Netflix, for example, produces The Crown, which has been criticised as a fictionalised account of the Royal Family’s scandal-plagued history. The show’s most recent seasons have featured Harry’s mother, the late Princess Diana, and focused on her marital turmoil and struggle with bulimia.
Loading
Netflix also produced a streaming version of Diana: The Musical, which was savaged by critics for its portrayal of Harry’s father’s then-mistress, Camilla Parker-Bowles, and Diana’s relationship with James Hewitt. Reaction to the Netflix version of the musical was so toxic it also sank the actual Broadway show within weeks.
Spotify, meanwhile, plays host to the controversial podcaster Joe Rogan, who has been criticised for spreading vaccine misinformation. A number of high-profile artists, including Neil Young, Joni Mitchell, Graham Nash, David Crosby and Stephen Stills, have recently quit the platform in protest, declaring their values to be worth more than any commercial windfall from Spotify.
The Sussexes, however, despite “expressing their concerns” to Spotify and looking to Spotify to “meet this moment” chose not to take a financial hit themselves. Instead, in their prepared media statement, they said they were “committed to continuing [to] work” with Spotify. That is, one imagines, if they ever expand on their 33-minute-long, 14-month old solitary podcast.
In historical terms, royals-for-rent have never fared well. Either in the court of public opinion or in purely commercial terms.
Loading
The last media deal-making royal was Prince Edward, whose company, Ardent Productions, lurched from the embarrassing It’s A Royal Knockout to an intrusive documentary series on his nephew, the then-university age Prince William. It was eventually shut down after the intervention of Prince Charles.
The Queen’s cousin, Prince Michael of Kent, a “non-working” Royal in the off-piste style that the Sussexes to some extent aspire to, also ran afoul of royal convention.
In the 1990s, Prince Michael associated himself with the House of Windsor Collection, a commercial venture selling royal tie-in products in the United States. Media pressure at the time forced him to sever his contact with the business.
Lord Luce, who was Lord Chamberlain to the Queen between 2000 and 2006, issued a set of guidelines for Royals-for-rent in 2001, largely responding to fallout after Prince Edward’s deal-making, and a clumsy attempt by Edward’s wife, the Countess of Wessex, to remain both “working” and a “working Royal”.
But those guidelines also frown on anything that conflates family connections with business obligations. Ardent’s focus on Royal topics was plainly problematic. As was Prince Michael’s connection to a brand exploiting the name “House of Windsor” brand. More recently, the Queen’s intervention over the Sussex’s intended use of the word “Royal” in their new US “brand” was the clearest example yet of Royal brand management.
Those guidelines said, in part that: “members of the Royal Family should, in their own way [and] using their own skills, be able to make a contribution to their own finances. The Queen believes that the public respect this and understand the modern aspirations of some members of the royal family to do this.”
A cultural guide to going out and loving your city. Sign up to our Culture Fix newsletter here.
Prince Harry and Meghan love making a deal, but when will they deliver?
Source: Philippines Alive
