by The Laird o’Thistle
May 25 2008

“Master Peter Philips” – as he was called back in his nappy days – seems to have stumbled into his first major brouhaha with the British press.  I will say at the outset that I think the deal with “Hello!” magazine was ill-advised.  But I also suspect a great deal of sour grapes is involved from jealous media rivals who probably think the only real problem is that they didn’t get the exclusive.  And it seems worth noting that all this comes in the same week that “People” magazine in the U.S. has Jenna Bush’s private wedding splashed across its cover in every U.S. supermarket check-out line.  (Albeit, I’ve heard no mention of any financial arrangements involved.)

So, what is really at issue here?  Certainly “Hello!” has made interview deals with other members of the royal family in the past.  Prince Andrew and Fergie did such a deal back in the late 80s or early 90s.  Zara Philips and her former boyfriend, jockey Richard Johnson, did it several years ago. These and other photo-stories focused on private family life.  On the other hand, “Hello!” constantly has pictures of the principal royals and other world leaders and public officials at major events and social functions.  The problem this time seems to be that Peter and Autumn blended the two types of coverage into something which is being perceived as having given unfair access to the Queen and other senior royals in return for payment.  I suspect this was rather naively done by the couple, and older wiser heads should have taken note and intervened, but the criticisms being voiced are fair – though perhaps overblown.

What all this calls to mind is some of the criticisms directed at Prince Edward over his various royal documentaries that were the bread and butter of his former television production company.  I actually very much enjoyed the “Crown and Country” series, and also his documentary on the late Duke of Windsor, and so on.  Sadly I never quite got hold of a copy of “Windsor Restored,” though I still keep my eyes open.  But I also sympathized with the anger of Prince Charles when he thought that Ardent might be trying to take advantage of Prince William’s early days at university in St. Andrews.  Unfair access, trading on privilege, and the perception of cashing-in are tricky things, and much of the controversy that the Edward Wessex faced was that he had a penchant for skating on very thin ice in such matters.  Unfortunately, to my mind, the Earl of Wessex’s retreat into being a garden-variety royal also deprives us of the benefit of his unique access and his insider’s perspective on the monarchy’s traditions and contemporary role in Britain.

Bearing all the preceding in mind, the tempest in the teapot raised by this wedding story also points up some of the worst tendencies of the press and the politicians.  I grow ever wearier of the hyping and sensationalizing of all kinds of news.  Too much of the media takes advantage of situations like this to serve their own interests… whether financial or ideological.  And too many politicians love the chance to try to grab the opportunity for having a sound-bite make it to the evening news.  Any little misstep somehow gets magnified into a potential constitutional crisis.  It is not about honest and fair reportage, it is about market-share and entertainment value.

Every public figure and celebrity of our era is subject to the intrusive and too often unfair and inaccurate inquiries and portrayals of the media.  Sometimes, without doubt, this is aided and abetted by sheer idiocy on the part of the person in the spotlight (several of Prince Harry’s past blunders come to mind).  But sometimes it is the pure self-justifying arrogance of a particular reporter or media outlet that is the problem (as in the case of the American network that really blew Prince Harry’s cover in Afghanistan).  Worst of all in my book are those journalists and writers who develop certain axes that they must grind at all costs… folks like a certain biographer of the Prince of Wales who basically turned against him many years ago, but who for a long time thereafter didn’t mind making good money off of the prince through writing more books and continuing to show up as a “royal expert” at every opportunity.

So, what should be the outcome of the current contretemps?  If it were my call I’d say that the Queen, through her press office, should establish clear guidelines for the members of her extended family (officially “royal” or not) vis a vis what can and cannot be done in cases like this.  Selling access to private family occasions including senior members of the royal family is clearly inappropriate.  Granting an interview and having a private photo-call when one is not on the civil list, etc., is probably permissible.  If I were advising Peter and Autumn, I’d suggest a public apology and a healthy gift to charity out of the money they received.  And, if I were the editor of “Hello!” I would beat my chest a bit while crying “mea culpa!” and drop into the mail a matching healthy donation to the charity designated by Peter and Autumn.  Then I would say that everyone should get on with life, all a bit older and wiser.

And, by the way, I thought the Queen looked stunning at the wedding.  Best of show!  Princess Anne also looked wonderful, as did Camilla.  Bea’s hat was great fun too.

Yours Aye,

– Ken Cuthbertson