At the height of Princess Margaret’s off-again, on-again romance with Peter Townsend last year, Britain’s Sunday Pictorial burst out with a Page One headline: FOR PETE’S SAKE, PUT HIM OUT OF HIS MISERY. Last week the British Press Council roundly deplored such instances of “coarse impertinence.” It cited as another example of “bad taste and worse manners” the Daily Mirror’s headline on the same romance:
COME ON MARGARET!
PLEASE MAKE UP YOUR MIND
The council also took note of the increasingly strained relations between the royal family and Britain’s newspapers, took both sides to task for this state of affairs. It suggested “an improvement in the quality and the supply of news” from the palace, urged newspapers not only to handle news of the crown “with discretion,” but to stop paying palace servants for “offensive trivia.” The Mirror, world’s biggest daily (circ. 4,649,696) promptly snapped back at the “pompous” council for talking “nonsense.”
Bumbling Officials. Only two months ago the Mirror had delivered its own prognosis of the press-palace rift in a three-part series that reproached the royal family for “aloofness.” Chided the Mirror: “This should have been the age when kings mixed with commoners, when pomp shaved off its whiskers and came down to the people. Unhappily, this is still the age of golden cobwebs.”
Most British newsmen agree that the royal family, now almost openly hostile to the press, is at least partly to blame. Royal public relations are handled through a Press Secretariat whose tight-lipped refusal to discuss even a Balmoral barbecue forces newsmen to patch up stories from gossip, invention and half-truth. Important royal events outside the palace, complain reporters, are usually handled by bumbling local officials. Only when newsmen threatened to boycott Princess Margaret’s recent African tour in mid-trip was she allowed to make news by mingling with the natives, thus realize the tour’s main aim: to publicize Britain’s ties with her East African territories.
Camouflaged Cleavage. Many newsmen admit that their stories on royalty are often unfair or inaccurate, e.g., press accounts of last month’s coming-of-age party for the Duke of Kent included varying descriptions of the “birthday cake,” though no cake was served. Editors argue that the public wants to read about human beings rather than the bloodless functionaries described in palace handouts. Britain’s newspapers are still widely torn between deference and defiance in chronicling the crown. Last year, the lip-smacking Mirror gave almost a whole page to a peekaboo shot of Princess Margaret, in a low-necked gown, stooping to receive a bouquet. In the venerable Times, the royal cleavage, chastely camouflaged with an artist’s airbrush, was squeezed into a single inside column.
Mike Williams-Thompson, a longtime government information officer, argued in a recent book that royal public relations should be taken away from courtiers (“men with built-in sneers”), entrusted to expert publicists. If press-palace relations continue to deteriorate, he warned, the crown cannot long “survive as a symbol of permanence in an all too swiftly changing world.”
More Must-Reads from TIME
- L.A. Fires Show Reality of 1.5°C of Warming
- How Canada Fell Out of Love With Trudeau
- Trump Is Treating the Globe Like a Monopoly Board
- Bad Bunny On Heartbreak and New Album
- 10 Boundaries Therapists Want You to Set in the New Year
- The Motivational Trick That Makes You Exercise Harder
- Nicole Kidman Is a Pure Pleasure to Watch in Babygirl
- Column: Jimmy Carter’s Global Legacy Was Moral Clarity
Contact us at letters@time.com