Tabloids: Gossip, Innuendo, and Déclassé

[Roseanna]

9 hours ago, qtpye said:

Also, what if you were an orphan, as a poor woman,  (many people lost much of their families to wars, disease etc.) you might not have a large family group to help take care of children. It also takes a while for older siblings to be in a position where they can help take care of babies.

Children began to work when they were seven old of age. Before that they took care of their younger siblings which wasn't regarded "proper work". If the poor woman had nobody in the family, she simply left her child alone (a toddler must be tied).

[ravencroft]

I often wonder, if Elizabeth hadn't become Queen, and didn't have to produce an heir, if she would have bothered having children at all. Granted she might have anyways, as is with that social group having the name continue is important, but I have to wonder if she would have been happier just being an aunt. 

It reminds me of a quote from the film "What a girl wants" :No hugging, dear. I'm British. We only show affection to dogs and horses.

Edited December 11, 2020 by ravencroft
Correcting a quote

[Ohiopirate02]

19 minutes ago, ravencroft said:

I often wonder, if Elizabeth hadn't become Queen, and didn't have to produce an heir, if she would have bothered having children at all. Granted she might have anyways, as is with that social group having the name continue is important, but I have to wonder if she would have been happier just being an aunt. 

It reminds me of a quote from the film "What a girl wants" :No hugging, dear. I'm British. We only show affection to dogs and horses.

I don't get that feeling at all when it comes to Elizabeth.  She married in the 40s when birth control consisted of condoms and luck.  She would have had a child or two, and still had nannies raise them because that is what women of her social class did.  I really have not seen any evidence that she was a bad mother compared to other women in her social class.  I know some posters here use information provided by Charles in the 90s to show Elizabeth was a cold and distant mother.  But, you have to look at the context of when and why Charles said those things.  He didn't start talking about this until his marriage to Diana was in tatters and he was sleeping with Camilla again.  People hated him, and he was trying to get his side of the story out and make himself look better.  His strategy was to blame his parents for neglecting him, and because of that neglect he needed Camilla.  

[Umbelina]

1 hour ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I don't get that feeling at all when it comes to Elizabeth.  She married in the 40s when birth control consisted of condoms and luck.  She would have had a child or two, and still had nannies raise them because that is what women of her social class did.  I really have not seen any evidence that she was a bad mother compared to other women in her social class.  I know some posters here use information provided by Charles in the 90s to show Elizabeth was a cold and distant mother.  But, you have to look at the context of when and why Charles said those things.  He didn't start talking about this until his marriage to Diana was in tatters and he was sleeping with Camilla again.  People hated him, and he was trying to get his side of the story out and make himself look better.  His strategy was to blame his parents for neglecting him, and because of that neglect he needed Camilla.  

Then we have Andrew...

 

[Ohiopirate02]

49 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Then we have Andrew...

 

Yeah.  At least Anne and Edward seem to be pretty well adjusted. 

[Growsonwalls]

5 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Then we have Andrew...

 

Ok Andrew's basic character is actually not an uncommon one among the aristocratic upper class. If you read Pushkin and Tolstoy you'll find plenty of wastrel noblemen who spend their days gambling, womanizing, fighting pointless duels, and being general nuisances. 

Andrew just took this one step further by associating with a pedophile and another step further by thinking he could just explain it all away in a BBC interview. 

And BP's response was basically to make excuses for him legally and then tuck him away in a cottage somewhere. But the Queen still adores him. Andrew will be in for a world of hurt when his enabling mother passes away. 

[Umbelina]

16 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

Ok Andrew's basic character is actually not an uncommon one among the aristocratic upper class. If you read Pushkin and Tolstoy you'll find plenty of wastrel noblemen who spend their days gambling, womanizing, fighting pointless duels, and being general nuisances. 

Andrew just took this one step further by associating with a pedophile and another step further by thinking he could just explain it all away in a BBC interview. 

And BP's response was basically to make excuses for him legally and then tuck him away in a cottage somewhere. But the Queen still adores him. Andrew will be in for a world of hurt when his enabling mother passes away. 

He didn't just associate with him.  He's accused of raping very young teens himself.  It isn't proven yet of course, but magic 8 balls says "Yes, Definitely."

[Growsonwalls]

Just now, Umbelina said:

He didn't just associate with him.  He's accused of raping very young teens himself.  It isn't proven yet of course, but magic 8 balls says "Yes, Definitely."

Yeah. What I meant that his basic character (wastrel nobleman) is a common one. He took it way too far though and the Queen took it too far enabling and protecting him. 

[sistermagpie]

23 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

Yeah. What I meant that his basic character (wastrel nobleman) is a common one. He took it way too far though and the Queen took it too far enabling and protecting him. 

And let's face it, he's probably more the first person to get caught and judged for it, not the first to do it, if we're talking about wastrel noblemen.

[AZChristian]

10 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

And let's face it, he's probably more the first person to get caught and judged for it, not the first to do it, if we're talking about wastrel noblemen.

Speaking of Uncle Dickie . . . . 

[Roseanna]

21 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I don't get that feeling at all when it comes to Elizabeth.  She married in the 40s when birth control consisted of condoms and luck.  She would have had a child or two, and still had nannies raise them because that is what women of her social class did.  I really have not seen any evidence that she was a bad mother compared to other women in her social class.  I know some posters here use information provided by Charles in the 90s to show Elizabeth was a cold and distant mother.  But, you have to look at the context of when and why Charles said those things.  He didn't start talking about this until his marriage to Diana was in tatters and he was sleeping with Camilla again.  People hated him, and he was trying to get his side of the story out and make himself look better.  His strategy was to blame his parents for neglecting him, and because of that neglect he needed Camilla.  

Good points: one must remember the time and social class and one must notice the time and motives when childhood memories are told.

Although Charles later described his mother as cold and distant and his father as a bully and his school as hell, he had a good nanny and a doting grandmother and a supporting great-uncle. Many people got far less.

However, his unique position set him apart from other people all his life. Best boys at school kept probably their distance of him, so that they weren't regarded as poodles. Later, his staff did what he ordered.

He had no experience to be treated as equal - until he married.

[Growsonwalls]

So no one has any recollection of going to Pizza Express with Andrew.

[Roseanna]

" "Diana is painted as a victim, and Charles and Camilla are painted as villains," [Penny] Junor said. "They were all victims. Diana, yes, was a victim, but not of the marriage. She was a victim of her terribly unhappy childhood. Charles was a victim of his childhood and his situation, unable to marry a woman he loved. And Camilla was a victim; she was locked in a marriage with a man who was serially unfaithful to her." "

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/battle-royale-over-the-crown/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab6i&linkId=107028304&fbclid=IwAR2poqzYtn6LIp_YzwJ-VB00q3MU8wcPWCTmA03dKzAHWjDAdQw0pKO8Yag

[sistermagpie]

22 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

" "Diana is painted as a victim, and Charles and Camilla are painted as villains," [Penny] Junor said. "They were all victims. Diana, yes, was a victim, but not of the marriage. She was a victim of her terribly unhappy childhood. Charles was a victim of his childhood and his situation, unable to marry a woman he loved. And Camilla was a victim; she was locked in a marriage with a man who was serially unfaithful to her." "

 

I don't know anything about the person giving this pov, but this quote by itself reads a little weird to me, saying the marriage is the one thing that's *not* a source of Diana's personal victimhood and then going on to say that Charles is a victim because he can't marry Camilla (and therefore must marry Diana instead) and Camilla's a victim in her marriage because her husband is serially unfaithful (though presumably she could divorce him). It makes it sound like Diana's part of a different story that ended before she got involved with these other two, and Charles and Camilla are in a separate story about marriage. (And tbf, both things he says about Charles and Camilla are also presented on the show explicitly.)

Ironically, I remember when Charles gave an interview where he said exactly this and the reaction to it was pretty similar to the reaction the show inspires. It was swift and brutal and made him less popular.

Edited December 13, 2020 by sistermagpie

[dubbel zout]

That quote really absolves everyone of their responsibility to the various relationships. Everything happened to them. There was nothing they could do. 

Please. There's plenty of blame for everyone.

[qtpye]

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

I don't know anything about the person giving this pov, but this quote by itself reads a little weird to me, saying the marriage is the one thing that's *not* a source of Diana's personal victimhood and then going on to say that Charles is a victim because he can't marry Camilla (and therefore must marry Diana instead) and Camilla's a victim in her marriage because her husband is serially unfaithful (though presumably she could divorce him). It makes it sound like Diana's part of a different story that ended before she got involved with these other two, and Charles and Camilla are in a separate story about marriage. (And tbf, both things he says about Charles and Camilla are also presented on the show explicitly.)

Ironically, I remember when Charles gave an interview where he said exactly this and the reaction to it was pretty similar to the reaction the show inspires. It was swift and brutal and made him less popular.

 

1 hour ago, dubbel zout said:

That quote really absolves everyone of their responsibility to the various relationships. Everything happened to them. There was nothing they could do. 

Please. There's plenty of blame for everyone.

 

 

1 hour ago, Roseanna said:

" "Diana is painted as a victim, and Charles and Camilla are painted as villains," [Penny] Junor said. "They were all victims. Diana, yes, was a victim, but not of the marriage. She was a victim of her terribly unhappy childhood. Charles was a victim of his childhood and his situation, unable to marry a woman he loved. And Camilla was a victim; she was locked in a marriage with a man who was serially unfaithful to her." "

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/battle-royale-over-the-crown/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab6i&linkId=107028304&fbclid=IwAR2poqzYtn6LIp_YzwJ-VB00q3MU8wcPWCTmA03dKzAHWjDAdQw0pKO8Yag

I thought Camilla was happy with Andrew. He cheated on her constantly when they were dating so that was probably not a surprise. They eventually agreed on an open marriage and seemed to get along well. I think he initiated the divorce because Charles revealed their relationship to the world on television.

There is a thought that all dysfunctional families torture their children in some manner, but at a certain point in adulthood, we have to work through it (maybe using therapy). If Diana was older (at least 25) maybe she would have some time to sort it out and also might have had the good sense not to get involved with Charles.

[Ohiopirate02]

1 hour ago, qtpye said:

 

 

I thought Camilla was happy with Andrew. He cheated on her constantly when they were dating so that was probably not a surprise. They eventually agreed on an open marriage and seemed to get along well. I think he initiated the divorce because Charles revealed their relationship to the world on television.

There is a thought that all dysfunctional families torture their children in some manner, but at a certain point in adulthood, we have to work through it (maybe using therapy). If Diana was older (at least 25) maybe she would have some time to sort it out and also might have had the good sense not to get involved with Charles.

Camilla and Andrew did not divorce until after Camilla's mother passed away.  They announced their divorce in late 1994, and it was finalized in 1995.  Their split had little to do with her affair with Charles going public.   They were living separate lives for years.  

[Suzn]

7 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

That quote really absolves everyone of their responsibility to the various relationships. Everything happened to them. There was nothing they could do. 

Please. There's plenty of blame for everyone.

I would say they are all to blame and all victims in varying degrees.

Edited December 14, 2020 by Suzn

[Growsonwalls]

I think Camila fits the mold of the royal mistress very well. Most royal mistresses are/were not great beauties. Many of them are married. Françoise d'Aubigné, Marquise de Maintenon was Louis XIV's longtime mistress and she was plain and somewhat dull in personality. What royal mistresses know how to do is flatter and provide companionship in what can be a very lonely life. 

Diana was gorgeous, a worldwide celebrity. She wasn't going to flatter Charles. I don't think it was in her toolbox to listen to him talk about carbon emissions and urban planning. 

Most royal wives tolerate royal mistresses. In the old old days royal mistresses actually provided reprieve from the constant cycle of pregnancies -- without any other form of birth control and with the belief that royal women didn't nurse their kids royal women were almost constantly pregnant. Poor Victoria just wanted to have sex with Albert -- she didn't want 9 kids. 

Diana wasn't going to look the other way though.

[Roseanna]

17 hours ago, qtpye said:

I thought Camilla was happy with Andrew. He cheated on her constantly when they were dating so that was probably not a surprise. They eventually agreed on an open marriage and seemed to get along well. I think he initiated the divorce because Charles revealed their relationship to the world on television.

That Camilla doesn't divorce from Andrew doesn't prove that she was happy with him. Women of her class often just preferred the security and status of marriage. Jackie didn't divorce from JFK, either. Although nothing else, an openly cheating husband is very embarrassing socially.

Charles didn't act as a gentleman should when he publicly admitted his relationship. He literally throw Camilla to the wolves to save his image. It's strange that she forgave him - a sign of love?       

19 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

I don't know anything about the person giving this pov, but this quote by itself reads a little weird to me, saying the marriage is the one thing that's *not* a source of Diana's personal victimhood and then going on to say that Charles is a victim because he can't marry Camilla (and therefore must marry Diana instead) and Camilla's a victim in her marriage because her husband is serially unfaithful (though presumably she could divorce him). It makes it sound like Diana's part of a different story that ended before she got involved with these other two, and Charles and Camilla are in a separate story about marriage. (And tbf, both things he says about Charles and Camilla are also presented on the show explicitly.)

Perhaps she meant that Diana's *basic* source of victimhood was her unhappy childhood that made her what she was at 19. If she had been different, she either hadn't married Charles (at least two other girls said didn't accept his proposal) or if she had, she hadn't have such romantic expectations and when they didn't become true, hadn't reacted in such a self-destructive way. If you want to win your husband's love, making scenes and threatening a suicide are the worst ways to succeed. Of course Diana had so grave physical and mental problems that she couldn't chose better tactics.

As for Charles and Camilla, it's not about a separate story but question of the chain of events.

If Charles and Diana were allowed to get to knew each other, they wouldn't have married.     

[Suzn]

12 hours ago, Roseanna said:

...

Perhaps she meant that Diana's *basic* source of victimhood was her unhappy childhood that made her what she was at 19. If she had been different, she either hadn't married Charles (at least two other girls said didn't accept his proposal) or if she had, she hadn't have such romantic expectations and when they didn't become true, hadn't reacted in such a self-destructive way. If you want to win your husband's love, making scenes and threatening a suicide are the worst ways to succeed. Of course Diana had so grave physical and mental problems that she couldn't chose better tactics.

As for Charles and Camilla, it's not about a separate story but question of the chain of events.

If Charles and Diana were allowed to get to knew each other, they wouldn't have married.     

I think this is exactly on target.

[Roseanna]

On 12/13/2020 at 3:26 PM, dubbel zout said:

That quote really absolves everyone of their responsibility to the various relationships. Everything happened to them. There was nothing they could do. 

Please. There's plenty of blame for everyone.

Well, nowadays it's popular to present oneself as a victim. It's a question of the change in the culture. Jackie Kennedy would felt humiliated if her private grievances had been revealed to the public and thus become an object of pity as a wronged wife. Diana loved it and of course she got much more than pity - even admiration.

Of course there are real victims who really couldn't do anything. But not these people who at 40 still blame their parents, like Charles did.

I don't think it's not a question of who to blame but about taking responsibility on one's own actions. Diana never once said even that "I was too young to marry, I had no idea what it meant to become a member of the royal family, none of us didn't know each other properly". I don't mean that she shouldn't have blamed herself for obviously she couldn't have acted otherwise because if her youth, inexperience and romantic values, but just admit that all wasn't Charles' fault.

In any case, it's also another way to look at the past: without her own experiences Diana would hardly have felt such a compassion towards others who suffered nor had a position and posibilities to help them. 

As for Charles, after making once a decision what others demanded of him, he now refused to abandon Camilla despite the public's storm.    

On 12/13/2020 at 11:52 PM, Growsonwalls said:

She wasn't going to flatter Charles. I don't think it was in her toolbox to listen to him talk about carbon emissions and urban planning. 

It's clear that Charles was used to be flattered by his friends and no doubt also by Camilla. But to be interested (at least in some degree) in your spouse's passions and hobbies isn't flattery, it's one basis of the good relationship. Or if you just can't, at least develop a modus vivendi of some kind.     

Contunueing:

Of course Charles was also an egoist when he he married a 20-year old girl and believed naively that she would be interested about serious books. Well, of course there are some girls at that age who are, but if it's important to you, make sure about it before the marriage. 

Because Diana was raised in the country, she knew it and could pretend to like it. But if people discuss about a serious subject with you, you can't hide your ignorance.   

[Growsonwalls]

Cross posting this: every day there's a new reason to hate Prince Andrew.

I really hope the Crown goes into Prince Andrew more. Yes Charles was a horrible husband and he sounds like a ninny. But no evidence he actually did anything illegal like, uh, raping underage girls. 

[ravencroft]

7 hours ago, Roseanna said:

It's clear that Charles was used to be flattered by his friends and no doubt also by Camilla. But to be interested (at least in some degree) in your spouse's passions and hobbies isn't flattery, it's one basis of the good relationship. Or if you just can't, at least develop a modus vivendi of some kind.     

Agreed. It's the same with my husband and i. We each have interests that the other side doesn't share, but we can still have conversations about them. Example: my husband is into 40k (and tabletop games in general). They are not my thing, but I made a point to learn about them and learn about the particular characters/armies that he likes. I may not play, but I've learned enough that we can have a conversation about it. He does the same for me.

One doesn't have to share all interests with their partner, but I think that at least learning what they are and perhaps sharing in them together once in awhile is a good thing. 

 

[qtpye]

24 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

Cross posting this: every day there's a new reason to hate Prince Andrew.

I really hope the Crown goes into Prince Andrew more. Yes Charles was a horrible husband and he sounds like a ninny. But no evidence he actually did anything illegal like, uh, raping underage girls. 

I so hope he faces the consequences for his actions. I know back in the day that royalty got away with anything but this should not be the case in 2020/2021.

I think the queen might face a horrible backlash (worse than when Diana died) if she tries to shield him as more evidence is uncovered.

Edited December 15, 2020 by qtpye

[swanpride]

Yeah, sharing interests helps, but it isn't a must. The important thing is that you actually understand what the interest of your partner ist.

 

I think nobody should marry before having the first Christmas together. The Christmas gift can tell you a lot about if your partner actually listens to you. If he gifts you something HE would love to own but you don't care about at all, it's a sign to run, fast.

[qtpye]

I am now imagining Charles watching Bagpuss with his finance...that would have been kind of cute.

[Umbelina]

2 hours ago, Growsonwalls said:

Cross posting this: every day there's a new reason to hate Prince Andrew.

I really hope the Crown goes into Prince Andrew more. Yes Charles was a horrible husband and he sounds like a ninny. But no evidence he actually did anything illegal like, uh, raping underage girls. 

I was really surprised we didn't get more of Fergie.  Then again, they lost two weeks shooting due to COVID.

I keep wondering if that was in the Avalanche episode?  It seemed odd, for example, that we didn't get any Diana and Fergie at the lodge, or even get to see Charles' friend before he was killed.  Diana and Fergie's personal relationship, and their shared problems with "the firm" would have been enlightening, and that episode (scenes at the lodge, where they both decide not to ski that day, etc.) would have been a great way to show what marrying into the Royal family is like.  

More and more I think lodge and ski scenes were what they were unable to film.  All we got was one big snow scene, which could have easily been stock footage.  If the lodges/resorts closed down?  That may have been the two weeks they lost.  I can't imagine that they willingly left what would have been great additions out.  Andrew was there as well.

2 hours ago, qtpye said:

I so hope he faces the consequences for his actions. I know back in the day that royalty got away with anything but this should not be the case in 2020/2021.

I think the queen might face a horrible backlash (worse than when Diana died) if she tries to shield him as more evidence is uncovered.

I don't think he will, and I do think the Queen is already facing backlash, but more importantly?  The CROWN is as well.  Between Andrew, the idea of Charles and Camilla as King and Queen, and Harry bailing out?  I honestly think there is a chance when Elizabeth dies, that will be it for the Royal Family.  Charles wanting to pare everything down is smart on his part, but I doubt it will be enough.

[merylinkid]

18 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Andrew was there as well.

Andrew was not on that ski trip.    I was going to wonder why when I dug around about the events, then it hit me.   He was still active duty Navy at the time.   Andrew was just another naval officer, he did not get extra leave to go skiing with his family.   He may have gotten days off for things like Trooping of the Colour because ... Queen's Son.   That's an official duty though.   The ski trip was a private vacation.   

As for the Queen giving him up about Epstein, nope, not gonna happen.   She thinks tucking him away in a private cottage and not having him part of the Group of 8 (8 of the senior Royals, her kids [minus Andrew],  the wives of Charles and Edward and William and Kate) who will appear more publicly together to put on a united front) will get the heat off him.    The group of 8 appearing as a group is a distraction to keep people from noticing that Andrew is out of things now.

[PeterPirate]

From The Sun:  Andrew couldn’t have gone riding with sex accuser at Epstein’s ranch because he was allergic to horse hair, pal claims

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, PeterPirate said:

From The Sun:  Andrew couldn’t have gone riding with sex accuser at Epstein’s ranch because he was allergic to horse hair, pal claims

What a shame.  I didn't know that horse hair allergy made it impossible for someone to sweat.

ETA:  If one googles "Prince Andrew on horseback," it appears that he has gotten over the allergy.

 

Edited December 16, 2020 by AZChristian

[JasonCC]

Does anyone else remember in the 90s people were gossipy that Prince Edward was gay? I got sick of Joan Rivers making jokes about it. For one it shouldn't matter and was a cheap unfunny quip (usually some double-entendre on "queen"). For another, it really wasn't that relevant-funny to American audiences who barely even knew who Edward was. At that time American tabloids were pretty much just Chuck & Di, Randy Andy & Fergie. My grandma read all the entertainment rags and I rarely saw anything about Anne, Edward or Margaret during those years.

 

Edited December 19, 2020 by JasonCC

[merylinkid]

2 hours ago, AZChristian said:

What a shame.  I didn't know that horse hair allergy made it impossible for someone to sweat.

ETA:  If one googles "Prince Andrew on horseback," it appears that he has gotten over the allergy.

 

I was gonna say "Has this friend ever noticed that Andrew rides on the hunt A LOT????"    I mean if you are going to cover for him, make it PLAUSIBLE at least.   

[Growsonwalls]

8 hours ago, merylinkid said:

As for the Queen giving him up about Epstein, nope, not gonna happen.   She thinks tucking him away in a private cottage and not having him part of the Group of 8 (8 of the senior Royals, her kids [minus Andrew],  the wives of Charles and Edward and William and Kate) who will appear more publicly together to put on a united front) will get the heat off him.    The group of 8 apphad hiearing as a group is a distraction to keep people from noticing that Andrew is out of things now.

This is an awful thought but anyone think that the Queen might not necessarily have a very enlightened view of rape or pedophilia? In her generation (and generations after) women were often blamed for being raped/sexually assaulted, no matter how young they were. Dickie Mountbatten had his own incidences with underage boys. 

[Umbelina]

8 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Andrew was not on that ski trip.    I was going to wonder why when I dug around about the events, then it hit me.   He was still active duty Navy at the time.   Andrew was just another naval officer, he did not get extra leave to go skiing with his family.   He may have gotten days off for things like Trooping of the Colour because ... Queen's Son.   That's an official duty though.   The ski trip was a private vacation.   

As for the Queen giving him up about Epstein, nope, not gonna happen.   She thinks tucking him away in a private cottage and not having him part of the Group of 8 (8 of the senior Royals, her kids [minus Andrew],  the wives of Charles and Edward and William and Kate) who will appear more publicly together to put on a united front) will get the heat off him.    The group of 8 appearing as a group is a distraction to keep people from noticing that Andrew is out of things now.

Thanks!  That's on me for ass-u-ming.  I just jumped to him being there because I read Fergie was there.

More and more though, I do think that's the two weeks filming that they lost.  Morgan is excellent at disasters, and this was such a "ummm, ok" one.  I can imagine much more powerful scenes, getting to know the man who died first on the slopes or at the lodge.  Diana and Fergie deciding not to ski.  Diana (who did love Charles from most reports, up to the day she died) hearing the news about Charles being in an avalanche.  The mustaches contacting the Queen and Philip...the harrowing rescue, and this possibly making the split between Diana and Philip even wider, Diana thrilled he's alive, comforting the widow, hoping this brush with death might change things for them.  Charles just wanting to see Camilla.

For cinematic purposes too?  I think that was the stuff we lost.

[sistermagpie]

19 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

This is an awful thought but anyone think that the Queen might not necessarily have a very enlightened view of rape or pedophilia? In her generation (and generations after) women were often blamed for being raped/sexually assaulted, no matter how young they were. Dickie Mountbatten had his own incidences with underage boys. 

Or she just intentionally hasn't focused on many details.

[Growsonwalls]

The BRF is releasing their Christmas photos.

Here is William and Kate's:

https://www.instagram.com/p/CI3-aCEleK4/

Charlotte is wearing pants. I'm shocked. I honestly thought it was a rule that female child royals could not wear pants. I'm glad she's allowed to wear pants though. This is 2020 not 1820.

[Trillian]

On 12/16/2020 at 1:32 PM, JasonCC said:

Does anyone else remember in the 90s people were gossipy that Prince Edward was gay? I got sick of Joan Rivers making jokes about it. For one it shouldn't matter and was a cheap unfunny quip (usually some double-entendre on "queen"). For another, it really wasn't that relevant-funny to American audiences who barely even knew who Edward was. At that time American tabloids were pretty much just Chuck & Di, Randy Andy & Fergie. My grandma read the UW entertainment rags and I rarely saw anything about Anne, Edward or Margaret.

 

I remember it. I also remember rumours that Sophie was just a beard. Edward was in theatre - what more proof was needed?

Nothing clever to add in response other than to assure you that you’re not hallucinating memories.  Unless we both are. 

 

[sistermagpie]

34 minutes ago, Trillian said:

I remember it. I also remember rumours that Sophie was just a beard. Edward was in theatre - what more proof was needed?

Nothing clever to add in response other than to assure you that you’re not hallucinating memories.  Unless we both are. 

 

I remember that too. In fact, it's one of the first things that popped into my mind about Edward, even though it's not like I followed palace gossip. I just knew that and that he did theater stuff (which, as you point out, was probably meant to be a clue!),

[Razzberry]

I'll be very disappointed if Tampongate is swept under the royal rug.

[swanpride]

Tamponwhat?

[Razzberry]

Sorry, that's a US expression used for secret recordings ever since the Watergate scandal back when Nixon was president.   

I'm assuming you've heard Charles and Camilla's bugged phone sex call where he expressed his desire to be her tampon?  Unfortunately you can't unhear it, though I'm sure the RF wishes it would just go away. 

Edited December 18, 2020 by Razzberry

[Umbelina]

2 hours ago, swanpride said:

Tamponwhat?

Camilla and Charles were having phone sex.  He was in the bathroom, and I believe Diana overheard him having phone sex with Camilla through the bathroom door several times, not sure if she heard this time.

It's all over youtube, even the long version, which is much more than the shorter version that hit the news.  

 

Edited December 18, 2020 by Umbelina

[swanpride]

Ah, right, I now remember...damn, I honestly didn't WANT to remember.

[PeterPirate]

7 hours ago, Razzberry said:

I'll be very disappointed if Tampongate is swept under the royal rug.

42 minutes ago, swanpride said:

Ah, right, I now remember...damn, I honestly didn't WANT to remember.

 

The Wikipedia page for "gates" lists several dozen scandals of all sorts of types, including "Camillagate". 

Frankly, I prefer the less sordid appellation.    

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_"-gate"_scandals

 

[Razzberry]

To be honest I prefer the sordid ones ;), so I transcribed part of their convo for anyone who may not be able to access YouTube for some reason.

 

Camilla:  Mmmm, you're awfully good feeling your way along.
Charles: Oh stop! I want to feel my way along you, all over you, and up and down you, and in and out...
Camilla: Oh!
Charles: Particularly in and out.
Camilla: Oh, that's just what I need at the moment.
Charles: Is it?
Camilla: I know it would revive me.  I can't bear a Sunday night without you.
Charles: Oh God.
Camilla: It's like that program 'Start The Week'.  I can't start the week without you.
Charles: I fill up your tank!
Camilla: Yes, you do!
Charles: Then you can cope.
Camilla: Then I'm alright.  
Charles: What about me?  I need you several times a week!
Camilla: Mmm, so do I.  I need you all the week, all the time.
Charles: Oh God.  I'll just live inside your trousers, it would be much easier.
Camilla: What are you going to turn into, a pair of knickers? (laughs)
Charles: Or God forbid, a Tampax.  Just my luck! (both laugh)
Camilla: Oh, what a wonderful idea!
Charles: With my luck, I'd be chucked down the lavatory and go on and on, swirling round the top, never going down.
Camilla: (laughing) Oh darling!  Until the next one comes through.. or perhaps you could come back as a box!
Charles: What sort of box?
Camilla: A box of Tampax, you could just keep going.
Charles: That's true.
Camilla: Repeating yourself.  Oh darling, I just want you now.
Charles: You do?
Camilla: Mmmm, desperately, desperately.

 

Then it just goes on and on and on...

[WatchrTina]

I just finished watching tonight's 2-hour Dateline NBC special on the life and death of Diana.  At first I wondered WHY, after all these years, they would want to do a special on her now, but I'm guessing it is the impact of the current season of "The Crown."  There are plenty of people alive today who are too young to remember the shock of Diana's death and the news coverage of the accident and the funeral, even though they are aware it happened.  And then there are others, like me, for whom it was a huge emotional blow and who remember that time vividly.  People from both groups would be interested in seeing the special, especially if they are now watching "The Crown".

As I've shared elsewhere on this board, I was born a month after Princess Diana and I happened to be studying in London the summer of the royal wedding.  I loved that I got to be a part of all that excitement (and got a great photo of the bride & groom on my wee pocket instamatic camera.)  I had expected that Diana and I would grow old together -- that I'd see her on TV and in magazines my whole life, setting the example for what a fashionable woman of my age and my height could look like (provided she had a personal trainer, hair stylist, and HUGE clothing allowance.)

It was an interesting show.  I didn't really learn anything new (except that she may have been dating Dodi in the hopes of making her previous boyfriend jealous).  But MAN did that show conjure up old memories for me.

Buckingham Palace must be dismayed.

Edited December 19, 2020 by WatchrTina

[qtpye]

1 hour ago, WatchrTina said:

I just finished watching tonight's 2-hour Dateline NBC special on the life and death of Diana.  At first I wondered WHY, after all these years, they would want to do a special on her now, but I'm guessing it is the impact of the current season of "The Crown."  There are plenty of people alive today who are too young to remember the shock of Diana's death and the news coverage of the accident and the funeral, even though they are aware it happened.  And then there are others, like me, for whom it was a huge emotional blow and who remember that time vividly.  People from both groups would be interested in seeing the special, especially if they are now watching "The Crown".

As I've shared elsewhere on this board, I was born a month after Princess Diana and I happed to be studying in London the summer of the royal wedding.  I loved that I got to be a part of all that excitement (and got a great photo of the bride & groom on my wee pocket instamatic camera.)  I had expected that Diana and I would grow old together -- that I'd see her on TV and in magazines my whole life, setting the example for what a fashionable woman of my age and my height could look like (provided she had a personal trainer, hair stylist, and HUGE clothing allowance.)

It was an interesting show.  I didn't really learn anything new (except that she may have been dating Dodi in the hopes of making her previous boyfriend jealous).  But MAN did that show conjure up old memories for me.

Buckingham Palace must be dismayed.

Even though I was a little kid back then, I have been watching old documentaries about the Royal family and it brought back memories of how once upon a time Diana, Charles, Fergie, and Andrew seemed like the most amazing and awesome people in the world. The Wales were glamorous and the Yorks were more down to earth. I loved that they were always doing things for charity. As a child I would have never guessed how horrible things would turn out.

[PeterPirate]

9 hours ago, Razzberry said:

To be honest I prefer the sordid ones ;), so I transcribed part of their convo for anyone who may not be able to access YouTube for some reason.  

 

Camilla:  Mmmm, you're awfully good feeling your way along.
Charles: Oh stop! I want to feel my way along you, all over you, and up and down you, and in and out...
Camilla: Oh!
Charles: Particularly in and out.
Camilla: Oh, that's just what I need at the moment.
Charles: Is it?
Camilla: I know it would revive me.  I can't bear a Sunday night without you.
Charles: Oh God.
Camilla: It's like that program 'Start The Week'.  I can't start the week without you.
Charles: I fill up your tank!
Camilla: Yes, you do!
Charles: Then you can cope.
Camilla: Then I'm alright.  
Charles: What about me?  I need you several times a week!
Camilla: Mmm, so do I.  I need you all the week, all the time.
Charles: Oh God.  I'll just live inside your trousers, it would be much easier.
Camilla: What are you going to turn into, a pair of knickers? (laughs)
Charles: Or God forbid, a Tampax.  Just my luck! (both laugh)
Camilla: Oh, what a wonderful idea!
Charles: With my luck, I'd be chucked down the lavatory and go on and on, swirling round the top, never going down.
Camilla: (laughing) Oh darling!  Until the next one comes through.. or perhaps you could come back as a box!
Charles: What sort of box?
Camilla: A box of Tampax, you could just keep going.
Charles: That's true.
Camilla: Repeating yourself.  Oh darling, I just want you now.
Charles: You do?
Camilla: Mmmm, desperately, desperately.

 

Then it just goes on and on and on...

In addition to "Useful", "Laugh", "Surprise", and "Sad", we need an emoji for "Totally Grossed Out".

Edited December 19, 2020 by PeterPirate

[qtpye]

1 hour ago, PeterPirate said:

In addition to "Useful", "Laugh", "Surprise", and "Sad", we need an emoji for "Totally Grossed Out".

🤢🤮This would be good.