

royal rota anymore and haven't been for some time. Yeah, if I could just push back on this idea for a second. I'm so fascinated just because of your personal experience. Like, you know, you get access to the royals, the media gets access to the royals because they're in this rota. So does that not kind of bolster Harry's claims that it's like a PR wing for the royal family because the media wants access, right? And so it sort of keeps this system going where everybody is, is, is happy, right? else would you get your your work relayed how else would you let the world know what you're doing if you didn't have a rotor of correspondence following you i mean think about the white

house correspondence and how they follow the president and report on the president i mean it's it's very similar um it's it's a it's a similar construct is it a pr wing um it's a communications office it It's a royal communications office and the job of those royal communications officers is to communicate with the media, to let the media know what the principles of the royal family are doing and to give information and access

where appropriate. And I think that is a different role to PRing the royal family because it's not like they are there to only PR them and put them out in a good light. I mean, yes, I suppose their job is to protect their image, it's to promote them on a public stage, but essentially it's to put out information and it's to accommodate this sort of official organisation of royal correspondence so that they can write about the goings-on and the day-to-day activities of the members of the royal family.

You mentioned earlier that the Ra isn't drip-fed stories from the royal family. But I guess the question I have is, do they leak on each other? Like Harry alleges, like I'm just thinking of a few headlines that I've seen lately, right? Since his book came out. Here's one in the Daily Mail. Prince Harry has been written out of the script for the coronation and they cite royal sources here's another one from the independent royals despair as prince harry kidnapped by cult of psychotherapy like they also cite a royal

source like where is that coming from is that not the royal family just leaking on other members of the royal family no and i think i i think that's that's really important that people understand if you see a royal source it doesn't necessarily mean that it's coming out of out of the palace it it certainly doesn't indicate that it's coming from a member of the royal family i mean the very idea that that a member of the royal family would speak directly to a journalist to brief it it just doesn't happen i mean that's the sort of thing that happened does it not happen like in diana's days i mean it it what the idea that the king picks up the phone and has a conversation with a journalist i mean or that like the king's

press secretary picks up the phone and has a conversation with the journalist off the record does like does that really not happen i just always assume that that's what was happening. Well, I mean, have I had conversations with the King's communications officer? Yes, of course I have. And then it's his job to communicate with me as an accredited journalist. And I may be seeking information about an engagement or about a future engagement or about a talk. I mean, of course, there is a discourse between a communications officer and a journalist, and you are a journalist yourself. So I'm struggling to see why you find that such a difficult concept to understand.

But I guess my question is, like, this idea that the royal family doesn't leak, like, how do we... It kind of makes sense to me that they would leak. Like, this allegation that he's making that there's all this leaking going on and it's coming from members of the royal family like why why is that why is that so not true i guess is is is what i'm just trying to figure out well where where's the where's the evidence jamie where are you seeing in all the pages i'm assuming you've

read the entire book yeah have you read the whole book i'm just wondering because you see all these royal sources and maybe for me as a journalist i would probably want to choose the source like i would only i would only print something that was very very close or the original source right so like this headline that camilla is is like blindsided, right, by Harry's allegations in the book. Like, how close is that to Camilla? Is that not like Camilla or or her office? I guess Harry's Harry's Harry's said in the book that the Camilla leaked. And we've discussed the incident that he was referring to, which was the I think it was the first meeting. And he's well, how could anyone else have found out about our first meeting? Well, in fact, it was one of the private secretaries who had a conversation

with someone else. And it had gotten back to a journalist accidentally. I mean, I'm paraphrasing because this wasn't my story. And it was well before I was reporting. But it wasn't the case. But Camilla herself had been leaking been leaking I mean this whole concept of briefings of course briefings briefings happen absolutely it's it's the job of a communications officer to brief but this idea that the palace is leaking negative stories about Harry and Meghan I mean all I can tell you from my experience of reporting is that I've never had a press officer at the pavis leak a negative story about Harry and Meghan. It just, that was not, that was not what happened. It certainly wasn't what happened with me.

I'm going to go. and industry connections. Hi, it's Ramit Sethi here. You may have seen my money show on Netflix. I've been talking about money for 20 years. I've talked to millions of people and I have some startling numbers to share with you. Did you know that of the people I speak to, 50% of them do not know their own household income? That's not a typo, 50%. That's because money is confusing. In my new book and podcast, Money for Couples,

I help you and your partner create a financial vision together. To listen to this podcast, just search for Money for Couples. Is this all, you know, you hear about this never complain, never explain motto? Is this all part of that? i think like that they don't necessarily they're not responding to the book or yeah i mean i think in this episode and i think this is probably quite reflective of other occasions when the royal family has sort of come under fire they've come in for criticism then never complain never explain is it is a tried and tested method and it and it has you know it has worked so public why reveal conversations you've had with your father or with your brother? You say you try to do this privately.

And every single time I've tried to do it privately, there have been briefings and leakings and planting of stories against me and my wife. You know, the family motto is never complain, never explain. But it's just a motto. And it doesn't really hold. There's a lot of complaining and a lot of explaining. And private being done in through leaks. Through leaks. I think the palace's view is had they responded to the book, I mean, where would they even start?

There are so many allegations. There are so many claims. And that actually, by not saying anything, they have deemed for right or wrong um that that is that that is the best way to deal with it in order to not allow the narrative to continue in a in a few days time you're going to see the the king going on engagement so you'll just go back to original point you know does the communications officers they speak to journalists yes of course that the king will be on an engagement later on this week we've been told

about it we know what's going on and and some of the accredited media will be on that engagement to cover it they will write about it they will report on it and it'll be in the newspapers the next day that's the relationship between the press and the communications officers at the royal palace what what isn't happening is them calling up and saying right well the king's doing this and um and actually there's this great opportunity for you to uh for you to put the you know the boot into harry and megan over in california because they're not doing that it just it just doesn't happen and just to go back to the other point that you were making about royal sources i think people should be very careful when they read um quotes from royal sources um because that's not necessarily an app well it's not necessarily a

royal communications um officer or press officer it's not necessarily coming out from the palace and it might be someone close to the royals or or who knows the royals yeah and would those people have permission from the royals there is a distinct there is a distinct there is a distinct there is a distinction there yeah i guess i think the ultimate question I'm asking you as somebody who has been part of this and reporting on this for so long is like, how good are the quality of these sources, right? Like I, I'm a journalist. Like if I use a source, I need probably multiple sources on the same subject. And I go through quite a rigorous process with my editors to ensure that this is a very high quality source. So how good are these?

Are these decent quality sources? How would you define it? Who are you talking about you talking who are you talking about what what publications are you talking about are you i mean yeah are you talking about my stories because you know i harry says the majority of these publications in the in the road are tabloids right like i think he's talking about the Daily Mail or the Mail on Sunday. So, I mean, I don't know. Like, I don't work in that.

Well, I know. Well, I mean, you know, I write for Vanity Fair. So for every source of story that I write, I always have two sources on my story. And I would always go to the palace and run the story past them. I mean, that is what I do. I mean, you know, any good journalist will tell you that accuracy is everything. And so if I go to the palace, I'm often seeking some guidance.

I'm often seeking some background on something. And, you know, where possible, where possible, and if you have a good relationship, you hope that you get a steer on that story so that if you're wildly inaccurate, they'll tell you and you may decide to kill that story. They may decide not to comment on you. And you may feel that with two very strong sources who have been consistently right in the past, you're going to take the word of your source. You've had a no comment. So I think a lot of it is judgment and and balance and and you know at the

end of the day you just you want to be you want to be as accurate as possible i suppose i don't know journalism is is so different to other types of journalism is you are dependent on largely dependent on unnamed sources and that's why i think you see royal sources quoted i mean i've written i've written five books on the royal family now. And, you know, the most recent one is The New Royals. And you'll see in that book, I do speak to, I've spoken to former royal aides and former royal courtiers. And so in that case, you may see those people attributed

as royal sources because they won't go on the record. There are some former communications officers who no longer work at the palace who did agree to go on the record and they are named and but but i it is i suppose an unusual genre in that respect in that yes you you will see unnamed sources of royal stories more than others but that that is because there is um i suppose a sort of an expectation that if you're working for the royal family in any capacity, and I'm not talking about necessarily the communications officer, you know, you can't go around speaking on the record about your principles. I mean, you'd be dismissed immediately. And is it your experience that the other papers, some of the papers that I don't know Harry says are tabloids?

I mean, I don't he's not talking about Vanity Fair. He's not talking. He doesn't seem to be talking about like the Telegram or the Guardian. But like, are they keeping those same standards? Well, listen, I'm not a spokesperson for the tabloid press. All I would say is that if you look at the stories that the tabloid press have broken,

I'm thinking about the son who seemed to have a string of, you know, at the time of Megxit. I mean, it was the son, I think, who broke the story that they were going to be leaving Britain for Canada. They seem to have been pretty on the money. I'm not saying that every detail has always been correct, but the details of the rift between Meghan and Kate that they didn't get along

um the there have been so many stories that have that have been spot on that i would say even if the information has largely been dependent on unnamed sources those unnamed sources royal sources however you want to list them have been pretty accurate have they not well yeah i mean i mean just just for i guess harry would and megan would argue that they were not accurate at all i feel like that's their whole thing but uh uh this this symbiotic well hang on hang on hang on a sec sorry hang on a second let's let's just discuss for example you know i don't we're talking i guess we're talking about a bridesmaid stress here but like i i think their argument would be like the uh the the the papers got that completely wrong, that it was Kate that made her cry.

Right. Like, I think that's their whole. But actually, actually, what my report in Vanity Fair was, I was told that it was both women who were left in tears. And my reading of Spare is that that exactly was what happened. Now, regardless of who made who cry or anything else there was an upset over the over the bridesmaids dresses i mean i think there was a report that it was tights okay someone got a small detail wrong and that sort of thing not every detail is always right but actually the stories of fallouts of arguments behind the scenes of of this of this court really absolutely at war with each other these brothers of war these sister laws iin-laws. I mean, you know,

the tabloids were right. And I have to say my experience of being a journalist writing at that time and running some of those stories, the palace were not confirming any of that. I mean, even then they were doing their best to sort of protect the image of the monarchy to, I think, to protect Harry and Meghan. I mean, I got no comment. No one would stand that story up. I actually went to the palace over the story about Kate taking flowers to Meghan after an episode to apologise. I got no comment out the palace. No one was saying anything about it. Now, if there was any opportunity to break or to spin or to plant against Meghan, because that's what Harrowfields was happening

that would have surely been a really good opportunity to do it it didn't happen we've been talking about uh and just the final question, you know, you mentioned that the royal family clearly, like, knows that they need the press as well. Like, of course, I think you could argue, like, their existence sort of depends on public opinion. And so, like, they need this relationship. where people are questioning the relevance of the monarchy that Commonwealth countries are basically thinking about or kind of dropping out of the Commonwealth. Do you think this relationship with the press is more important now than ever? Like, how would you how do you look at it going forward? I think that idea of the of the of print newspapers, particularly being sort of go-to medium um or royal news is changing and i think that's come as a massive relief to the royal family i mean this idea that

that they're in bed with the tabloid media i you know i i just um i just don't think that really is the case i mean i think william hates the british media and the media full stop as much as his brother actually he's just learned to live with them he's learned to tommorate them um you know charles and we either doesn't want to read the papers to pause the media just doesn't it it does it he does he doesn't like it but he knows that he's had to live with them alongside them and you know he was the one who said to harry my dad said to me, darling boy, you can't take on the media. The media will always be the media. And I said, I fundamentally disagree.

But I think what the Royal Family have seen in the age of Twitter and social media is that they can have a different platform. And I think if you look particularly to, what, to the King and the Queen Consort and their Instagram handle, William and Kate and their new YouTube youtube channel as well as instagram this was something they really cultivated and really invested in over the pandemic when of course they couldn't do the traditional work of engagements and meeting people etc etc and in doing that they were able to go directly to to their people to their subjects and i think that has been incredibly empowering so you know you wonder whether the sort of traditional print media whether

whether the days really are are numbered and are and are limited um and i suspect if that is the case well obviously prince harry will be um well absolutely elated because they are the bane of his life but you wonder if there might be quite a bit of relief amongst the rest of the royal family as well. You know, this idea that they're in bed with each other and the very best of friends, honestly, couldn't be further from the truth. It's more a relationship where the royal family tolerates

the British media and the royal rota and just gets on with it. Harry's made that decision not to. And I guess I just, the last thing I might ask you is, is what about the other side of that argument that this like constant cycle of tabloid and, and coverage that it is working in that it keeps them in the zeitgeist, right?

Like it, it keeps them more relevant than they might be. If I don't know, they'll just stop covering them tomorrow and just check their youtube channel yeah would you agree with that yeah because i think they they have to have that oxygen of publicity in order to survive in order to continue i mean it's um it is a it's a symbiotic relationship one one needs the other whether that's media is print and newspapers or whatever that media is, Instagram and their YouTube channels. If people aren't aware of what they're doing, then the monarchy isn't able to survive. You

have to have the support of the people. Okay. Katie, thank you so much for this conversation. It was interesting. I learned a lot and it was nice and lively. Thank you. No, no, no, absolutely fine. I mean, I'm not here as a spokesperson for the British tabloids. So it's, you know, I think you probably ought to speak to someone from the Sun or someone from the Mail. But, you know, obviously I have had some experience of that world. And I can only give you my story. I can only give you my experience. And, you know, everything I said to you is really the case.

And, you know, these negative plantings, negative briefings, it just wasn't my experience. Okay. Well, it was really interesting to hear your experience. So thank you so much. All right, that is all for today. I'm Jamie Poisson. Thanks so much for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. For more CBC Podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts.