Tabloids: Gossip, Innuendo, and Déclassé

[Ohiopirate02]

On 11/9/2019 at 3:58 PM, Umbelina said:

This thread seems to be the most appropriate place to ask/discuss a question I have.  There are many tabloid and legitimate news sources that have discussed this over the years, polls that have been taken, etc.

The show is about to embark on the story of Charles, Camilla, and Diana, so maybe that's why this issue is in my mind now.  Also, other media about the Queen and monarchy in general have brought it to my mind, for example, in The Queen, PM Blair talking several times about QEII "never putting a foot wrong" and her life long works for the UK and Commonwealth.  Christopher Hitchens articles about the absurdity of monarchy in Vanity Fair, oh heck, so many things.

I never really cared, and am probably one of those Americans who thinks it all "quaint" and slightly strange that people still curtsy, even stranger all the wealth/property/jewels/deference, and I've learned even more in various threads here.  So here is my question.

Do you think the monarchy will continue after Elizabeth II dies?  

I don't think it will.  I'm far from an expert, but I just don't think it will.  I don't think people will accept Charles as leader of the Church, let alone as King.  I think they may have, but Camilla as Queen?  I just can't see it happening, and I can't see Charles abdicating in favor of William either, which is another thing the tabloids and legitimate press have mentioned, suggested, and done polls about.

My feeling is that QEII, by her devotion and dignity, has held the monarchy together, and earned her title as Queen.  She is justifiably loved, and was crowned in a very different time.  

Do I think Charles is any worse than other Kings or Queens?  Probably not, but they didn't have their private peccadilloes spread over the tabloids, and of course, in the more distant past, had a lot more actual power than the current monarchy.

I think Elizabeth II will be the last ruling monarch.  If I'm right?  How will that happen, and what will happen then?  The property, the palaces, the jewels, all of it?  What would be the rest of the fallout? 

I do think the monarchy will continue with Charles.  One thing that has helped Charles is how long Elizabeth has reigned.  Every year that she continues to reign in this century is one more year ago that a Charles related scandal has happened.  It's another year since the death of Diana.  The population of Great Britain gets older, they begin to forget, etc.  Charles is also in his 70s.  People know his reign will be short.

[AZChristian]

50 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Charles is also in his 70s.  People know his reign will be short.

But his mother is 93, and his father is 98 . . . Charles may (like his maternal grandmother) break the 100 barrier.  He obviously won't reign as long as his mother, but he may out-reign his maternal grandfather, who died after 16 years on the throne.

[dubbel zout]

If Charles does get into his 90s, I'm sure he do what the queen has been doing for a while now: handing over a lot of duties to other people. Of course there are things only the sovereign can do, like the red boxes and opening Parliament, but the queen doesn't travel outside of the UK anymore (Edward and Sophie are the designated mourners/representatives, unless it's something big like the enthronement of the new Japanese emperor), William is receiving ambassadors' credentials more often, the queen's patronages are starting to be redistributed among the younger members of the royal family, etc. It's only natural that the workload be lightened the older the monarch gets, and depending on how healthy Charles is, William might be heavily deputized.

[andromeda331]

11 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Charles II restored the Monarchy after Cromwell.   The Restoration period was known for its excesses of the King, but also his "go along to get along" attitude with Parliament.   He wasn't going to lose his head.   So naming the present Prince of Wales Charles is just fine.  

Now using Richard for a first name would be a bad idea.   

The Monarchy will survive.   So will the Commonwealth because it is also a trade bloc.   Commonwealth countries get favorable trade deals.   It's more a practical reason to stay than sentiment, but whatever works.

10 hours ago, Jeeves said:

Good points. I think that Charles II, despite keeping his head (literally) and restoring the monarchy, didn't restore luster to his name due to his personal excesses, so the name for a monarch just doesn't resonate well for me. 

And oh yes indeed, Richard would have been a real nonstarter as a name! 🤣

Your most likely correct. But who would have though there'd be Mary II after Mary I's not so friendly and popular reign? It wasn't a complete long shot given Uncle Charles II's was unlikely to have an heir and she was the oldest of his brother's two daughters. Out of the three sons his first wife gave birth to only one lived longest a four years and everyone's concerns when he married a Catholic which turned out to be correct. But even they didn't produce a surviving heir until Mary was 26.     

[toolazy]

On 11/9/2019 at 2:21 PM, MadyGirl1987 said:

It also doesn't hurt that he probably won't be king for an extended period, due to his age, and he has an heir(William) people are fond of. Even if they hate Charles, people are not going to take the monarchy from Princess Diana's son and grandchildren.

Well, both of Charles' parents are living well into their 90's so it's not unreasonable to assume that he could be king for a good twenty years, maybe more.  He's only 71 now.

I think that when William succeeds him is when we'll really see a lot of change.  Well, I probably won't see it because I'm old but  I imagine that things will be increasingly modernized in a William & Kate reign. .  

[PeterPirate]

I recall reading this story from a book about the American Civil War.  Sometime during the war, some politicians approached Abraham Lincoln with the idea of declaring war on France for for its intervention in Mexico.  The thinking was that this would unite the country, and the proponents argued that Charles I had used foreign wars for such purposes.  To which Lincoln responded "All I recall about Charles I is that he lost his head".

I also took the time to find out that Prince Harry's real name is Henry.  In America, we usually use "Hank" for Henry, and "Harry" for Harold.  Just saying, should it come to pass, "King Henry" will conjure up better memories (or not, maybe, depending on one's gender) than "King Harold".  

Edited November 14, 2019 by PeterPirate

[Umbelina]

On 11/9/2019 at 2:21 PM, MadyGirl1987 said:

In regards to Charles' scandals, I think enough distance has passed that people see Charles as more then his scandals.

I think he will always be remembered for wanting to be Camilla's tampon, and for marrying Diana and making marriage vows, in the church he will be "leading" all the while knowing he would never keep those "sacred vows" since he was still carrying on an affair with the now future Queen of England.  Camilla can get her hair fixed and dress well, and act well, but she will always be the adulterer who aided in the ruination of Diana's marriage and life.

Charles and his now wife can't erase what they both did, and no, I doubt the monarchy will survive if he doesn't die before the Queen.

I'm not implying Diana was some kind of saint, but that doesn't excuse or explain Camilla and Charles' deliberate and callous behavior.  

With William and Kate?  Maybe, but even with them?  I think it's over.

[toolazy]

1 minute ago, Umbelina said:

I think he will always be remembered for wanting to be Camilla's tampon, and for marrying Diana and making marriage vows, in the church he will be "leading" all the while knowing he would never keep those "sacred vows" since he was still carrying on an affair with the now future Queen of England.  Camilla can get her hair fixed and dress well, and act well, but she will always be the adulterer who aided in the ruination of Diana's marriage and life.

Charles and his now wife can't erase what they both did, and no, I doubt the monarchy will survive if he doesn't die before the Queen.

I'm not implying Diana was some kind of saint, but that doesn't excuse or explain Camilla and Charles' deliberate and callous behavior.  

With William and Kate?  Maybe, but even with them?  I think it's over.

I'm just curious - are you British?  As an American, I can see now that Charles and Diana's wedding should never have happened.  Charles was basically forced into it and was not allowed to marry the woman of his choosing.  Also, Diana was not only not a saint, she was far from being a saint.  

I used to hate Charles for what I thought he did to Diana but the more I learn about it, the easier it is to forgive him and be happy that he finally found happiness with the woman he always loved. 

[Umbelina]

25 minutes ago, toolazy said:

I'm just curious - are you British?  As an American, I can see now that Charles and Diana's wedding should never have happened.  Charles was basically forced into it and was not allowed to marry the woman of his choosing.  Also, Diana was not only not a saint, she was far from being a saint.  

I used to hate Charles for what I thought he did to Diana but the more I learn about it, the easier it is to forgive him and be happy that he finally found happiness with the woman he always loved. 

Oh I'm definitely American.  😉  My family (several of them) actually fought in the revolutionary war against King George III.

Charles was a grown man, no one "forced" him into anything.  If he had the stones to lead the UK, he would have made other decisions.  They certainly didn't "force" him to break his wedding vows in "his" future church.

As for Diana, yes, she was a mess.  She married an asshole who cheated on her, basically flaunting that fact, including around people she was expected to socialize with.  

Would she had been such a mess if she had a faithful husband who cherished her, and helped her adjust to the demands of the monarchy?  We can debate that forever, and none of us will ever know that answer.  

She was 19 when engaged, 20 when she married.  Charles was 32.

The least she was due was his honesty.  "I will make you Queen, but I love Camilla, and intend to continue fucking her throughout our marriage.  Your call."

[merylinkid]

If both had been a bit more mature, things would have been different.   Plenty of Kings have made vows in that church and had mistresses.   Just most were more discreet about it and/or had a willing wife.   Charles forgot to do either.    Good heavens, the Anglican Church is FOUNDED ON DIVORCE SO A KING COULD MARRY HIS MISTRESS.   

I also doubt they ruined Diana's life.   She was just fine post divorce.   She was free to do what she wanted without the "mustaches" tut-tutting.   Her life was ruined by the papparazzi who just would not leave her alone.   The BRF would have been perfectly happy for her to just fade off instead of being on the cover of every tabloid.   THEY certainly didn't orchestrate the relentless stalking.   They didn't put her in a car with a drunk driver who stupidly tried speeding to evade the paps.   

Look I think Charles is a pompous twit with his "I know best how to do EVERYTHING" attitiude.   I am also not a fan of Camilla.   But they are hardly the worst thing to happen to the Monarchy.   It has survived worse, it will survive a Charles Kingship.   

[dubbel zout]

1 hour ago, merylinkid said:

They didn't put her in a car with a drunk driver who stupidly tried speeding to evade the paps.   

This is the saddest thing about Diana's death for me. She was killed in a drunk-driving accident. So stupid. So wasteful. So preventable.

[Umbelina]

7 hours ago, merylinkid said:

If both had been a bit more mature, things would have been different.   Plenty of Kings have made vows in that church and had mistresses.   Just most were more discreet about it and/or had a willing wife.   Charles forgot to do either.    Good heavens, the Anglican Church is FOUNDED ON DIVORCE SO A KING COULD MARRY HIS MISTRESS.   

I also doubt they ruined Diana's life.   She was just fine post divorce.   She was free to do what she wanted without the "mustaches" tut-tutting.   Her life was ruined by the papparazzi who just would not leave her alone.   The BRF would have been perfectly happy for her to just fade off instead of being on the cover of every tabloid.   THEY certainly didn't orchestrate the relentless stalking.   They didn't put her in a car with a drunk driver who stupidly tried speeding to evade the paps.   

Look I think Charles is a pompous twit with his "I know best how to do EVERYTHING" attitiude.   I am also not a fan of Camilla.   But they are hardly the worst thing to happen to the Monarchy.   It has survived worse, it will survive a Charles Kingship.   

Oh I don't disagree on quite a lot of this, especially the part about other Kings having mistresses.

It's kind of why this question fits in the Tabloids and media section so well!

It's one thing for a King to have a mistress, and quite another for the entire nation and really the world to be able to listen in to sexy-time phone conversations the future (possibly) King is having with his mistress WHILE his young, popular, and beautiful wife with two young children sits alone at the Taj Majal, and looks miserable.

Of course Diana played that up, but I can't really blame her, and I'm not certain that I wouldn't have done the same kinds of things.  I do think she was naive (again she was SO young compared to him) and I think she loved him and honestly expected happiness and a close family.

I can't imagine finding that present from my groom's girlfriend on my honeymoon, at any age, but especially not at twenty!  The eyes of the world on me, and divorce pretty much off the table for the monarchy reasons.  What a dilemma!  From all accounts she found out just before the marriage, and there is the whole sister thing telling her face was already on the tea towels, so no going back now.

I think of myself at twenty, and though I've always been called a pretty strong person, under all that pressure, would I have held up any better?  Would I have had the strength to call it off after finding out my intended was a liar, and a pompous ass who probably didn't love me?  Or would I be swept up in it all, and fooled by him into thinking it would all be OK?

At 25 or so, I'm sure I would have told him to go fuck himself and Camilla and walked away.  At 20?  I honestly don't think I could have stood up to all of that embarrassment, and I'm pretty sure I could have been deceived because I had so much less experience with men.  After all, she was still a virgin, as we famously know.

As for that earlier question, would Diana have been a good wife, mother, and Queen had she been loved and cherished by her husband?  If there had been no Camilla, would Diana have had an affair, or become bulimic?  I doubt the first, but the press pressure and mustaches might have helped the bulimia along.

Honestly though?  I do think Diana would have been fine, had Charles ever actually loved her, and treated her with kindness and support, rather than dishonesty from the beginning, and jealousy about her popularity.  He was an asshole from the very beginning.

Was he more of an asshole than other Kings?  Maybe not, but the difference is?  There probably isn't a person in the world, let alone among his future subjects, that doesn't know unforgettable details of his behavior.

Contrasting him against Queen Elizabeth II?  It's like comparing Eggs Benedict to Cocoa Puffs.  I don't think he measures up, and I do think the anti monarchy movement, which has been around for quite a long time, will pick up a lot of new supporters when the prospect of Charles as King, let alone Camilla as Queen, becomes a reality.

[swanpride]

I just realised that there is a high possibility that the next season (if there is one) will be quite Anne heavy....I mean, most of the "big events" in her life happened in the 1970s, and there is a little bit of everything in it.

Spoiler

Marriage, riding successes, an attempted kidnapping….

Honestly, they maybe should have skipped to all those events this season. Would have been more interesting than another pity tour for Margareth and Philip.

[toolazy]

5 hours ago, swanpride said:

I just realised that there is a high possibility that the next season (if there is one) will be quite Anne heavy....I mean, most of the "big events" in her life happened in the 1970s, and there is a little bit of everything in it.

  Reveal spoiler

Marriage, riding successes, an attempted kidnapping….

Honestly, they maybe should have skipped to all those events this season. Would have been more interesting than another pity tour for Margareth and Philip.

They are already shooting season 4. 

[Umbelina]

Prince Andrew withdraws from public duties, ready to cooperate with authorities over Jeffrey Epstein investigation

Quote

Prince Andrew has announced he will withdraw from public duties "for the foreseeable future" after his disastrous interview about his friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

[Zella]

Coming here to post this article, which talks about the behind the scenes of Andrew's disastrous interview and brings in some of the scandals covered in the crown, including the abdication. Thought it was an interesting read!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/23/prince-andrew-royal-crisis-firm-lost-grip

[Caoimhe]

On 11/16/2019 at 5:03 PM, Umbelina said:

I think he will always be remembered for wanting to be Camilla's tampon, and for marrying Diana and making marriage vows, in the church he will be "leading" all the while knowing he would never keep those "sacred vows" since he was still carrying on an affair with the now future Queen of England.  Camilla can get her hair fixed and dress well, and act well, but she will always be the adulterer who aided in the ruination of Diana's marriage and life.

Charles and his now wife can't erase what they both did, and no, I doubt the monarchy will survive if he doesn't die before the Queen.

I'm not implying Diana was some kind of saint, but that doesn't excuse or explain Camilla and Charles' deliberate and callous behavior.  

With William and Kate?  Maybe, but even with them?  I think it's over.

One of my neighbours refers to them as “Chucky” and “Bride of Chucky”.  She made a comment once about creating tea towels with a gigantic tampon topped with a crown if he does become king.

[wendyg]

Nothing wrong with Richard for an English king. It's John they eschew.

[hendersonrocks]

I found this piece by Town and Country on the British royal family's current crisis to be SO very good. Highly recommend.

[mytmo]

So I have to post something crazy Mr Mytmo said while I was watching The Crown.  He said Prince Charles will not be king as he will be dead and Prince William will be the next king as he is the Anti-Christ.  I can't believe he would believe that and loves to antagonize as he knows I watch so many shows about British royalty but thought I'd share this anecdote.

[Razzberry]

On 11/12/2019 at 10:02 AM, Ohiopirate02 said:

Do you think the monarchy will continue after Elizabeth II dies?  

Since we're likely talking within the next 10 years, I think it will continue. If polls are to be believed the British people overwhelmingly want the monarchy to remain in place.  I can only speculate on why they do,  but this is a mystery to me.

God knows the bloodlines need refreshing, but as more "commoners" are brought in, the more divorces, tell-all books, misguided interviews and exposed phone sex calls -  it all kind of takes the luster off the whole "royal" thing, but adds entertainment value.  Since I don't have to help pay for it, I'm all for it remaining.

[Ohiopirate02]

25 minutes ago, Razzberry said:

Since we're likely talking within the next 10 years, I think it will continue. If polls are to be believed the British people overwhelmingly want the monarchy to remain in place.  I can only speculate on why they do,  but this is a mystery to me.

God knows the bloodlines need refreshing, but as more "commoners" are brought in, the more divorces, tell-all books, misguided interviews and exposed phone sex calls -  it all kind of takes the luster off the whole "royal" thing, but adds entertainment value.  Since I don't have to help pay for it, I'm all for it remaining.

One thing I keep coming back to as I (an American) think about dissolving the monarchy of the UK is how would the British government even go about doing that.  And how much would it actually cost the British taxpayer?  From the land, the palaces, the smaller homes, the yachts, to the priceless artwork found in the palaces, the expensive silverware, china and glass, to the antique furniture, how would anyone begin to figure out what is the property of the British government and what is the property of the WIndsor-Montbatten family.  Any undertaking to figure this out is bound to be expensive, and then the government would have to decide if something that is technically owned by this family should be state property.  How much would it cost for the government to buy the palace, land, painting etc?  Would Charles or William or Harry be willing to gift back the property in question to the state?  I think it is safe to say that Andrew would expect to be compensated for any lost property. 

I can see where the royal family keeps on downsizing from Charles to William to George in an attempt to lessen the burden on the UK taxpayer, but I don't see the monarchy going away.  The family could choose to forgo the many royal residences and only use Buckingham Palace and one or two others, but what happens to the rest of the buildings?  Would the government take ownership and still be on the hook for upkeep?  What would the government do with Kensington Palace if it was no longer a royal residence?  It's not like they can tear it down to build affordable family housing.  I can see Windsor becoming a national park because of it's historical value.  

[Arynm]

From what I remember there are two different entities to the Monarchy. The Crown, which owns things like the crown jewels, Buckingham Palace etc and is essentially owned by the UK, and the family who have their own houses and jewels and so forth. I read a really great article that I am going to try to find that explains it all very well.

https://www.latintimes.com/what-happens-royal-family-if-monarchy-abolished-439509

This isn't the one that explained it best, but I could not find that one. There would be some huge tax issues if they were to abolish the monarchy and the Queen asked for all her stuff back. It would probably bankrupt the government. (lets hope I am remembering this correctly, it is late) Please someone feel free to correct me if i have this wrong.

[anna0852]

Well according to Vanity Fair, as of June 2018 the Royal Family costs British taxpayers 69 pence apiece per year. That's 69 pence per taxpayer, not family member. 

At today's exchange rate: .91 US 

Not sure abolition is going to make much financial difference to the average Brit.

Edited December 11, 2019 by anna0852

[dubbel zout]

I think it's going to cost more than it's ulitmately worth to get rid of the BRF. Downsize it? Absolutely, and Charles has already started doing that. I think the British monarchy is largest (not in terms of the family but bureaucracy, etc.) in the world. To unravel that would be a nightmare for the government.

[Umbelina]

12 hours ago, anna0852 said:

Well according to Vanity Fair, as of June 2018 the Royal Family costs British taxpayers 69 pence apiece per year. That's 69 pence per taxpayer, not family member. 

At today's exchange rate: .91 US 

Not sure abolition is going to make much financial difference to the average Brit.

3 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

I think it's going to cost more than it's ulitmately worth to get rid of the BRF. Downsize it? Absolutely, and Charles has already started doing that. I think the British monarchy is largest (not in terms of the family but bureaucracy, etc.) in the world. To unravel that would be a nightmare for the government.

I've seen those numbers before, or did I hear them on one of the shows about the Queen?

I'd love to know exactly what they cover though.  Salaries and travel expenses of course, and repairs to Buckingham Palace, and according to VF, the Queen's household staff (does it cover all the other Royals household staff?)  https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2018/06/royal-family-costs

That other article said 400 people work in Buckingham Palace alone though.  So I question whether the government side of expenses is included in that?  

Either way, it does seem cost effective if those numbers include all of the expenses of having a monarchy.  

Quote

Of the 54 million adults in the UK in 2014-15, 31 million paid income tax – which means that around 43% of adults in the UK do not earn enough to pay income tax. For two-thirds of taxpayers, employment is the most important single source of income.Aug 6, 2019

I'm not awake enough to convert the pence to pounds, let alone then convert it to US dollars, but I did get this far, 31 million tax payers times 69 pence equals 2139000000 pence (I think.)  I do wonder though, if that is actually accurate, or just a spin on money/numbers.  Maintaining those old buildings isn't cheap, even a new roof is is more than most people make in a lifetime for example.

Edited December 11, 2019 by Umbelina

[MadyGirl1987]

41 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Maintaining those old buildings isn't cheap, even a new roof is is more than most people make in a lifetime for example.

Surely, though, those buildings would still be kept up as historical sites either way, with or without a monarchy? It would be a crime to let all that history just waste away.

Edited December 11, 2019 by MadyGirl1987
Grammar

[Umbelina]

27 minutes ago, MadyGirl1987 said:

Surely, though, those buildings would still be kept up as historical sites either way, with or without a monarchy? It would be a crime to let all that history just waste away.

They would be like other old buildings, upkeep paid for by tours, film contracts, etc. rather than the taxes.

I'm just curious about exactly how much of the cost of monarchy is covered in that 69 pence thing though.  We all know how easy numbers are to manipulate.

[Ohiopirate02]

31 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

They would be like other old buildings, upkeep paid for by tours, film contracts, etc. rather than the taxes.

I'm just curious about exactly how much of the cost of monarchy is covered in that 69 pence thing though.  We all know how easy numbers are to manipulate.

The 69 pence figure does seem low, but it really depends on the percentage the Royal Family expenditures are in the overall budget of the country.  I also read in one of the links in the article above that the Queen does pay taxes, and if I read it correctly her taxes are used to fund some of the family's expenses.  So the money the family pays is immediately allocated to the RF expenses and the average taxpayer would only be on the hook for any difference.  If that is true, then the 69 pence would make sense.  The figure would also fluctuate on a yearly basis, and if Charles does downsize the family the taxpayer would pay even less.  

[dubbel zout]

37 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Queen does pay taxes

As does Charles. I don't know if the rest of the family does, though. 

[Umbelina]

Another take on it:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/royal-wedding-family-how-much-uk-economy-benefits-cost-meghan-markle-expense-a8345436.html

Security isn't included in that 69 pence thing by the way.  I wonder what else isn't?  

Either way I agree with the closing statement on this article.  

Quote

In the end, the question of whether the Royal Family is worth it, or not, is probably less a financial question than a political, moral and aesthetic one.

I also wonder about all those distant relatives living in places like Kensington Palace (etc.)  Does the Queen pay for that privately, or do tax payers?  What about their servants and expenses?  I understand downsizing the royals, but what about their homes?  

[Razzberry]

That figure does sound suspiciously low.   I think they realize they're walkin' on thin ice these days and have taken steps to endear themselves to the "common" people.  It's even been suggested that Harry's choice of Meghan wasn't entirely the "love match" it's touted to be.  Nevertheless, my only complaint is that people aren't getting value for their entertainment quid.  Even Peter Morgan pussy-foots around it. 

Seriously, I do wish they'd ax the whole peerage system and artificial aristocracy it maintains.  Get rid of that "Knighting" ceremony that rewards aging rock stars who had a handful of hits in the 70's.  Come on.

[merylinkid]

For the Crown Properties, the government is already on the hook for the upkeep.   It's one of the reasons Buckingham Palace is in the horrible shape it is in.    No budget for the little repairs until they became big whopping repairs that HAVE TO BE DONE.   

Places like Balmoral and Sandringham are private residences of the family and their upkeep is paid for by the family.   

Getting rid of the family would really only get rid of the Civil List that pays those doing royal duties.    Slimming down those doing the duties would reduce that burden.   

[Razzberry]

They would need a period of adjustment - perhaps a "Royal Rehab" of sorts, where they could get used to living without deference like normal people.   For their own good they should be separated to make the transition complete.

I'm reading a biography of Mountbatten that reveals his affair with his 45 year-younger goddaughter.  That was just a little icky, but this letter to his biological daughter Patricia was astonishing, not least because it was freely made available to the author by the family.  I don't know, maybe it's me but it doesn't seem right.  It was also very hurtful to his other daughter Pamela.

Sorry for the screenshot but I'm too lazy to type it out.

[Scarlett45]

53 minutes ago, Razzberry said:

They would need a period of adjustment - perhaps a "Royal Rehab" of sorts, where they could get used to living without deference like normal people.   For their own good they should be separated to make the transition complete.

I'm reading a biography of Mountbatten that reveals his affair with his 45 year-younger goddaughter.  That was just a little icky, but this letter to his biological daughter Patricia was astonishing, not least because it was freely made available to the author by the family.  I don't know, maybe it's me but it doesn't seem right.  It was also very hurtful to his other daughter Pamela.

Sorry for the screenshot but I'm too lazy to type it out.

That is icky. Very icky. **
 

However Mountbatten is dead and dead people have no privacy rights, if his daughter Patricia wanted to share (before she died in 2017) the letter that’s certainly her right. And if it was shared after her death then I have no issues. 

** super icky. There’s nothing wrong or improper with Dads being verbally and physically affectionate towards their kids, but I don’t know a single man alive that would ever use the phrase “physical attraction” in a letter towards his daughter. Most fathers would vomit. A typical statement would be “you were the most beautiful baby I had ever seen, and ever would see” or something like that. And no decent man would go near his GOD CHILD. It’s not biological incest but social incest- you’re in a position of authority and spiritual guidance over this person you don’t violate that by having sex with them. Ewwwww. More ewwwww. 

[AZChristian]

Sorry in advance - I haven't read this entire thread, and have no time to do so today.

Has it been mentioned here that Mountbatten was reported a pedophile (preferring boys), in addition to his other "charming" sexual appetites?

[Razzberry]

21 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

** super icky. There’s nothing wrong or improper with Dads being verbally and physically affectionate towards their kids, but I don’t know a single man alive that would ever use the phrase “physical attraction” in a letter towards his daughter. Most fathers would vomit. A typical statement would be “you were the most beautiful baby I had ever seen, and ever would see” or something like that. And no decent man would go near his GOD CHILD. It’s not biological incest but social incest- you’re in a position of authority and spiritual guidance over this person you don’t violate that by having sex with them. Ewwwww. More ewwwww. 

The way he starts the letter talking about Freud and using the term "hardly ever" made me go "hmmm".  But royal families are notorious for borderline incestuous behavior and inbreeding, so this may not be seen as abnormal for them.

The book brings up rumors of his bi-sexuality but dismisses them as such, and nothing about pedophilia, but the author is obviously an admirer and worked closely with the family's cooperation.

He was a fascinating person but probably the vainest person ever.  I don't want to justify the methods of the IRA, but he had been warned repeatedly and seemed tone-deaf to how offensive his "Lord of the manor" presence was in Sligo.

Charles Dance captures him so perfectly.

[Fireball]

This seems like a more appropriate spot to post this.

Prince Harry speaks out on royal exit:

More videos: https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/prince-harry-speaks-out-royal-exit-sentebale-224438778.html

Full text of speech: https://www.etonline.com/prince-harrys-full-speech-about-royal-exit-everything-he-said-139838

 

[Umbelina]

PRINCE ANDREW IS NOT COOPERATING WITH EPSTEIN PROBE, PROSECUTORS SAY After promising to help with Epstein investigations, Andrew has reportedly refused to be interviewed.

Another of the Queen's children, reportedly her favorite, Andrew.  It makes me wonder if this was all going on while he was married to Fergie?  Or at least his predilection to very young girls for sex?

What a family.

Quote

 

When Prince Andrew ducked out of the public eye following a train wreck BBC interview last November, he did so with a vow to help authorities with their investigations into the late Jeffrey Epstein. “I deeply sympathize with everyone who has been affected and wants some form of closure,” he said in a statement at the time, referring to victims of the wealthy, well-connected sex offender. “Of course, I am willing to help with any appropriate law enforcement agency with their investigations, if required.”

But according to federal prosecutors, the embattled son of Queen Elizabeth II hasn’t followed through on his offer. “To date, Prince Andrew has provided zero cooperation,” U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman said Monday, standing outside Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse. Prosecutors and the FBI, who are investigating both Epstein and possible co-conspirators, including the prince, have sought interviews with him, Berman said, but he has not complied.

 

‘Time to stop playing games’: Lawyers for Epstein accusers urge Prince Andrew to assist with sex abuse investigation and warn he could be subpoenaed

Quote

 

Prince Andrew could be subpoenaed if he continues to be uncooperative with authorities in their investigation into the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking inquiry, according to a lawyer representing the billionaire paedophile's accusers. 

Lisa Bloom and Gloria Allred, who each represent five alleged victims, urged the Duke of York to “do the right thing” in assisting with the investigation.

The calls come after US attorney Geoffrey Berman said at a news conference the duke had given “zero cooperation” despite his lawyers being contacted by prosecutors and the FBI.

 

Sounds as if he can't be subpoenaed if he doesn't step foot in the USA.

[Sew Sumi]

Raise your hand if this surprises you. 

[secnarf]

I didn't realize any of that was news...what was it that is new information?

(That is about equal parts sarcastic and serious)

[Umbelina]

32 minutes ago, secnarf said:

I didn't realize any of that was news...what was it that is new information?

(That is about equal parts sarcastic and serious)

Not sure, it popped up on my news feed today, probably about the subpoena, since he is not cooperating as he promised.

Edited January 30, 2020 by Umbelina
t

[PeterPirate]

The story about Andrew appeared on numerous American news sites, even Fox News.  I think it was considered newsworthy because the FBI was quoted.  

And here is another story about Andrew from the New York Post no less.  

Ghislaine Maxwell had special access to Buckingham Palace, former cop claims

Quote

Prince Andrew was so close to Jeffrey Epstein’s accused madam Ghislaine Maxwell he would secretly let her into Buckingham Palace up to four times a day, his former police protection officer claims.

Former London cop Paul Page told the Sunday Mirror that even before the Epstein scandal blew up from his child-sex conviction, Maxwell’s visits to the palace were kept hush-hush.

“We’ve got a guest coming for Andrew but the name is not to be entered in the book,” Page claims he was told by the Palace’s property managers the first time he saw Maxwell visit in 2001.

 

Edited January 30, 2020 by PeterPirate
Because things are getting worse and worse.

[Umbelina]

How Is It Possible That the Prince Andrew Scandal Has Gotten More Complicated?
 

A full article about that very question! 

Also, this:

Quote

Paul Page, a former police officer who worked as one of Andrew’s protection agents from 1998 to 2004, spoke to the Sunday Mirror about the procedures he was supposed to follow anytime Epstein’s ex-girlfriend and alleged conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell visited the prince. “The first occasion I had cause to meet Ghislaine was when the privy purse phoned down and said, ‘We’ve got a guest coming for Andrew but the name is not to be entered in the book.’ That was about 2001,” he said, adding that she was a frequent visitor. The Palace declined to comment on Page’s claims, but they pointed the Mirror toward his 2009 conviction for a £3 million investment fraud.

The Queen and Prince Charles Are Reportedly Still Having Prince Andrew Crisis Talks

Quote

 

Charles had hoped that Andrew’s resignation from public duties might quiet the embarrassment, but new headlines and criticism from a U.S. attorney are proving that the situation could still get much worse. On Thursday the Sun reported that Charles and Queen Elizabeth again held a crisis talk at Sandringham to discuss Andrew’s situation.

According to the newspaper, the queen and Charles took time away from regular business at the estate to discuss “family matters.” “Both had hoped the Duke of York could perhaps be rehabilitated back into public life in time, but that is now looking increasingly unlikely,” a source said.

 

I wonder if they REALLY thought Andrew could still be a working royal at anytime at all now.  Do they have that much hubris? 

[dubbel zout]

Princess Margaret's son, the Earl of Snowdon, and his wife are divorcing after 25 years of marriage. This is the second divorce this year in the extended family: Princess Anne's son, Peter Phillips, announced his divorce earlier this month.

[Fireball]

Harry and Meghan were all over my newsfeed today, and since I don't want to deal with work drama on my day off I decide to read the articles. 

Sounds like Harry And Meghan were forced to drop the “Royal” in their branding.

“While there is not any jurisdiction by The Monarchy or Cabinet Office over the use of the word ‘Royal’ overseas, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex do not intend to use ‘Sussex Royal’ or any iteration of the word ‘Royal’ in any territory (either within the UK or otherwise) when the transition occurs Spring 2020,” 

Also Prince Harry and Meghan Markle Won't Start a Foundation after all.

"As shared in early January on this website, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex do not plan to start a ‘foundation’, but rather intend to develop a new way to effect change and complement the efforts made by so many excellent foundations globally."

https://sussexroyal.com/spring-2020-transition/

 

What does each paragraph of Harry and Meghan's statement really mean? MailOnline breaks down the couple's announcement they will drop royal: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8032039/What-does-paragraph-Harry-Meghans-statement-really-mean.html 

 

 

[merylinkid]

On 1/30/2020 at 7:37 AM, PeterPirate said:

The story about Andrew appeared on numerous American news sites, even Fox News.  I think it was considered newsworthy because the FBI was quoted.  

And here is another story about Andrew from the New York Post no less.  

Ghislaine Maxwell had special access to Buckingham Palace, former cop claims

 

If she really went to Buckingham Palace, then there might be grounds to sue in England rather than hoping to get Andrew to the US.    The Crown Prosecutor's Office won't bring criminal charges, but the victims could bring a civil suit.    

I guess when Andrew said he would cooperate with "appropriate" law enforcement he meant what he decided was appropriate, i.e. one he knew would never charge him.   That leaves out the FBI.   

[Pallas]

Andrew said that "of course" he would cooperate "with any appropriate law enforecment agency with their investigations, if required." That is, at such time as when an agent disguised as a Woking Pizza Express delivery person can deliver a foreign subpoena to Southyork.

It's the only answer Andrew didn't botch in the interview.

[PeterPirate]

Charles Dance narrates a mini-series on Netflix called "Rise of Empires: Ottoman".  It's about the siege and conquest of Constantinople by the Ottoman Empire, which also marked the end of the Roman Empire.  

Just. Saying.

[b2H]

On 11/10/2019 at 6:38 PM, Arynm said:

I think that they will lose most of the Commonwealth, but for England, the Monarchy will go on. I know Australia has voiced that they will leave once the Queen is gone, and I think more will follow. There are Monarchies in Spain, Sweden, Monaco, Norway and the Netherlands with others that I can't remember and they are all thriving. I think England's Monarchy will carry on. They know that Charles will have a short reign and everyone loves William and Kate.

And those monarchies in the other nations are strictly figurehead.  Denmark has one as well, I believe - when I was there for work back in the 90s, the homes were still dotted all over Copenhagen.