Privacy or transparency: the dilemma of the British royal family that unleashes rumors, hoaxes and conspiracy theories

There is a long way between stealing a photo of a convalescent princess who asks for respect for her privacy and hastening the death of a king so that the news reaches the front page of

The Times

the next day.

The first thing happened this week, when the American gossip page TMZ obtained the image most sought after by the

paparazzi

: the Princess of Wales, Catherine (Kate) Middleton, with dark glasses, in the passenger seat of an Audi 4x4 driven by her mother , around Windsor.

The second, at 11 pm on January 20, 1936, when Dr. Lord Dawson decided to give a high dose of morphine and cocaine to a dying George V, grandson of Queen Victoria, so that he could die before midnight and enter the next day's front page of that monarch's favorite newspaper.

The British found out about this 50 years later, when the diaries of the king's doctor came to light.

Today, social networks and tabloids demand to know all the details regarding the health of the Princess of Wales, and the lack of information sparks speculation and rumors.

Media around the world published the stolen photo of the Princess of Wales.

Although many, including EL PAÍS, did not put her on the cover, and in her digital edition they limited themselves to showing a screenshot of the tweet from the TMZ account that showed her snapshot.

In the United Kingdom, where the media opened constitutional crises or shook the monarchy with compromising photos of Lady Di or Sarah Ferguson, ex-wife of Andrés, brother of King Charles III, this time they chose to respect the privacy demanded by the team communication of the Princess of Wales.

#KateMiddleton has surfaced for the first time since her hospitalization earlier this year that sidelined her for a good while.

See more 👉 https://t.co/OD6OfFQ09j pic.twitter.com/ZiBAXkp2Bq

— TMZ (@TMZ) March 5, 2024

“All of this has opened a debate that raises how far the right to privacy of members of the royal family should go,” Richard Fitzwilliams, one of the public relations consultants and expert on royal affairs with the most experience, explains to EL PAÍS. prestige in the United Kingdom.

“Previous monarchs reigned in different times.

George V was given an extra dose of morphine to get the news into

The Times

;

Neither the citizens nor George VI himself ever knew that he had lung cancer, and it had to be through the exclusive of a journalist from

The Sun

that we learned that Elizabeth II had spent a night in the hospital in October 2021 for blame the coronavirus.”

There were also no social networks, at least with the first two.

“And it is clear that, although we live in different times,” Fitzwilliams admits, “we should not allow social media to be the arbiter of this debate.

Although a

casual

photo of Kate probably would have been smart.

Nowadays, with our mobile phones, we are all

paparazzi

.

In the United Kingdom they have chosen to avoid the TMZ photo, but it is not easy to find the balance of this dilemma.

And the current era does not privilege some victims over others.

Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex and wife of Prince Harry, denounced this Friday the “seemingly endless toxicity” of social media, and the “abuse and harassment” that she suffered during her two pregnancies.

It is currency, in the tangle of news, gossip and slander that circulates on the Internet, the rivalry between Markle and Middleton, which they have never made an effort to conceal (and in the case of the former, has admitted it more openly).

“As you think about it and think about it in your head, you keep wondering why people have so much hate.

It's not malicious, it's cruel," Markle told the audience at an event held in Austin around International Women's Day.

Not one but several unknowns

The British royal family has had an unfortunate start to the year, and the blame has been on their communications teams and the strategy deployed.

King Charles III, 75 years old, wanted to be more transparent than the rest, as corresponds to the head of state, and has explained that he suffers from cancer and is withdrawing from face-to-face public activity for the duration of the treatment.

Consequence: rumors and speculation about the type of cancer he suffers from.

The Duchess of Wales, 42, has only explained that she underwent “abdominal surgery” in mid-January.

She spent two weeks convalescing in the hospital, and has disappeared from the public scene until at least the end of March.

Consequence: hoaxes and conspiracy theories on the networks about the severity of her illness, and diagnoses without data.

William of England, the heir, excused his presence on February 27, with just one hour's notice, from the religious service held in St. George's Chapel at Windsor Castle, in honor of his godfather, Constantine of Greece.

Consequence: the Kensington Palace communications team was forced to explain that his unexpected scare has nothing to do with the health of his wife.

And when The Times

newspaper

reported this week that Queen Consort Camilla, who has been carrying institutional representation on her shoulders for a month - William had taken a few weeks to take care of the family - was going to go on vacation for 10 days ("to a sunny place, outside the country”) to rest, the world press panicked.

The monarch has been going on vacation at this time of year for years, but in the current situation of confusion and sick leave, her absence caused the perfect storm.

“And that's what I suspect it is: a storm in a teacup,” Jonathan Sumption, historian, lawyer, former Supreme Court justice and one of the minds, affectionately scolds EL PAÍS correspondent for asking him about this matter. more lucid to help understand the United Kingdom.

“The only ones who are dedicated to pressing for more information are journalists.

Queen Camilla is an older lady, and the Princess of Wales is a woman with a full schedule and three children.

Why are they forced to reveal intimate details about their health?

Give them a break,” he recommends.

But if the traditional press hardly tolerates information gaps, on social networks they become unbearable.

The British media have respected both Charles III's decision not to give more details about his cancer and Middleton's decision to preserve her intimate life.

In the case of the first, because the level of transparency offered has been sufficient - for the moment - and because of the respect due to the monarch.

In Middleton's, surely, because the lessons learned from the abuse that Lady Di suffered during her day have been useful.

As the BBC's royal affairs correspondent, Sean Coughlan, pointed out this week, when information is excessively rationed, the answers offered by the respective communications teams only raise new questions.

Although image experts offer a simpler solution to the mystery surrounding the Princess of Wales: apart from the error caused by the stolen TMZ photo, the strategy pursued by Middleton's team was probably to choose the best moment, the best stage, and the best costumes for a public return that would silence rumors and speculation.

Follow all the international information on

Facebook

and

X

, or in

our weekly newsletter

.

Subscribe to continue reading

Read without limits

Keep reading

I am already a subscriber

_