Hi Anna! Spinsie here, tossing my two bobs’ worth into the sceptics’ well.
Just as a disclaimer before I start blathering – I have no special insight into the lives of the Batches. I have no tea, no sources. Gambles never trolls me. All of my opinions are based on what I see and read in the papers, on what they say or, more importantly, what they don’t say.
I’ve read a lot of disenchanted posts after the Hay ride. I just thought it might help if people remembered this: no one in the public eye will ever come and admit publicly that they have been involved in any deception, especially not at a public gathering amongst colleagues and friends.
The whole purpose of PR and media management is to tell a story and stick to it. Having to double back on a false story is humiliating and perceived as weak. Politicians will tell the most outrageous porkies (Donald Trump declared yesterday there was no drought in California) and they will cling to those lies for dear life.
Batch’s situation, in my opinion, is no different. He has said publicly that he is married with a child. That’s the narrative (regardless of how it was put on the public record) and he can’t try and change it now. I have no idea what they’re selling, or why their PR managers don’t try to present them both in the best, most likable light but the story remains interesting because of the things they don’t tell us.
It’s a fairly simple story to sell, at least on the surface. A picture of The Baby ™ watching sheep being herded, another of Rachel being emotional backstage, and, fingers crossed, the casual observers forget the huge gaps in the story line.
It’s those gaps, the things they don’t tell us, which interest me most.
One of the most glaring omissions from the whole showmance is Batch’s generosity. He supports his mates when they’re in a play or have a new enterprise. Look at the final hearing in the court case for James Rhodes’ book. Mr Batch was a great friend there, and gave a couple of nice grabs to the reporters present.
Why is there not a syllable, or one grainy shot, of him delighting at the artistry of Rachel’s two shows?
Or if he supports her clothes selling enterprises – and you’d think he would, if they are happily married – how about actually mentioning those clothes (and making them a million times more popular) when she wears them? “Yes, Sophie always looks good in Erdem/Valentino/Burberry. I love her in florals and pockets!” Those garments on SHC would fly off the shelves with a real celebrity endorsement. Fetch could happen! (Sidebar, your Honour: Does SHC blur the Batch face because he doesn’t want to be seen in her advertorials?)
There are scores of other gaps, but these bother me a lot. They could be really easily filled in with a bit of careful PR.
That said, I thought the Hay PR was pretty successful. I’m not counting the sheep herding photo – I thought that was a scream. But Loo’s black and white photos were splendid. Things like the Hay ride make you feel like something has changed, but that’s the trick of successful PR. It is supposed to manipulate you to accepting a specific view; it affects you emotionally. But think about it for a minute. Do you feel any more convinced that Rachel was married in the dress she modelled in Vogue? Do the Bora Bora pictures seem any more real? Does Batch’s march of misery at the opera last week seem less believable? Do you think they’re living in the same house? In the same postcode? In the same country?
Remind yourself of those questions every time you read another Batch story. Remember that they have to make this look real, because the foundations are so very shabby. The more pictures like this they get out there, the more reasonable doubt they can engender. And how much his friends know is arguable, but they’re his friends: I’d like to think that whatever they think or know, they would want the best possible outcome for him, and would work towards ensuring just that.
I’ve been following this grand romance from the day the marriage was announced. It was fascinating from the start – just the ad in the classifieds in The Times, no media release to introduce her, no confirmation for ages, and no clue for reporters on where to start so that they could actually report the happy news. It hasn’t changed since then. Everything is released by stealth with no supporting statements or confirmations.
For the last eighteen months we’ve read unsubstantiated reports in the papers, seen pictures of them scowling at one another and discovered that we can buy pictures of their son on a pap website. Occasionally we see them at something like Hay and they seem to have got their act together at last, but those occasions are always – without exception – with other people around.
Sometimes I wonder if they are running a dual campaign, one for us and one for the nans. The pictures are an Escher drawing of optical illusions and double meanings, and come with no explanation so you can interpret them a lot of ways. It certainly keeps the conversation, and always keeps the news comment pages interesting.
I’ve given up wondering when they’ll finally bring the curtains down, but I remain transfixed by the PR campaign and the things they don’t tell us. They read our blogs, they try different tacts, but they never get it quite right. And by the by, nothing they’ve done so far makes me question my scepticism. Judging by the increase in the sceptic numbers, I’m not alone.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Spinsie, thank you for this absolutely brilliant post!