Charles doesn't have a fantastic reputation (for reasons we won't go into again) personally but generally he has a deal of respect and coverage for his work.
Andrew & Edward (and indeed Anne) just don't get covered by the media, they don't sell and aren't interesting to the populace at large, thus they only really feature when they do something big - which is generally bad when it happens. Ed gets a bit of coverage when his wife wears something noteworthy or swimwear..
Andrew is only getting coverage now because of the allegations currently swirling around him, though that story and the side lines of business dealings with corrupt and criminal people haven't been mentioned for the past 3 years as he carried on under the radar doing his thing (and for me quite a bit of the work he's been doing is interesting and more worthy of coverage for the sake of those involved in the new tech / young entrepreneur sectors which are very important and could be very helpful for young people trying to get a start in these but still)
The point I guess is this that Charles is relevant, the others not and he has been instrumental in a new approach to "spinning" the royals, operating independently and at the time of the Bolland years, trying to set the agenda rather than follow it, which differed from the old guard ways that the Queen and the other family members have followed.
Much of what he did in that time has disappeared with the changes in personnel, its not really clear if he is now going to stay with a less aggressive approach as the run in to the throne continues (I guess he's now on the final lap to that) or whether he goes all out for a final push of his independence before he gets constricted by the crown.
Excellent post/analysis, Taffy!
I came away with the impression that Charles - in his results-driven campaign - was more thoughtless and selfish in setting up the spin cycle than in actively engaging himself (ie: throwing his son under the bus with the drug story). This is not an excuse - it is the selfishness and failure to prioritize his kids' feelings/insecurities/needs over his own - that (if true) damaged relationships - not his actively plotting to use the kids as pawns in that campaign.
I think that he hast too much contempt for the press (and playing to the press) to have directly "plotted" or participated in the various leaks. He wanted something done - didn't care what it took to get done or who was fodder for that cannon. I get the impression that he is (even still) extraordinarily naive (this isn't quite the right word - I mean that he doesn't identify with the organics of a 'story' - what is of interest and why - he is too cut off) when it comes to the press. This is funny - because 'the press' - is his only real avenue for communication with others (outside his immediate, trusted circle) where communication can take place on anything approaching equal ground.
Bolland et al were good at the brief they were given. Charles didn't care how it was done - and in this he followed orders/did as advised.
