Royal Fever grips UK press
Not even a long-range ballistic missile could stop the national papers from going potty over the Royal engagement news, writes Raymond Snoddy. Is it justified?
One thing is certain when a Royal engagement is finally, formally announced – the national press, with few exceptions, cast aside normal news judgements and all sense of balance and proportion.
Even though it has been known for weeks that Meghan Markle was likely to be “the one” and her life and background had already been thoroughly pawed over, the official announcement was enough to unleash a cascade of special 24-page supplements.
As the Sun put it on day two of what will be a six-month engagement: “Royal Wedding Fever.”
And to use a tabloid word, most of the press has gone entirely potty over the coming wedding of the younger brother of the heir to the throne and should perhaps take its own temperature.
The Daily Telegraph excelled itself with 16 pages plus a pull-out and a bizarre headline: “The corgis took to her straight away.” Good to know she passed the corgi test.
The Daily Mail produced 18 pages, a 24-page supplement of pictures and the most assured headline, the charming comment from Harry that went: “The stars were all aligned…this beautiful woman just fell into my life.”
[advert position=”left”]
The Daily Mail’s second day coverage had the telling photograph of Meghan Markle posing with friend Ninaki Priddy outside Buckingham Palace aged 15.
The paper is promising it will be “just one of the exclusive intimate photos in a glorious 24-page glossy magazine free inside Saturday’s Mail.”
How much money changed hands to get access to a glossy magazine’s worth of “exclusive intimate” photographs?
Only the Financial Times escaped the front page Royal contagion while The Guardian found its own way of marking the occasion, with perfectly respectable thoughts on what the arrival of Meghan and her mixed white American-African background will mean for race relations in this country.
Honourable mention should also go to the Evening Standard for sticking to its pre-planned campaigning front page: “Help Feed London’s Hungry Children” leaving four pages of more measured coverage for inside. It included the financial forecast that the Royal love story would boost the coffers of the capital by £100 million, a suspiciously round number.
The biggest Royal coverage triumph, of course, goes to the BBC which got the first interview with the couple and was the source of all the wonderful quotes and headlines which have filled the newspapers ever since.
There might be a broadcasting gong or two to the interviewer, Radio 4’s Today programme presenter Mishal Husain, who was specially chosen by Prince Harry for the task.
The BBC should also pick up a ratings prize in May with the outside broadcast of the wedding in Windsor.
The Royal ballyhoo in the press does however inevitably push other stories down the batting order, some almost to the point of invisibility.
For instance, North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un successfully firing a ballistic missile with the range to reach mainland United States for the first time despite countless warnings, is a significant event. If mishandled it could even lead to an outbreak of war.
As a story it didn’t stand a chance compared to Harry and Meghan.
The Sun managed a small single column piece on page 19, the Mail ditto on page 16 – although to be fair The Times without Royal mania pressure also underplayed the story with a small article straddling the bottom of pages 34 and 35.
Is all of the “Royal Fever” in the press a traditional, out-dated response to what many believe is a traditional, out-dated institution?
Probably not.
The circulation managers of at least the popular press must be looking for a sales boost from now to the wedding – happy news in a gloomy world. The pressure will be on to dig out a Harry and Meghan story every day of the week from now to the Spring.
The ultimate proof will be in the circulation numbers but it might be best to try and avoid Royal wedding fatigue through over-exposure. There is only so much happiness readers can take.
For some editors the Royal wedding will be a heaven-sent distraction from the unfortunate consequences of the Brexit cause they have so enthusiastically espoused.
At least there are many half sensible things to write about what will become the Markle phenomenon, and what her presence says about the changing nature of Royalty in Britain.
They are a lot more interesting than what would have happened in olden times following the selection of a rather dim minor aristocrat chosen as a bride for Harry by someone else.
There is plenty to chew on for the papers including the historic echoes – a very smart, older American divorcee arrives, close to the centre of the Royal family, although this time one that is accepted.
What a story. This one will run and run. It has to run and run and the former actress who will soon take on the role of Duchess of Sussex, according to the papers, is already being auditioned to become the new Diana, Princess of Wales. Different people certainly, but again there are echoes – charitable work, a love of Africa and an apparent ability to empathise.
Meghan, the actress with a masters degree, probably the only one in the Royal family, could yet use the media for her greatest role leaving US legal drama Suits far behind. She can use what will become her very considerable influence to support unfashionable charities serving the poor and voiceless of the world.
She will also help to create a more substantial role for her husband to be – the man who at the moment at least is destined not to be king.
Maybe the Royal Wedding pandemonium might turn out well for all concerned – a uplift for the newspapers, unheard of evidence of a Royal family managing to be just that little bit more representative of modern society and the certainty that Donald. J. Trump will not be invited to the wedding.
For the press it would be wise once the initial fever has abated to turn the temperature down a bit and try to get on with news as normal.