In Buckingham, bad news never seems to arrive alone.
On January 16, we learned that Kate Middleton had been hospitalized for an “abdominal surgery operation”, the causes of which we still do not know today.
The same day, the palace announced that King Charles would undergo, in the same establishment, a benign procedure due to an enlarged prostate.
Since then, both have been released from the London Clinic after operations which, according to the official speech, went perfectly.
Alas: on February 5, Buckingham announced that the sovereign was suffering from cancer.
The disease, which is not linked to his prostate surgery, was however discovered during the latter.
Currently under treatment, the sovereign appears “positive” about the future and, although he has had to cancel his upcoming official commitments, remains “in charge of state affairs”.
To discover
The keys to supporting women in their working lives
George Clooney: tormented childhood, great love and secret ambitions
Download the Le Figaro Cuisine app for tasty and authentic recipes
Also read “
King has cancer
”: the shock of the English press after the announcement of Charles III’s illness
This communication was praised by most media, both British and foreign, for its transparency, contrasting with the opacity so dear to Elizabeth II.
However, gray areas remain: what illness did Charles III really suffer from?
Are his days in danger?
What will be the consequences of this announcement on the royal family, and on the British monarchy in general?
So many questions to which Buckingham tries, if not to answer, at least to control the speculations.
Philippe Moreau-Chevrolet, communications consultant and professor of communications at Sciences Po, gives his analysis of the palace's strategy.
Madame Figaro .- With the announcement of Charles III's cancer, it is said that a new era of transparency is dawning in the royal family. Is this really the case?
Philippe Moreau-Chevrolet.-
Yes, we can talk about transparency since we are communicating about the disease, and we are letting go of a word that has long been frightening: “cancer”.
Today, you can be a leader and have cancer.
It is no longer a death sentence, it can be treated and it can be accepted.
This is very important for all those who have suffered from the stigma of this disease for a long time.
Being transparent is a good strategy, unlike that adopted in the case of Kate Middleton.
Read alsoPhilippe Moreau Chevrolet, crisis communications specialist: “The silence of the royal family makes Kate Middleton a target”
But we do not know what cancer Charles III suffered from. Why only provide partial information?
That's the real question, and it shouldn't be.
In communication, you have to be transparent to the end, otherwise, you open a box into which people will project their fantasies and fears.
Here, we do not know whether the life of Charles III is at stake, whether he is at an early stage of the disease or not.
We will have speculation about his life expectancy, the type of cancer he has, the treatment he will receive.
And the question of his succession immediately arises: in the days or weeks to come, topics concerning William, future king, should begin to rise.
But Buckingham has taken a big step in recognizing that the sovereign is unwell.
This is extremely rare in the case of leaders, who are expected to maintain an image of invulnerability.
Usually we only know afterwards.
Does this mean we are more tolerant of their weaknesses? What does it mean that they themselves agree to expose them?
On the public side, we have become more tolerant of fragility, but not of lies.
We no longer ask our leaders to be invulnerable, but to be honest and transparent.
Otherwise, we will look for the information ourselves or, if the imagination gets going, invent our own story.
Today, we have really progressed, a personality can say that they are unwell.
Covid has also been there, illness is part of everyday life.
As for the monarchy, it found that it could no longer control information.
It's historic: the king admits that he has a body, that he can die, and he no longer hides it.
For a sovereign, it is quite new to contemplate his death.
It is perhaps a last defense which is fading.
Concerning Charles, there was already no more mystery about his private life: we even know his most intimate fantasies.
From now on, we also know the last part of his private life, namely his health.
When you become king today, you completely open yourself up to view, without being able to escape it.
From this point of view, the monarchy has admitted its defeat.
On the public side, we have become more tolerant of fragility, but not of lies
Read alsoCancer, prostate, double fracture: the medical history of King Charles III
Showing his vulnerability, and mentioning that he hopes this announcement “will contribute to public understanding of all those around the world who suffer from cancer”, also makes Charles III closer to the people.
Yes, and it’s very intelligent because we give meaning to this communication.
We are not just in the raw, voyeuristic side: we communicate because we want to transmit a message.
The British monarchy aligns itself with what the stars do today: when they reveal an illness, they do it so that this pathology is better accepted by those who suffer from it.
What they say is “I’m not doing this for myself, but for others.”
And then, of course, it humanizes Charles III.
If he survives this ordeal, which everyone hopes for him, he will probably draw new popularity from this fragility which contrasts with the images we had of him until now, namely someone rather unfaithful, haughty and snobbish.
It is interesting how much the subject of illness is at stake for a leader.
Like, for example, when Donald Trump had the coronavirus: it was very humiliating for him, because he was a fierce fighter against the very seriousness of Covid.
But two or three days after his hospitalization, we witnessed a mind-blowing sequence.
It was clear that he was on drugs, but he came back in great shape to land by helicopter in the garden of the White House.
He used his illness to show that he was stronger than Covid.
In his own story, which is a story of strength, this served him.
It was an interesting way to take ownership of the illness, and to use it in communication.
The life in pictures of King Charles III
In images, in pictures
See the slideshow46 photos
See the slideshow46 photos
Information about the royal family always seems to be disseminated through a dual channel: some, like the circumstances in which this cancer was detected, is very official. Others, such as the fact that Charles III would have warned his relatives by telephone, reach the media “off the record”, from “sources close to the palace”. Why these two levels of communication?
Because today, it is impossible to completely control communication, there are inevitably leaks from those around you.
We therefore tend to organize the latter: instead of completely blocking communication, which is impossible, we will do “off”, conditional.
The Élysée does this regularly: it helps put oil in the wheels with the press and the public.
In short, we give a little to avoid giving a lot.
It is also a way of controlling the media narrative: we tell the story ourselves to prevent it from being told from the outside.
This “fake off” is quite clever: everything is controlled, organized, deliberate but we act “as if”.
It has become a major rule of communication: Emmanuel Macron does it a lot, as, for example, when we see him discussing Marseille Olympics with his wife.
Everything is staged, but some little things feel completely authentic.
This gives credibility, authenticity to Buckingham's account, which is constantly called into question.
A bit like a TV series: we need secondary characters to believe in the story.
Read also Barely arrived, already gone: Prince Harry's formal visit to King Charles III
So Buckingham has a good command of his communication?
It's under control on Charles's side, but not at all on Kate Middleton's side, around whom the strategy of silence has degenerated, and given rise to all kinds of speculation.
Communication around Charles III is much more modern.
But the contrast between the two is worrying: it shows that since the death of the queen, there is no longer any unified communication from the monarchy.
We are clearly in a period of transition, the royal family still seems completely destabilized.
They are making efforts, it is quite commendable, but it is far from being won, because they are caught in the middle of a questioning of the monarchy: Charles has never worked on his popularity and is paying for it Today.
The revelations of Meghan Markle and Harry have had a lot of trouble for them, there was
The Crown
, Lady Diana who continues to cast a negative shadow on them... We have the feeling of being a bit like in the series
Succession
: after the death of the matriarch, there are heirs who must be placed.
We can clearly see that Charles III is not yet completely legitimate, and this illness weakens him at a time when he needs stability.
We have been in chaos since the death of the queen and it continues.
This is not good for the monarchy.
It even looks so much like a series that with the return of Harry, we wonder if the illness of King Charles will provoke
a reconciliation within the Windsors
...
If they play their part well, there is, in fact, a lovely story to be written around this illness, on the theme of fragility, family reconciliation, greatness and rediscovered peace.
Charles can also earn his royal stripes through suffering, and regain some form of popularity.
It remains to be seen whether they still have the means to have a controlled story.
If, in terms of communication, there really is an authority at Buckingham.
Do we have the feeling of an “interregnum”, or are we waiting for “King William” to put the situation straight?
LISTEN TO THE PODCAST